Here, we present a multidecadal-scale record of ocean temperature variations during the past 2000 years, derived from marine sediments off Western Svalbard (79°N). We find that early–21st-century temperatures of Atlantic Water entering the Arctic Ocean are unprecedented over the past 2000 years and are presumably linked to the Arctic amplification of global warming.”
I’m not sure what they mean by “early 21st century”. Perhaps the years 2000 to 2007? The study says the waters are about 2°C warmer. Here it has to be noted that they are presuming, i.e. postulating. The CO2 link here is a bit of wild speculation.
The experts suspect that the accelerated reduction in sea ice and the measured warming of ocean and atmosphere in the Arctic over the last decades, among other factors, was the result of an enhanced transfer of warmth from the Atlantic. The Fram Straits is even about 1.4° C warmer than during the Medieval Climate Optimum, a time when temperatures in Europe were significantly increased.”
And Der Spiegel writes:
‘Cold sea water is decisive in the formation of sea ice, which in turn cools because it reflects sunlight,’ says Thomas Marchitto of the University of Colorado in Boulder. The melting is accelerating by itself.”
Media reports like the one in Der Spiegel of course emphasized the supposed vicious circle of the melting Arctic ice dynamic: more melting leads to more warming, which then accelerates the process – all unleashed of course by man-made CO2.
If anything they are, perhaps unwittingly, admitting that the Arctic sea ice reduction of the 2000s can be traced back to ocean currents.
And as things stand right now, just the opposite is occurring. The Arctic is NOT melting, it’s freezing up again – recovering from its low in 2007, and quite impressively.
The Global Rumblings website here reports that 70 trillion cubic feet of ice have been added to the Arctic core since January 2009. That translates to 2000 cubic km – enough to cover Manhattan with 20 miles of ice (or 32,000 Manhattans with 1 meter of ice).
The US Navy PIPS 2.0 graphic shows ice thickness. The following comparator shows how it’s the Arctic that has gone green.
Some will say that PIPS is not a reliable indicator of Arctic ice thickness, and so cannot be used reliably. But you can put that rumour to rest, see PIPS WUWT.
So why is the Arctic thickening and regrowing, and no longer melting at an unprecedented rate as claimed by the media?
This could have to do with the Labrador Current, which flows southward between Greenland and Labrador. Reports say it is slowing down. That means cold water is not getting transported out of the Arctic. A Der Spiegel article just 2 weeks ago titled “Feared Atlantic current is now weakening” suggests that this current is at its weakest level in 1800 years. What is it caused by? According to scientists, Der Spiegel says:
As a cause for the change, scientists suspect climate change. The coincidence that this has happened during the warming of the last decades allows this to be the conclusion, they believe. But the knowledge about ocean currents still has many holes says Wallace Broecker of Columbia University in USA – a pioneer in ocean research.”
Changes in the atmosphere controls the ocean currents? Right. And as usual, they’re sure – yet admit there are many holes in the knowledge and so they are not sure.
Ed Caryl has submitted another essay, which indicates that CO2 is not as strong a driver as many would like to have us believe.
CO2 is Cool!
By Ed Caryl
The global warming amount if CO2 doubles has been a bone of contention for the last 30 years. The IPCC has settled on figures in the range from 1.5 to 4.5 degrees, with a most probable rise of 3°C. One of the figures widely quoted is based on CO2 rising from 295 ppm in 1900, to 365 ppm in 2000, while temperature rose 0.57 degrees. (For those readers allergic to math formulas, apologies are offered, but keep reading, the result is what is important, and the math is done for you.) Because the CO2 affect is agreed by most to be logarithmic, the formula for the temperature rise if CO2 doubles, when based on CO2 concentration and temperature rise over time, is:
ln2/(ln(CO2 at end of period/CO2 at beginning of period))/(the change in temperature). (ln is the
natural logarithm). Substituting the numbers from above, we get:
ln2/(ln(365/295)/0.57) = 1.85°C
This formula was used to calculate the CO2 doubling-temperature (the temperature rise if CO2 in the atmosphere doubles) over a slightly longer period, from 1880 to 2010, using the Law Dome (Antarctic ice samples) and Mauna Loa Hawaii CO2 levels spliced together, and the GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies) global surface temperature figures.
The Law Dome and Mauna Loa CO2 data overlap from 1960 to 1978, and agree quite closely over those years, so splicing them seems quite valid. First, here (from the sources above) is the temperature and the CO2 plotted together:
Figure 1. Plot of GISS global temperature anomaly and atmospheric CO2.
The result of CO2 doubling using the above formula with the beginning and end numbers in Figure 1 is:
ln2/(ln(389.78/290.7)/0.91 = 2.15°C. This is higher, but still less than the IPCC estimate of 3°C.
But what if we take different time periods for the calculation? A shorter period 50-year calculation results in a noisy chart because there is great variation in temperature from year to year, with negative as well as positive temperature changes, and in the years before 1970, the CO2 rise was very slow so the ratios are small numbers. Here is the plot of the CO2-doubling temperature rise using the above formula with a sliding 50-year window beginning with the period from 1880 to 1930 and ending with 1960 to 2010:
Figure 2. CO2 sensitivity over time using a 50-year window applied to the data in Figure 1. The red trace is a 10-year moving average on the calculated sensitivity. The black line is the linear trend.
