Cold summer: US daily record minimums outnumbering record maximums 3 to 1 in the last 30 days

rgbatduke says: August 25, 2014 at 3:23 am
NOW you can conclude “For this we should destroy our economy?”.
This I agree with. And not just our economy — we are killing the poorest people in the world, disproportionately children, with the deliberate distortion of energy prices brought about by the stridently anti-carbon policy.
_________
Allan says:
On Cheap Energy:
I strongly agree with your last sentence. All societies rich and poor benefit from cheap abundant energy. Excess winter mortality rates are also being experienced in the UK (and presumably elsewhere) due to high energy costs.
On Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity:
Regarding the magnitude (and even the existence) of Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS), I suggest this issue less than clear.
Atmospheric CO2 apparently lags “global” temperature T by about 800 years over a time scale of several hundred thousand years of recent Earth history.
CO2 also lags T in the modern data record by about 9 months, on a shorter time cycle driven primarily by seasonal changes and the larger Northern Hemisphere landmass.
It appears that CO2 lags T at all measured time scales. This still allows for other significant drivers of atmospheric CO2, such as fossil fuel combustion, land-use changes such as deforestation, ocean outgassing, etc.
There is reluctance of most parties on both sides of the “mainstream” climate debate to discuss the “CO2 lags T” issue. The mainstream climate debate is essentially an argument about the magnitude of ECS:
Warmists typically say ECS >= 3C or more, which is not supported by real Earth observations (data);
Skeptics typically say ECS <= 1C, which is more reasonable but still questionable, in my opinion.
I suspect this general reluctance to discuss “CO2 lags T” is a fear of being ridiculed or marginalized. However I suggest it is at the very core of the “catastrophic humanmade global warming” (CAGW) issue.
For example, the concept of ECS must ASSUME that CO2 drives T, but does ECS really exist is any physical sense?
What are the alternatives:
A) Maybe ECS does not exist at all in physical reality, and we should be discussing the sensitivity of atmospheric CO2 to temperature (let’s call it ECO2S).
B) Maybe ECS co-exists along with ECO2S in physical reality:
B1) In this scenario can we conclude that ECO2S exceeds ECS since that is the only signal we can detect in the modern data record; or
B2) Is it possible that ECS exceeds ECO2S but exists on a longer time scale that is difficult to detect in the modern data record?
I suggest that the oft-fractious “mainstream debate” between warmists and skeptics about the magnitude of ECS is probably materially irrelevant. ECS, if it exists at all, is so small that it is insignificant.
If ECS (which assumes CO2 drives temperature) actually exists in the Earth system, it is so small that it is overwhelmed by the reality that temperature drives CO2.
Proof:
In this enormous CO2 equation, the only signal that is apparent is that dCO2/dt varies ~contemporaneously with temperature T, and CO2 lags global Lower Troposphere temperatures by about 9 months.
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/carbon_dioxide_in_not_the_primary_cause_of_global_warming_the_future_can_no/
On Aerosols:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/27/new-paper-global-dimming-and-brightening-a-review/#comment-151040
Allan MacRae (03:23:07) 28/06/2009 [excerpt]
FABRICATION OF AEROSOL DATA USED FOR CLIMATE MODELS:
Douglas Hoyt:
The pyrheliometric ratioing technique is very insensitive to any changes in calibration of the instruments and very sensitive to aerosol changes.
Here are three papers using the technique:
Hoyt, D. V. and C. Frohlich, 1983. Atmospheric transmission at Davos, Switzerland, 1909-1979. Climatic Change, 5, 61-72.
Hoyt, D. V., C. P. Turner, and R. D. Evans, 1980. Trends in atmospheric transmission at three locations in the United States from 1940 to 1977. Mon. Wea. Rev., 108, 1430-1439.
Hoyt, D. V., 1979. Pyrheliometric and circumsolar sky radiation measurements by the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory from 1923 to 1954. Tellus, 31, 217-229.
In none of these studies were any long-term trends found in aerosols, although volcanic events show up quite clearly. There are other studies from Belgium, Ireland, and Hawaii that reach the same conclusions. It is significant that Davos shows no trend whereas the IPCC models show it in the area where the greatest changes in aerosols were occurring.
There are earlier aerosol studies by Hand and Marvin in Monthly Weather Review going back to the 1880s and these studies also show no trends.
___________________________
Allan:
Repeating: “In none of these studies were any long-term trends found in aerosols, although volcanic events show up quite clearly.”
___________________________
Here is an email received from Douglas Hoyt [my comments in square brackets]:
It [aerosol numbers used in climate models] comes from the modelling work of Charlson where total aerosol optical depth is modeled as being proportional to industrial activity.
[For example, the 1992 paper in Science by Charlson, Hansen et al]
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/255/5043/423
or [the 2000 letter report to James Baker from Hansen and Ramaswamy]
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:DjVCJ3s0PeYJ:www-nacip.ucsd.edu/Ltr-Baker.pdf+%22aerosol+optical+depth%22+time+dependence&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
where it says [para 2 of covering letter] "aerosols are not measured with an accuracy that allows determination of even the sign of annual or decadal trends of aerosol climate forcing."
Let's turn the question on its head and ask to see the raw measurements of atmospheric transmission that support Charlson.
Hint: There aren't any, as the statement from the workshop above confirms.
__________________________
In Summary
There are actual measurements by Hoyt and others that show NO trends in atmospheric aerosols, but volcanic events are clearly evident.
So Charlson, Hansen et al ignored these inconvenient aerosol measurements and "cooked up" (fabricated) aerosol data that forced their climate models to better conform to the global cooling that was observed pre~1975.
Voila! Their models could hindcast (model the past) better using this fabricated aerosol data, and therefore must predict the future with accuracy. (NOT)
That is the evidence of fabrication of the aerosol data used in climate models that (falsely) predict catastrophic humanmade global warming.
And we are going to spend trillions and cripple our Western economies based on this fabrication of false data, this model cooking, this nonsense?
*************************************************
On Global Cooling:
I wrote an article in the Calgary Herald published on September 1, 2002, which included this prediction of global cooling:
“If (as I believe) solar activity is the main driver of surface temperature rather than CO2, we should begin the next cooling period by 2020 to 2030.”
When I wrote this in 2002, SC 24 was predicted to be strong, and we now know it is quite weak.
I still think my 2002 global cooling prediction will materialize, although I wonder if this cooling will start a bit sooner than 2020.
To be clear, the serious work on the 2020-2030 global cooling forecast came from Paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson of Carleton University.
I phoned Tim and said: “Tim, you and I both believe climate change is natural and (sort of) cyclical, correct?” Tim immediately agreed. So I said “OK, when is it going to get colder?” He then said, with a pause of just a few seconds, “2020 to 2030”. I asked why, and he explained that he based his answer on his research into the Gleissberg Cycle, which is about 90 years long. I asked Tim if the ~60 year PDO cycle might be a better fit, but he preferred the Gleissberg.
If the PDO governs, then global cooling has probably already begun, but it will take a few more years to be sure.
I am increasingly convinced that CO2 is insignificant as a driver of global temperature.
Regards to all, Allan