Posts Tagged ‘climate’

Colder winters to come and solar influence on climate beginning to get its due

July 7, 2011

The BBC reports on a new paper in Environmental Research Letters which actually brings solar influence back into the climate picture.

We show that some predictive skill may be obtained by including the solar effect” says this new paper.

Yes Indeed!

But how was the sun’s influence ever discarded in climate models??

Britain is set to face an increase in harsh winters, with up to one-in-seven gripping the UK with prolonged sub-zero temperatures, a study has suggested. The projection was based on research that identified how low solar activity affected winter weather patterns.

“We could get to the point where one-in-seven winters are very cold, such as we had at the start of last winter and all through the winter before,” said co-author Mike Lockwood, professor of space environment physics at the University of Reading.

Using the Central England Temperature (CET) record, the world’s longest instrumental data series that stretches back to 1659, the team said that average temperatures during recent winters had been markedly lower than the longer-term average.

“The mean CET for December, January and February for the recent relatively cold winters of 2008/09 and 2009/10 were 3.50°C and 2.53°C respectively,” they wrote.

“Whereas the mean value for the previous 20 winters had been 5.04°C.

“The cluster of lower winter temperatures in the UK during the last three years had raised questions about the probability of more similar, or even colder, winters occurring in the future.” 

Professor Lockwood was keen to point out that his team’s paper did not suggest that the UK and mainland Europe was about to be plunged into a “little ice age” as a result of low solar activity, as some media reports had suggested.

M Lockwood et al 2011 Environ. Res. Lett. 6 034004 doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/6/3/034004

The solar influence on the probability of relatively cold UK winters in the future

M Lockwood, R G Harrison, M J Owens, L Barnard, T Woollings and F Steinhilber

Abstract: Recent research has suggested that relatively cold UK winters are more common when solar activity is low (Lockwood et  al 2010 Environ Res Lett 5 024001). Solar activity during the current sunspot minimum has fallen to levels unknown since the start of the 20th century (Lockwood 2010 Proc. R. Soc. A 466 303–29) and records of past solar variations inferred from cosmogenic isotopes (Abreu et al 2008 Geophys Res Lett. 35 L20109) and geomagnetic activity data (Lockwood et al 2009 Astrophys. J. 700 937–44) suggest that the current grand solar maximum is coming to an end and hence that solar activity can be expected to continue to decline. Combining cosmogenic isotope data with the long record of temperatures measured in central England, we estimate how solar change could influence the probability in the future of further UK winters that are cold, relative to the hemispheric mean temperature, if all other factors remain constant. Global warming is taken into account only through the detrending using mean hemispheric temperatures. We show that some predictive skill may be obtained by including the solar effect.

The BBC report continues:

Depiction of the 1683 Thames' frost fair (Getty Images)

Depiction of the 1683 Thames' frost fair (Getty Images)

Professor Lockwood said it was a “pejorative name” because what happened during the Maunder Minimum “was actually nothing like an ice age at all”.

“There were colder winters in Europe. That almost certainly means, from what we understand about the blocking mechanisms that cause them, that there were warmer winters in Greenland,” he observed. “So it was a regional redistribution and not a global phenomenon like an ice age. It was nothing like as cold as a real ice age – either in its global extent or in the temperatures reached. “The summers were probably warmer if anything, rather than colder as they would be in an ice age.” He added that the Maunder Minimum period was not an uninterrupted series of cold, harsh winters.

Data from the CET showed that the coldest winter since records began was 1683/84 “yet just two year later, right in the middle of the Maunder Minimum, is the fifth warmest winter in the whole record, so this idea that Maunder Minimum winters were unrelentingly cold is wrong”.

He explained that a similar pattern could be observed in recent events: “Looking at satellite data, we found that when solar activity was low, there was an increase in the number of blocking events of the jetstream over the Atlantic. “That led to us getting colder weather in Europe. The same events brought warm air from the tropics to Greenland, so it was getting warmer. “These blocking events are definitely a regional redistribution, and not like a global ice age.  


Reducing sulphur emissions caused post-1970 global warming!!!!

July 5, 2011

Whether warming or cooling it would seem that anthropogenic effects and man’s burning of coal is responsible.

“The post 1970 period of warming, which constitutes a significant portion of the increase in global surface temperature since the mid 20th century, is driven by efforts to reduce air pollution in general and acid deposition in particular”.

That’s the conclusion of a new paper from the “peer-reviewed” literature confirming the obvious that global temperatures have plateaued since 1998.

Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998–2008

Robert K. Kaufmann, Heikki Kauppi, Michael L. Mann, James, H. Stock

pnas. 201102467

PDF from WUWT

And though the paper cuts off  data in 2008 this temperature stability certainly continues till 2010 and it seems – on my own empirical observations  – even in 2011.

As the paper title shows this real stabilisation of temperatures which is not predicted by any climate model and which may well be a precursor of a few decades of global cooling is of some concern to the Anthropogenic Global Warming enthusiasts. The presumption is that the model results are supreme and that reality must be reconciled by invoking further anthropogenic effects.

Needless to say any global cooling is not acknowledged since that would be heretical and instead short-term anthropogenic factors (sulphur emissions from coal burning in China)  are blamed for this cessation of global warming!!

Given the widely noted increase in the warming effects of rising greenhouse gas concentrations, it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008. We find that this hiatus in warming coincides with a period of little increase in the sum of anthropogenic and natural forcings. Declining solar insolation as part of a normal eleven-year cycle, and a cyclical change from an El Nino to a La Nina dominate our measure of anthropogenic effects because rapid growth in short-lived sulfur emissions partially offsets rising greenhouse gas concentrations. As such, we find that recent global temperature records are consistent with the existing understanding of the relationship among global surface temperature, internal variability, and radiative forcing, which includes anthropogenic factors with well known warming and cooling effects.

The conclusion is formulated to avoid any semblance of heresy and to ensure publication no doubt.

The finding that the recent hiatus in warming is driven largely by natural factors does
not contradict the hypothesis: “most of the observed increase in global  average temperature since the mid 20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations (14)”. As indicated in Figure 1, anthropogenic activities that warm and cool the planet largely cancel after 1998, which allows natural variables to play a more significant role. ……   

The post 1970 period of warming, which constitutes a significant portion of the increase in global surface temperature since the mid 20th century, is driven by efforts to reduce air pollution in general and acid deposition in particular, which cause sulfur emissions to decline while the concentration of greenhouse gases continues to rise. 

That reality is being acknowledged is heartening but relying on the anthropogenic effects effects of coal burning alone (carbon dioxide emissions causing warming and sulphur emissions causing cooling) with only a passing reference to solar effects is not just naive – it is denying the obvious.

Related:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/04/a-peer-reviewed-admission-that-global-surface-temperatures-did-not-rise-dr-david-whitehouse-on-the-pnas-paper-kaufmann-et-al-2011/

Landscheidt Minimum could be a grand solar minimum lasting till 2100

June 20, 2011

It is noticeable that the upsurge of evidence that a solar minimum – and maybe a grand minimum – is upon is causing many of the global warming enthusiasts to try and rationalise the effects of the sun. Suddenly they begin to acknowledge that the sun may have some small effect on climate but rush to point out that the solar influence on climate is not yet understood (indeed!) and in any case it will be much too small to be significant compared to the effects of man.

The belated acknowledgement of the possible influence of the sun is welcome but  the belief that man made effects can overcome the power of the sun is just arrogant.

hockeyschtick

Dr. Cornelis de Jager is a renowned Netherlands solar physicist, past General Secretary of the International Astronomical Union, and author of several peer-reviewed studies examining the solar influence upon climateIn response to the recent press release of three US studies indicating the Sun is entering a period of exceptionally low activity, Dr. de Jager references his publications of 2010 and prior indicating that this Grand Solar Minimum will be similar to the Maunder Minimum which caused the Little Ice Age, and prediction that this “deep minimum” will last until approximately the year 2100. 

“The new episode is a deep minimum. It will look similar to the Maunder Minimum, which lasted from 1620 to 1720…This new Grand Minimum will last until approximately 2100.”

 

 

Related: 

  1. http://www.scostep.ucar.edu/archives/scostep11_lectures/de%20Jager.pdf 
  2. Solar activity and its influence on climate  
  3. Major Drop In Solar Activity Predicted: Landscheidt Minimum is upon us and a mini-ice age is imminent

Nothing new under the sun: Global warming in the 80’s followed by global cooling after 2000 was predicted back in 1979

June 1, 2011

From JoNova

St Petersburg Times, Jan 1, 1979

Drs Leona Libby and Louise Pandolfi projected world temperatures in 1979 for the next 70 years and got results that, 30 years later, appear to have been broadly correct if out by 5 – 7 years. Ironically, they used, of all things, … tree ring data (going back 1,800 years). The critical difference was they assumed that the climate changes in natural cycles.

Visit Steven Goddard’s blog to read the full news story.