The calculation results in large positive and occasionally negative numbers when a shorter period is used. Non-CO2 influences are visible, the warming in the late 30s and 40s, and the later cooling and warming again in the 50s 60s and 70s. These are visible in Figure 1, above. The Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO), the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), and others, cause these temperature cycles. These 60 to 70-year ocean temperature cycles will increase a sensitivity figure based on a 100-year window.
Volcanoes, La Niña, and El Niño events and above described ocean cycles, as well as the solar cycle, affect the plot because they perturb the system away from equilibrium. Anything that adds or subtracts from the temperature is indistinguishable from the affects of CO2. CO2 is not the only thing affecting temperature. Many people have forgotten this simple fact. The plot in Figure 2 is really the total climate sensitivity, not just from CO2.
The figure widely used for CO2 doubling is only stable if the window used is long. It is only accurate if other factors are not pushing the numbers up. If shorter periods are taken, wildly different numbers result, both positive and negative. In recent years, the numbers settle to just over 1.0°C because the CO2 differences over the 50-year windows are getting larger. What is the real Climate Sensitivity? It appears to be less than 1.0°C for CO2 doubling.
Keep in mind that these plots were generated using GISS global surface temperature data. This data has been criticized for including too many sites influenced by urban warming and for being adjusted upward in recent years, and downward for earlier years. This seems to be the case, as any upward bias would tilt the above plot in the upward direction, as is seen at the end of the plot.
In an effort to check for this, the same formula was used on UHA satellite temperature data for the last 31 years. If the window is the 30 years from 1979 to 2009, the result is 1.75°C, if from 1980 to 2010, the answer is 2.05°C. Again, a short window gives a noisy answer. If 2011 is cooler than 2009, the calculation will be less than 1.75°C. Caution must be used when selecting data for these calculations. As an example, a calculation using the window from 1980 to 2008 results in a negative –0.2°C sensitivity.
Here are the temperature and CO2 plots:
Figure 3. Satellite temperature and Mauna Loa CO2 plots.
The sensitivity was plotted using a sliding 20-year window on the 31 years of satellite data available. Here is that result:
Figure 4. CO2 sensitivity using satellite temperature data and a 20-year sliding window.
The plot is very noisy with two points going negative. We will really need 20 or 30 more years of satellite temperature data to see a valid result, but the 30-year window suggests that the sensitivity as measured by the satellite data will still be less than 2°. Keep in mind that many of the ocean cycles, such as the AMO and PDO, are on the order of 60 years in length, and recently have been in their positive phases. The satellite data is only half this long.
In summary, all these plots show that CO2 sensitivity is probably 1°C or less for a doubling of CO2. We will need a few more years of good temperature data to pin that down.
Meanwhile, all the people claiming sensitivities of 3° or more need to calm down. The above plots and calculations rule that out.
A CO2 climate sensitivity of 1°C for CO2 doubling is not very important. Also remember that this figure includes all the supposed positive feedbacks, because if they exist, they have had an influence on the temperature already. Keep in mind that CO2 will probably never double in the atmosphere for the simple reason that we will run out of easily available fossil carbon long before then. But this is fodder for the next article.
================================================ Should Britons Buy Bermuda Shorts Or Long Johns?
by Matti Vooro
Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past. “
That was the headline in the UK’s The Independent newspaper in March of 2000. The CRU scientists claimed that within a few years winter snowfall would become “a very rare and exciting thing. Incapable of learning, even reconfirmed this as recently as January 10, 2010 when one of their scientists told the UK Mail:
The winter is just a little cooler than average, and I still think that snow will become an increasingly rare event”.
The Met Office then followed The Independent with their prediction of the 4°C temperature rise in only 50 years, predicting warmer temperatures, more heat waves and drought. The IPCC had the same message in their 2007 report with their prediction that:
Annual mean temperatures in Europe are likely to increase more than the global mean. The warming in northern Europe is likely to be largest in winter.”
Yet, only a few years after these predictions of unprecedented winter warming for UK and Europe, the exact opposite has emerged. Winters have been getting colder and there is no lack of snow. UK winters have declined in temperatures 4 years straight since 2007. So have the annual temperatures. The last two winters have been especially cold and wintry.
Taking the UK as a whole and not just Central England or CET
2010 December [-1 C] coldest December since 1910
2009 December [2.1 C] 13th coldest December since 1910
2008 December [3.1 C] 26th coldest December since 1910
2007 December [3.77C] 56th coldest December since 1910
It is dramatic how the winter temperatures have shifted since 2007 winter, which was the 2nd warmest winter in the UK since 1910.
What follows are the mean winter temperatures for all of UK. The average mean winter temperature is around 3.6C
2007 5.56 C (2nd warmest)
2008 4.86 C
2009 3.21 C
2010 1.64 C (7th coldest)
The annual UK temperatures have been declining since 2006 as the following shows:
2006 9.73 C (warmest since 1910)
2007 9.59 C
2008 9.05 C
2009 9.17 C
2010 7.96 C (12th coldest since 1910)
Refer to the UK Met Office and the excellent data provided from the following source:
2010 was the 12 th coldest year in the 100 year series and the coldest since 1986. 2010 was the coldest year since 1919 in Scotland and Northern Ireland “
The following graph is a plot of winters in Central England as opposed to UK as a whole for the years 1948-2010. UK temperatures as a whole are similar but slightly lower by 0.5 to1 degree C. Winter AO levels are also shown.
Typically La Nina winters used to be colder before the 1970’s but during the last 11 La Nina winters, 9 winters have been near normal or warmer for Central England. This did not happen in December 2010. January 2011 is more typical of La Nina winters. El Nino winters seem to set up colder and negative AO and colder winters except when they are extra strong like 1998. It would appear from field or observed data, that UK winters are not getting warmer as predicted but may actually be getting cooler instead and may be following the natural planetary cycles perhaps similar to what happened during the last cooler cycle about 1962-1987.
Man-made greenhouse gases have little to do with this cooling as CO2 keep rising in a minor way. The weather was supposed to get warmer as CO2 levels have gone up? It is not. Global warming science does not seem to be holding up and seems to need a serious rethink, see GWPF.
During the 26 years of the last colder period , 17 years or 2/3 of the winters were below the average mean winter temperature of 3.6 and about 12 (45%) were much colder and below 3C, Of the 78 winter months during 1962-1987, 41 months (53%) were below average mean of 3.6°C.
What was the main weather factor present during those cooler winters?
Number of winters where AMO was negative: 22 (84%)
Number of winters where AO was negative: 21 (80%) [dec/jan/feb]
Number of winters where PDO was negative: 15 (58%)
Number of winters NAO was negative: 13 (50%)
ENSO years neutral 8 years (30%), LA NINA 9 years (35%), EL NINO 9 years (35%)
Number of winters with a net negative AO [dec/jan/feb] during the last 60 years:
Clearly the presence of negative AO, AMO, PDO and NAO were the most frequently occurring climate factors happening during that time. With the exception of AMO, all these factors are again heading for or are already in their negative or cool mode.
The sun is also still in its low activity level and unusual extra warming seems unlikely. AMO is likely to go negative or cool within 5-10 years if not sooner. There were many instances of back to back months of very cold weather as well as back to back cold winters like the 1960’s.
What would you do if you were a member of the UK general public or an official in charge of transportation, roads, airports, fuel supply, electricity or other infrastructure, read here WUWT?
Clearly the some agencies charged with informing the public about seasonal or long term weather did not have their act together yet. There was a serious warming bias in many weather and climate forecasts due to an over-emphasis on global warming. For example, in the midst of the worst part of December 2010 winter storm, the focus of the chief climate scientist was not on how to help the public with better information during the crisis, but on global warming. Professor Slingo insisted in comments to the Independent newspaper on December 21, 2010:
The key message is that global warming continues.”
Some refuse to learn. People are finding out that a second opinion on winter weather is paying off. Many North American meteorologists like Joe Bastardi and Joe D’Aleo and independent UK meteorologists like Piers Corbyn, have been predicting cooler weather the last several years.
In my judgment, no one can predict with certainty what the future of the climate will be for the next 10-30 years.
Each climate cycle is different. It will not be a mini ice age in my opinion as some are predicting, nor will all the global general temperatures go below those that existed before the 1976 Pacific climate shift, but more of a cyclic cooler period.
Once the North Atlantic ocean SST and AMO start to contribute to the global cooling in a more significant way, the global temperatures of US and Canadian east coasts, the western coast of Europe and the Arctic will be the cooling more consistently.
Obviously they don’t believe the junk science that insists global warming leads to more extreme cold and snow. Sorry, but many people aren’t that stupid to buy it. So take that crap alarmist science and use it for the next time you have to go.
This new scepticism in Britain is based on real-life observation, with people comparing the horoscopes of snowless winters heard earlier to the reality that is observed in real life today.
And for those who still believe in AGW, many now don’t think that it’s a real problem. The Daily Mail writes:
Fewer than half those polled – 46 per cent – are ready to use their cars less, and only 47 per cent are prepared to take public transport more often. Fewer than a quarter – 23 per cent – are willing to fly less.”
The chances are real, and both are threatening the planet Earth. Apophis and Yellowstone have been appearing in the media lately. The chances of a catastrophic event occurring in your lifetime are higher than you may think.
Russian astronomers are predicting that the asteroid Apophis could collide with the planet earth on April 13, 2036, writes the online Voice of Russia.
Apophis’s length was earlier estimated to be 450 metres, but a better estimate based on spectroscopic observations at NASA’s Infrared Telescope Facility in Hawaii puts it at 350 metres. That’s still a big rock to be hit by.
‘Apophis will approach Earth at a distance of 37,000 – 38,000 kilometers on April 13, 2029. Its likely collision with Earth may occur on April 13, 2036,’ Professor Leonid Sokolov of the St. Petersburg State University said.”
According to Wikipedia, NASA has estimated the energy that Apophis would release if it struck Earth as the equivalent of 510 megatons on TNT. By comparison the impacts of the Tunguska event is estimated to be in the 3–10 megaton range. The 1883 eruption of Krakatoa was the equivalent of roughly 200 megatons, and the Chicxulub impact, believed by many to be a significant factor in the extinction of the dinosaurs, has been estimated to have released about as much energy as 100 million megatons.