Climate Predictions 1979

St Petersburg times news 1979

http://joannenova.com.au/2009/04/global-warming-a-classic-case-of-alarmism/

European Climate Action: Don’t know what it will cost, don’t know what it will achieve

March 10, 2011

They don’t know why and what it will cost and they don’t know what it will achieve but, The European Commission on Tuesday unveiled a roadmap for building a low-carbon economy by 2050, proposing an 80 percent to 95 percent cut of greenhouse gas emissions from the 1990 levels.

“We need to start the transition towards a competitive low-carbon economy now. The longer we wait, the higher the cost will be,” Connie Hedegaard, European Commissioner for Climate Action, said when presenting the roadmap to European Union (EU) lawmakers in Strasbourg, France.

The roadmap described the cost-effective pathway to reach the EU’s objective of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent to 95 percent of the 1990 levels by 2050. It recommended Europe should achieve it largely through domestic measures since by mid-century international credits to offset emissions will be less widely available than today.

In the meantime Jill Duggan from the European Commission’s Directorate General of Climate Action and the EC’s National Expert on Carbon Markets and Climate Change is in Australia to tell them how good Europe’s emission trading system is and why they should do something similar.  In a radio interview she demonstrated her ignorance.

Jill Duggan

Andrew Bolt

Thursday, March 10, 2011 at 01:38pmDuggan’s utter inability to answer is a scandal – an indictment of global warming politics today. (Listen here):

AB:  Can I just ask; your target is to cut Europe’s emissions by 20% by 2020?

JD:  Yes.

AB:  Can you tell me how much – to the nearest billions – is that going to cost Europe do you think?

JD:  No, I can’t tell you but I do know that the modelling shows that it’s cheaper to start earlier rather than later, so  it’s cheaper to do it now rather than put off action.

AB:  Right.  You wouldn’t quarrel with Professor Richard Tol – who’s not a climate sceptic – but is professor at the Economic and Social Research Institute in Dublin?  He values it at about $250 billion.  You wouldn’t quarrel with that?

JD:  I probably would actually.  I mean, I don’t know.  It’s very, very difficult to quantify.  You get different changes, don’t you?  And one of the things that’s happening in Europe now is that many governments – such as the UK government and the German government – would like the targets to be tougher because they see it as a real stimulus to the economy.

AB:  Right.  Well you don’t know but you think it isn’t $250 billion.

JD:  I think you could get lots of different academics coming up with lots of different figures.

AB:  That’s right.  You don’t know but that’s the figure that I’ve got in front of me.  For that investment.  Or for whatever the investment is.  What’s your estimation of how much – because the object ultimately of course is to lower the world’s temperatures – what sort of temperature reduction do you imagine from that kind of investment?

JD:  Well, what we do know is that to have an evens chance of keeping temperature increases globally to 2°C – so that’s increases – you’ve got to reduce emissions globally by 50% by 2050.

AB:  Yes, I accept that, but from the $250 billion – or whatever you think the figure is – what do you think Europe can achieve with this 20% reduction in terms of cutting the world’s temperature?  Because that’s, in fact, what’s necessary.  What do you think the temperature reduction will be?

JD:  Well, obviously, Europe accounts for 14% of global emissions.  It’s 500 or 550 million people.  On its own it cannot do that.  That is absolutely clear.

AB:  Have you got a figure in your mind?  You don’t know the cost.  Do you know the result?

JD:  I don’t have a cost figure in my mind. Nor, one thing I do know, obviously, is that Europe acting alone will not solve this problem alone.

AB:  So if I put a figure to you – I find it odd that you don’t know the cost and you don’t know the outcome – would you quarrel with this assessment:  that by 2100 – if you go your way and if you’re successful – the world’s temperatures will fall by 0.05°C?  Would you agree with that?

JD:  Sorry, can you just pass that by me again?  You’re saying that if Europe acts alone?

AB:  If just Europe alone – for this massive investment – will lower the world’s temperature with this 20% target (if it sustains that until the end of this century) by 0.05°C.  Would you quarrel with that?

JD:  Well, I think the climate science would not be that precise.  Would it?

AB:  Ah, no, actually it is, Jill.  You see this is what I’m curious about;  that you’re in charge of a massive program to re-jig an economy.  You don’t know what it costs.  And you don’t know what it’ll achieve.

JD:  Well, I think you can look at lots of modelling which will come up with lots of different costs.

AB:  Well what’s your modelling?  That’s the one that everyone’s quoting.  What’s your modelling?

JD:  Well, ah, ah. Let me talk about what we have done in Europe and what we have seen as the benefits.  In Europe, in Germany you could look at, there’s over a million new jobs that have been created by tackling climate change, by putting in place climate policies.  In the UK there’s many hundreds of thousand of jobs.