The bad news is that an impact by Apophis would destroy an area of thousands of square kilometres, and seriously disrupt the climate for a few years. The good news is that it would be unlikely to have long-lasting global effects. Also the chances of Apophis actually striking the earth are still remote.
The other potential natural catastrophe is the Yellowstone super-volcano, reports National Geographic here. Yellowstone’s caldera covers a 40 by 60 kilometer swath of Wyoming, is an ancient crater formed after the last big blast, some 640,000 years ago. The magnitude of an eruption estimated by scientists would be 1000 times more powerful than the 1980 Mount St. Helens eruption of 1980, and would lead to dire consequences for the globe.
Scientists calculate that the pillar of ash from the Yellowstone explosion rose some 100,000 feet, leaving a layer of debris across the West all the way to the Gulf of Mexico. Pyroclastic flows—dense, lethal fogs of ash, rocks, and gas, superheated to 1,470 degrees Fahrenheit—rolled across the landscape in towering gray clouds. The clouds filled entire valleys with hundreds of feet of material so hot and heavy that it welded itself like asphalt across the once verdant landscape.”
The Yellowstone crater today is rising at a record speed, forced up by a huge magma reservoir that is thought to be about 10 km below the surface, see below. It has risen 25 centimeters since 2004. NatGeo writes that roughly 3,000 earthquakes occur in Yellowstone each year.
But between December 26, 2008, and January 8, 2009, there were about 900 earthquakes, and the rate of rise then slowed for a time. Scientists believe the earthquakes may help to release pressure on the magma reservoir below the surface by allowing fluids to escape, and thus relieve some pressure.
Yellowstone erupted 3 times in the last 2 .1 million years. The last eruption was about 640,000 years ago. German online FOCUS magazine writes:
The Yellowstone volcano is considered to be dangerous because on a geological timescale, it is due to erupt.”
Yellowstone is not the only super-volcano threatening the planet. A FOCUS map shows 6 others. Although the chances are small that any one in particular will erupt soon – maybe 1 in a 1000, the odds increase to worrisome levels when all the catastrophe possibilities get factored in. If one identifies 10 potential catastrophic events, each with the odds of occurrence being 1 in 1000, then it means the odds of one happening reduce to 1 in a 100. That starts to get worrisome. It means there’s a pretty good chance one catastrophe will occur in the next 100 years.
People who were born just recently have a pretty good chance of witnessing such an event in their lifetime. And the longer the planet goes without a catastrophe occurring, the greater the chances become.
Mann’s hockey stick is no more than a statistical artifact.
M&M’s analysis was later confirmed by Hans von Storch and Ed Zorita.
Marcel Severijnen has written up a short analysis of Crok’s book at Hans Von Storch’s Klimazwiebel here. Severijnen makes a few interesting comments:
…scientists are not taken as seriously as before climategate, and the influence of weblogs is growing. Crok is right to include the blogosphere as part of the discussion and not to rely just on peer-reviewed literature. From a critical viewpoint he is convinced that science is not settled at all.”
Crok took a good look at the surface station meansurement network and concludes it produces inferior measurements:
Most mainland stations are situated in urban environments and undergo the influence of neighboring buildings. So, according to Crok, possibly half of the measured warming could be attributed to urban effects.”
Reading one reader comment at Klimazwiebel, it appears that Crok leaned heavily on Anthony Watts’ surface station project to draw that conclusion. Reader Thomas Jansen comments:
I had high expectations of the book, but it was a huge disappointment, Crok doesn’t get much further than copying Watts’s blog.”
Well, that tells me the book is worth buying and reading. So if you can read Dutch, go ahead and buy it. I’d be interested to hear what the Dutch readers here think about it. But Crok’s book is not only written for skeptics looking for more ammo, it has material for both sides. Severijnen adds:
He enlightens all possible points of discussion, and that deserves a great compliment.”
Just an observation, the warmists are already attacking the book in earnest.
PS: My post yesterday was about a FOCUS magazine report, which refered to a book called: The Rational Optimist by Matt Ridley. This book appears to be hated by warmists and pessimists as well, and so it too is totally worth buying.
How many times has the demise of the planet or humanity been predicted? How many charlatans have passed through the revolving doors of history? You’d need the resources of the Census Bureau to tally that up.
A couple of days ago I presented yet another such prediction from a scientist at the Potsdam Institute For Climate Impact Research (PIK).
The planet is going to hell in a hand-basket they keep telling us. But when you boil it down, they all have one thing in common: They’ve been wrong every time.
The charlatans of the past have been replaced by a new generation of charlatans – government-funded climate scientists who are paid to get the masses to stampede in panic into the arms of government programs, all aided and abetted by the chatterbox media.
It turns out that life as a whole on the planet has never been better.
One media outlet steps up
In Germany we’re finding out that not all the media accept what is written down on the press releases. There are a few journalists who actually do good research and the hard work of digging. German news magazine FOCUS hasan uplifting and positive article about how things, by almost every measure, are far better today than anyone expected.
The FOCUS report written by veteran journalist Michael Miersch takes a look at some of the charlatans of the past and a bit into the psychology of why end-of-the-world scenarios find such mass appeal among the gullible, who later wonder what happened when things turn out differently.
This is not to say all the world’s problems have been solved. But those problems are under much better control today then they were say 50, 100 or 200 years ago. Here are just a few of the observations made by FOCUS.
The world’s population has grown 6-fold since 1800, and at the same time life expectancy has doubled. Between 1955 and 2005 inflation-adjusted average personal income has tripled for the average person on the globe.”
Many of the poor indeed have gotten much richer.
How often do we hear about the threats of industrial agriculture devouring land to feed the exploding masses of people? Guess what? Modern agriculture protects wildlife and forests. FOCUS:
With the crop yields of 1961, farmers would have needed 32 million square km of cropland to have fed the 6 billion persons on the globe in 2000. Instead they have been able to harvest the necessary amount of crops on just 15 million acres. That means an area almost the size of South America was spared the plow. Forests and savannahs were thus saved.
All thanks to modern agricultural technology, which today continues to develop nicely. Yet, today, many greens are busily bemoaning the very agriculture that has rescued millions of sq km of forests and wildlife from primitive manaul agricultural practices. Worse, they also want us to fuel our cars with bio-diesel, which would require the extra deforestation of millions of sq km.
And so how do today’s results compare to the projections made by “intellectuals” like Paul Ehrlich? Clearly he has earned a top spot in that elite Club of Rome Crackpots, along with Al Gore, James Hansen and others. And another thing:
Inflation-adjusted prices for food have fallen 75% since 1950.
In fact, food has become so bountiful that bureaucrats are now whining about the social problems of obesity.
Today there are two things that could reverse the tremendous progress that agriculture has made – the Green Movement (think bio-diesel and organic farming) and global cooling. Guess which side (skeptic or alarmist) wants to see both?
Good news are never welcome by alarmist malcontents, who are psychologically sustained by daily doses of misery, pessimism and promises of catastrophe. This keeps Institutes like the PIK running.
On the other hand, optimists who maintain a positive, stay-the-course outlook for the future are viewed by the malcontents as simple-minded, naive and ignorant. Funny how the optimists always turn out to be right.
Completely contrary to what we hear day in and day out from the newspapers and TV, whether it’s war, hunger, illiteracy, political suppression, or environmental pollution, all of the world’s evils are shrinking.
That’s especially obvious with air pollution, which has reduced to such an extent in western countries that control freaks and tree huggers are now forced to call the non-pollutant CO2 a pollutant just to have something to do.
On poverty, peace and prosperity
First let’s recall, that all of Eastern Europe and much of South America were governed by dictators less than 50 years ago. Thankfully, they’ve fallen and things have gotten much better with free markets in control. FOCUS writes:
The United nations has determined that poverty receded more in the second half of the 20th century than in the 500 years before it.
Miersch then drives it home, using Germany as an example:
Germans who are now retiring belong to the first generation that has gotten to know peace, freedom, and prosperity as permanent fixtures in their lives. This has never happened in their history.
Isn’t apocalypse tough? But looking at the German media today, you’d think times couldn’t be worse – the planet is threatened by an imminent climate catastrophe that is “hidden in fog – but it’s there!”
So what lies in the future now that we have seen that every apocalyptic warning heard earlier in history has ended up being just fly-crap in the wind? The business of apocalypse is a big industry and involves lots of money – so don’t expect the end-of-world-charlatans to go away. There’s more money in it today than ever.
Being wrong every time isn’t going to deter today’s modern charlatans. They have a whole new line-up of catastrophes in their bag of tricks: climate change, biodiversity, ocean acidification, species extinction, to name some. And, there are plenty of malcontents out there who want to hear more, more, more.
But I suspect, like the earlier scares of the past, we’ll soon be able to put those on the list of seriously endangered species as well. Here today, extinct tomorrow.
Milankovic Cycles and Climate Change Is it distance from the sun, or length of summer?
By Ed Caryl
A draft paper by Dr. James Hansen and Dr. Makiko Sato triggered a rebuttal by Dr. Martin Hertzberg on WUWT. The Hansen paper made a claim that weaker insolation in the Northern Hemisphere (NH) due to distance from the sun in NH winter should lead to cooling, but that this is offset by increasing CO2.
The Dr. Hertzeberg rebuttal claimed that the warming was due to the longer length of summer in the NH. Both are wrong! Both are victims of Confirmation Bias, seeing only data that confirms their beliefs.
It seemed a little strange that the Hansen paper was written for a conference in Milankovic’s honor, yet the paper does not contain the famous diagram illustrating the Milankovic Cycle (or Milankovitch, both spellings are common in the literature), nor does the Hertzberg rebuttal. Here it is:
Figure 1. Source: Wikipedia Commons
The important part of this chart, and the reason both authors are wrong, is the black plot in the lower center of the chart, (that part of the plot is shown again below) the insolation per day at °65 N latitude. If the scale of this plot were anomaly, instead of absolute value, the anomaly would be slightly negative. The insolation change due to the length of summer and the distance from the sun are almost exactly canceling, and the insolation is not going to change very much for the next 20,000 years.