Full article and transcript is here.

The demonisation of carbon dioxide will probably continue for another 5 to 10 years until it becomes apparent that we are actually in a cooling period and therefore that man-made carbon dioxide is irrelevant and immaterial.

Carbon dioxide rip-off has cost Australia $5.5 billion – so far

February 14, 2011

With easy money like this floating around and waiting to be siphoned off it is not difficult to see why the global warming fraud continues! And of course these $5.5 billion are small change compared to the amounts that have been scammed in Europe.

And to make it worse, carbon dioxide emissions are a little less than insignificant for global temperatures.

The Sydney Morning Herald:

Billions blown on carbon schemes

SUCCESSIVE federal governments have spent more than $5.5 billion over the past decade on climate change programs that are delivering only small reductions in greenhouse gas emissions at unusually high costs for taxpayers and the economy.

An analysis by the Herald of government schemes designed to cut emissions by direct spending or regulatory intervention reveals they have cost an average of $168 for each tonne of carbon dioxide abated. ……

The analysis of 17 programs with a total cost of $5.62 billion shows many of the schemes are at odds with the goal of tackling climate change at the lowest cost to the economy. ………

The weighted average cost of the 17 programs was $168 a tonne. They will deliver about 25 million tonnes of carbon abatement in 2020 – less than 10 per cent of that needed to meet the government’s target of reducing emissions in 2020 by 5 per cent on 2000 levels.

The worst offenders have included Labor’s rebates for rooftop solar panels, which cost $300 or more for every tonne of carbon abated, and the Howard government’s remote renewable power generation scheme, which paid up to $340 for each tonne.

Read the article.

Rivers in the sky

February 12, 2011

Weather (and climate) which are contained within the thin chaotic layer around the earth’s surface are very far away from being “settled science” in spite of what Al Gore and those of his ilk like to pretend.

Unmanned aircraft are now being used in a new programme to study the “atmospheric rivers” which transport vast quantities of rain around the globe.

They’re called atmospheric rivers – narrow regions in Earth’s atmosphere that transport enormous amounts of water vapor across the Pacific or other regions. Aptly nicknamed “rivers in the sky,” they can transport enough water vapor in one day, on average, to flood an area the size of Maryland 0.3 meters (1 foot) deep, or about seven times the average daily flow of water from the Mississippi River into the Gulf of Mexico. The phenomenon was the subject of a recent major emergency preparedness scenario led by the U.S. Geological Survey, “ARkStorm,” which focused on the possibility of a series of strong atmospheric rivers striking California – a scenario of flooding, wind and mudslides the USGS said could cause damages exceeding those of Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

JPL airborne sensor to study 'Rivers in the Sky'

NASA's Global Hawk soars aloft from Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., on a functional check flight of the WISPAR aircraft payload system and science instruments. Credit: NASA Dryden Flight Research Center

While atmospheric rivers are responsible for great quantities of rain that can produce flooding, they also contribute to beneficial increases in snowpack. A series of atmospheric rivers fueled the strong winter storms that battered the U.S. West Coast from western Washington to Southern California from Dec. 10 to 22, 2010, producing 28 to 64 centimeters (11 to 25 inches) of rain in certain areas. The atmospheric rivers also contributed to the snowpack in the Sierras, which received 75 percent of its annual snow by Dec. 22, the first full day of winter.

To improve our understanding of how atmospheric rivers form and behave and evaluate the operational use of unmanned aircraft for investigating these phenomena, NASA scientists, aircraft and sensors will participate in a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration-led airborne field campaign slated to begin Feb. 11.

Called Winter Storms and Pacific Atmospheric Rivers, or WISPAR, the field campaign, which continues through the end of February, is designed to demonstrate new technology, contribute to our understanding of atmospheric rivers and assist NOAA in potentially conducting offshore monitoring of atmospheric rivers to aid in future weather predictions.

Read original article.

Global warming arrogance takes “credit” for the white-out in Europe and the White Christmas in Australia

December 21, 2010

It used to be that the Global Warming zealots warned about the possible disappearance of snow and the mild and wet winters to come in Europe. But their arrogance knows no bounds. They have changed their tune and irrespective of what weather may prevail they mange to put it down to Global Warming. They now put the coldest December in a hundred years and the current white-out across Northern Europe down to Global Warming.

That snow outside is what global warming looks like

James Delingpole at The Telegraph is lauging his socks off.


Not to be outdone, the SMH thinks the possibility of having a White Christmas during the height of Australia’s summer is also due to Global Warming!!!!