Figure 2. The blue dot is the current date. Source: Wikipedia Commons
The position in our orbit where we are closest to the sun is called the parahelion point. The tilt of the earth’s axis is related to the parahelion by a relationship known as the “longitude of the parahelion”. The °360-°0 point is where the Vernal Equinox (1st day of Spring) and the parahelion coincide. If you divide the °360 by 4 (=°90) you see that the parahelion will be in spring from °0 to °90, summer from °90 to °180, autumn from °180 to °270, winter from °270 to °360. Right now we are at °283 and the parahelion happens on the 3rd of January.
Figure 3. Plot of the Longitude of the Parahelion point. Plotted from NASA data. The year 2000 is marked by the blue square. You can see that in the year 12,000, 10,000 years from now, we will be closest to the sun in NH mid-summer.
Will this lead to warming in mid-summer? No, because the earth reaches a point of minimum axial tilt at that time, and rapidly decreasing orbital eccentricity (as eccentricity reaches minimum, the orbit approaches a perfect circle) will make the reduced distance from the sun in summer much less important. See the next chart. Again, the current date is the blue squares.
Figure 4. Plot of Obliquity (Earth axial tilt) and orbital eccentricity (deviation from a circle). Plotted from NASA data obtained here.
When will the next ice age be?
One of the comments to the Hertzberg article in WUWT asked, “When will the next ice age will begin?” Answer, not for a while yet. From Wikipedia: “An often-cited 1980 study by Imbrie and Imbrie determined that, ‘Ignoring anthropogenic and other possible sources of variation acting at frequencies higher than one cycle per 19,000 years, this model predicts that the long-term cooling trend which began some 6,000 years ago will continue for the next 23,000 years.’”
All these orbital cycles are much too long and gradual to account for late 20th Century warming. That warming is due to short-term solar output changes, solar magnetic field influence on galactic cosmic rays changing cloud cover, and ocean cycles.
You can see in Figure 2 that the next negative swing in NH insolation is over 50 thousand years in the future, and the next really negative swings are over 100 thousand years off. Even if we cool for the next 23,000 years, it should not get cool enough to trigger an ice age… unless the sun does something really strange.
Hieronymous Bosch paints a scene of a Renaissance mountebank fleecing incredulous gamblers.
Levermann makes a number of interesting comments that provide insight on how the PIK views climate. Unfortunately, all his predictions are based on models, and ignore real-life observations.
Global warming could enhance cold weather
Levermann starts off saying the bitter cold and snow in Germany last month is a sure sign of “how out-of-whack the climate system is.” Levermann serves up the “science” that supports it:
The current cold weather in Europe is everything but evidence against climate change, rather it could even be enhanced by global warming. Colleagues have discovered the mechanism for this: Through the ice melt in the Kara Sea, high pressure zones can form, which then divert the Eurasian winds and lead to cold temperatures in Europe.”
It takes a real climate scientist to make such a profound discovery, and that with no data to back it up. Not only that, Levermann adds:
The more and faster we emit greenhouse gases, the more our climate gets knocked out of whack.”
At this point, I have to ask myself: “Just how gullible must the average FAZ reader be to take this seriously?
And as usual Levermann goes down the laundry list of last year’s weather events…floods in Pakistan, heat wave in Russia, mudslides in Brazil, etc., etc. and claims this is evidence supporting the man-made global warming link, and that it had all been predicted by models. Yet, Levermann forgets to mention that the accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) was near a record low last year, and that temperatures have not risen over the last decade – something his models have missed. Still he insists:
It’s now practically sure that in a rapidly warming world we have to expect more and stronger extreme events.”
PIK models can now see to the year 2200
Keep in mind that Anders Levermann is a lead author for the next IPCC Report on the subject of sea levels. The next report will deliver the latest “projections” based on various CO2 output scenarios. So where does Levermann say the globe is headed?
What we can already say, based on our latest studies, is: We currently find ourselves on the warmest possible future trajectory […] The temperature projection shows a warming of more than eight degrees Celsius in the year 2200.”
Unfortunately for Levermann, there hasn’t been any warming in a decade, as the following HadCrut chart shows:
Remember that he is a lead author on sea ice for the upcoming IPCC 5th assessment report. What kind of sea level projection do you think he’ll concoct with 8°C of warming? Expect the 5th assessment report to be worse in scientific quality than the 4th report of 2007. Sci-fi sequels tend to get worse and worse as they are taken over by B-rated directors.
Ignoring real world observation and data, Levermann stares deeper into his crystal ball and sees only horrors. He wonders if man will be able to adapt to these rapidly changing climate conditions (the ones in his crystal ball). What are the limits of human adaptability, he asks? 4°C? 6°C?
Warming 50 times faster than the warming that ended the ice age
Claiming that his crystal ball sees 8°C of warming over the next 190 years, he says that this 4°C rise per century will be unprecedented. Levermann says the difference between an optimum and an ice age is about 5°C, and that it took 5000 years for the earth to make the 5°C climb out of the last ice age:
The transition from ice age to warm period lasted a good five thousand years. When man continues to emit greenhouse gases unabated, then we will reach the same warming 50 times faster than in the past.”
That’s assuming his models are correct. Looking at the above HadCrut chart, there has been no warming. And Levermann doesn’t mention that most of the temperature rise ending the last ice age took place in about 1000 years, and the temperature difference was more than 5°C. It was closer to 8°C. So he’s fudging there quite a bit.
He also ignores the huge temperature swings of up to 6°C which occurred in just a matter of a few decades during the Younger Dryas – all naturally.
Of course, Levermann doesn’t forget to play emotion-card Africa, and predicts dire scenarios for the poor continent.
It is probable that in such a situation, countries like Bangladesh and parts of Africa will have become uninhabitable. Whether the drinking water supply collapses because of drought, or sea water claiming the land, or because agriculture becoming impossible. Even without the extreme events, the United Nations estimates that the number of climate refugees will reach 90 million if the sea level rises 1 meter.
Here he ignores studies that show the African Sahara is shrinking and getting more desperately needed rainfall during this modern warm period. And he ignores that sea levels have decelerated over the last 5 years. And even if the sea level did rise 1 meter, something that only the most fanatic among us predict, it would not happen overnight. Most humans just don’t have the habit of standing still for 100 years and watching the water rise around them.
Finally, Levermann ends by saying:
The wall that we are racing towards is hidden in fog, but it is there!
At PIK it’s: If you can’t see it, then it’s proof it’s there. Just believe us.
Will the new 2011-2020 decade be warmer or cooler than the last one?
That’s what we’re betting on (FOR CHARITY).
This bet is also known as the Honeycutt Climate Bet for Charity, after Rob Honeycutt who first proposed this bet. You can find the entire background here.
First of all Charles Zeller has also pledged $5,000 for the warm side, and has already paid half of it to Doctors Without Borders. So whatever happens from now on, I will consider that this blog has led to some kind of succees in that it has played a role in leading to this generous donation. The money will no doubt alleviate much pain and suffering among those of us who happened to be born in unfortunate economic and social conditions. It may even save a life or more. So hats off to Charles.
If you wish to join the Climate Bet of the Decade, i.e. Honeycutt Climate Bet For Charity, click here to see how. It’s real easy: just leave a reader comment and I’ll put your name, e-mail address, and amount on a list. That’s it. You’ll appear in the next update.
Here’s the latest list. I have to admit that the warmists, though small in number, are a generous bunch.
They have pledged over $14,000.00 so far. The coolists have also made a good number of pledges, and have in fact far surpassed all my earler expectations. No matter who wins, some good will surely come out of this.
The cool side: (I hope my math is correct).
And the warm side:
If you wish to up your bet, just say so. If you wish to cancel it, well there I can’t help you. Pledged is pledged!
No. This event is not caused by rising sea levels set off by man at the end of a long climate dynamics chain. But warmists are are welcome to blame that on man too, as desperate as they may be.
Hat tip: DirkH
Geological events often take their time, where a few millimeters per year is fast. But in this case, Mother Nature appears to have hit the super fast-forward button, demonstrating her awesome power.
Volcano Erta Ale (above) in northeastern Ethiopia has begun to gurgle and widespread seismic activity threatens to redefine the map (see below) of the African east near the Red Sea – and to do so very quickly. Der Spiegel (in English) reports on dramatic geological events now unfolding.
Der Spiegel headlines and writes:
Violent Seismic Activity Tearing Africa in Two
Researchers say that lava in the region is consistent with magma normally seen on the sea floor — and that water will ultimately cover the desert.
The earth is in upheaval in northeastern Africa, and the region is changing quickly. The desert floor is quaking and splitting open, volcanoes are boiling over, and seawaters are encroaching upon the land. Africa, researchers are certain, is splitting apart at a rate rarely seen in geology.”
For now, the only thing holding back the Red Sea water from the Danakil Depression (see following graphic) are hills, and they appear to be sinking quickly, writes Der Spiegel.
And now that the Erta Ale volcano nearby is erupting – something no one anticipated, it could disrupt that last barrier that keeps the Red Sea at bay. Der Spiegel:
The magma coming out of Erta Ale has the same chemical composition as the kind that emerges from deep-sea volcanoes. The entire region increasingly resembles an ocean floor — one without water.”
Magma typically seen under the Red Sea is flowing underneath the continent, and eventually something has to give. Fissures are appearing at many locations in the region. According to geologist Tim Wright, fellow at the University of Leeds’ School of Earth and Environment:
The hills could sink in a matter of days”
Tectonic activity has increased recently not only in that African region, but has also spread into Saudi Arabia. De Spiegel quotes Oxford University’s David Ferguson on his predictions for volcanic eruptions and earthquakes in the region over the next decade, saying they will…:
Climatic cyclic history repeats itself, even if you ignore it.
And it does so because it is so powerful that it neither allows itself to be suppressed nor appeased. Guest writer Matti Vooro presents here his latest work on why the future is looking cooler. This is also the view of a growing number of scientists. Expect cooling over the next 30 years. And look at Bastardi’s 8-minutes of education.
SIGNS OF GLOBAL COOLING
by Matti Vooro
For about 2 decades we have been told to urgently act against unprecedented global warming or else there will be fiery gloom and doom for the world. Yet, the opposite seems to be happening.
The entire planet has stopped warming since 1998 and, more significantly, has started to cool since 2003. Instead of warning people of cooler weather for the next 30 years, there’s still the distinct false sense of expectation of unprecedented warming. People and governments are being urged to go entirely in the wrong direction for the wrong reasons – and at a potentially horrendous price.