The Alarmists cannot live with the thought that man made effects are puny and inconsequential compared to the effects of the sun.

Mild winters, warm winters, early winters, coldest winters in 100 years are all quoted in defence of global warming dogma.  They are all merely grist to the mill of Global Warming arrogance.

Science has been left behind in some far and distant galaxy.

 

Reindeer grazing not global warming is shifting the tree line in Torneträsk

November 29, 2010
Strolling reindeer (Rangifer tarandus) in the ...

Strolling reindeer: iImage via Wikipedia

New research shows that the advance of the tree line upwards in the Swedish mountains was due to reduced reindeer grazing and not due to any global warming.

Swedish Radio P1 reports today: (freely translated)

It is not primarily a warmer climate which causes the tree line to crawl
up in many places in the Swedish mountains. A new study from the Torneträsk area shows that there are several other factors that affect tree spread rather than just higher temperatures. Climate change plays a very minor role. It is mainly grazing reindeer, insect infestation, and several other factors that affect mountain forest coverage, rather than changing temperature conditions.
“That the tree line can go up or down or remain stationary within the same climate period has not been shown before “, says Professor Terry Callaghan, one of the researchers who carried out the study.

The tree line advanced up the mountains most during the cold period at the end of the 1960s and 1970s. It was primarily because it was a time with fewer reindeer. A warmer climate may actually have an indirect effect (to reduce the advance northwards) by adding to the number of  insects and insect infestations that can damage trees.

Many climate models expect that the forest in the tundra and other Arctic areas will expand considerably northwards in the next one hundred years because of higher temperatures. But the new research suggests that these simple assumptions can be grossly inaccurate. One must reckon with how to account for the impact of insects and grazing reindeer and moose. “It now requires that much more detailed information be added into the models”, says Professor Terry Callaghan, director of the Abisko research station.

The article is published in the Journal of Biogeography

Geoengineering possibilities threaten the CO2 reduction advocates

November 11, 2010

The global warming brigade and their funding is dependant upon carbon dioxide being considered a villain and being banned. Global warming dogma does not like geoengineering solutions which may make doomsday scenarios irrelevant.

When geo-engineering – that is human intervention directed to adapting to climate  – suggests ways in which we could successfully keep climatic conditions suitable for human development, the global warmists are appalled. To suggest alternatives to banning carbon dioxide suddenly creates “ethical issues” whereas alarmism and doomsday scenarios do not!!

But if it is unintended human intervention which creates a problem then surely it is the only “right and proper” course to use intended human intervention to rectify the situation (even though man-made carbon dioxide is of little significance and totally irrelevant as far as climate change is concerned).

In fact – I would suggest – it is unethical to stifle human ingenuity and the march of technology.

Human development cannot be based on “not doing something”. Strategy must be based on the positive choice of “what to do” which may – as a consequence – lead to certain other things not being done. But when environmentalism or conservation or climate change lead only to lists of “what not to do” they degenerate into cowardice where actions are subordinated to “fear” and  lose credibility.

The Guardian tells us:

The problem is that proposals to geo-engineer the climate come loaded with social and ethical concerns. Is it acceptable to intentionally intervene in the volatile climate system? How would it be governed? What would prevent the abuse of climate-controlling technologies, and whose hand would be on the global thermostat?

Geoengineering or climate engineering solution to climate change: marine cloud whitening

A geoengineering solution:Spraying seawater droplets into marine clouds from ships could make them reflect more sunlight. Photograph: Nasa

The growing number of scientists working on different aspects of geo-engineering research – from climate modelling, to lab experiments with reflective particles that could be injected into the stratosphere – are anxious to emphasise that they are not geo-engineering cheerleaders. They simply want to understand the pros and cons of different technologies, in case the day came when they might be needed, a day they hope will never come.

The Royal Society itself has taken great care to indicate that it does not advocate geo-engineering – and certainly not in the place of deep global cuts in greenhouse gases. But it does advocate research on geo-engineering, and that’s where the dilemma for many scientists kicks in.

On the one hand, it is clearly prudent to understand more about geo-engineering – the worst of all scenarios would involve a government deploying a technology without knowing what its effects would be. Initial evidence suggests that spraying the skies with reflective particles of sulphate would have a major impact on patterns of rainfall. Surely it is better to know this sooner rather than later?

On the other hand, conducting research on geo-engineering is one of the main factors that will make the deployment of the technologies more likely. Most scientists are deeply sceptical about the use of such “remedial” action on global warming. But scientists won’t be the ones to decide whether the technology is used. So are they unwittingly clearing the path for future deployment?