Just look at what happened in UK. Ten years ago Britons were told to expect global warming only and that snow would be a thing of the past. Yet the opposite has arrived, three winters in a row. This winter it crippled the entire nation for nearly a month in December 2010.
Periods of cooling and warming in the past
Alternating periods of warm and cooler weather have been with us as far back as our climate records go. Some of the past cooler periods have been more severe than others, like the Sporer, Maunder and Dalton Minimums. Professor Don Easterbrook has documented some 20 such cool periods over the last 500 years, see Figure 1.
Easterbrook also said:
” “Climate changes in the geologic record show a regular pattern of alternate
warming and cooling with a 25-30 year period for the past 500 years.”
• “There is a strong correlation between solar changes, the PDO, glacier
advance and retreat, and global climate allow us to project a consistent
pattern into the future.”
• “Expect global cooling for the next 2-3 decades that will be far more
damaging than global warming would have been.”
Figure 2 shows the kind of cooling Professor Easterbrook projects into the future:
So why are the IPCC and AGW science so silent about the possibility of global cooling? It’s because the IPCC never had a mandate to study all causes of global warming – only the man induced component. Now other scientists are finding that the man-made warming seems to be dwarfed by natural planetary factors. Here is what IPCC said what Europe should expect in the future:
Annual mean temperatures in Europe are likely to increase more than the global mean. The warming in northern Europe is likely to be largest in winter, and largest in the Mediterranean area in summer. The lowest winter temperatures are likely to increase more than average winter temperature in northern Europe, and the highest summer temperatures are likely to increase more than average summer temperature in southern and central Europe.”
The last winters are showing the contrary is true. Let’s take a look at the last period [26 years] of cooler weather in Europe [1962-1987] and the most frequent climate variables present during that period:
Last UK and European cold period, what were the more common climate factors present?
An analysis winter temperatures for Central England’s last cold period of 1962 -1987 shows that 20 of 26 years were below the winter normal of about 4.8°C. Of these 20 years, negative winter AOs were present 90% of the time [18 years], negative winter AMOs were present 85% of the time [17 years ], negative winter NAOs were present 65% of the time [13 years] and negative winter PDOs were present 45% of time [9 years].
It would appear that for UK, the presence of negative or cool AO, AMO and NAOs was significant in predicting below normal winters and these below normal winters happened more frequently – about 2 out of every 3 years during this cooler period. The ENSO sign was fairly equally distributed, 5 La Nina years, 8 El Nino years and 7 neutral years. El Nino years seem to set up more negative winter AOs, which allow more cold Arctic air to come south [like the 2009/2010 winter].
What does the UK Met Office say about global cooling?
The UK MET Office says that a decade of cooling is possible but only once in every 8 decades. And so they have already played their card as the past decade 2001-2010 had a flat temperatures trend. So by their predictions, there will be no further periods of cooling or flat global temperatures for another 8 decades. In order for the Met Office prediction of a temperature rise of 4° C by 2060 to occur, our current rate of warming trend would have to 18 times faster than today (Using data from WOOD FOR TREES).
What about the warm year 2010? It is a no-brainer to have an extra warm year like 2010 during a strong El Nino. The year 1998 was also such a warm El Nino year. These are natural causes that drive up the temperatures during the El Nino years. Yet there has been no statistical warming since 1995. Also we have had 4 El Ninos during the last 9 years. This is more frequent than in the past when they happened once every 4-7 years. Eight of the last 10 years have been affected by the natural occurring El Nino to some degree. Thus the prime reason for the warm decade and the warm the 2010 winter in Canada is the El Nino and PDO. This has very little to do with global warming or increases in greenhouse gas emissions.
For Canada, if you exclude the El Nino winters of 2003, 2005, 2007, and 2010 the Canadian winter temperature departure [anomaly] from the 1948-2010 norm has actually been dropping during the last 10 years since 2000 from 2.5C in 2000 to 0.3C in 2009, the last very cold winter. Some regions like the Prairie Provinces and Northwestern region have seen as much as 7.1 C drop in winter temperatures from the 2006 to 2009 winter.
What is behind our changing climate?
The answer appears to be the natural variability of ENSO events and the regular variation in the Pacific Ocean and Atlantic surface temperatures as measured by the PDO and AMO indices, changes in the Arctic Oscillation or AO, volcanic activity, and solar cycles. Let’s look back at quite recent history of these real climate makers.
What is the impact of ENSO, PDO, and AMO cycles?
During negative or cool phases of PDO and AMO, there are more La Ninas than during the positive phases. This contributes to more cold winters and colder years during negative PDO.
During positive or warm phase of PDO and AMO, there are significantly more El Ninos. This is why there is more warming when the PDO is positive.
Global warming resulted from the near simultaneous occurrence of the warm or positive PDO and the warm or positive AMO. The PDO is a residual or after affect of ENSO events in the Pacific. Both the PDO and AMO effects may have part or all of their origins in and SST cycles and the deep ocean circulation pattern called MOC or Meridional Overturning Circulation which flows through all the major oceans.
The current negative or cool PDO and the La Nina are why we have had all the recent cold weather. The La Nina’s may have directly contributed to the Red River Flooding of 2009 and the recent flooding in Australia and Brazil. For typical effects on North American climate of both AMO and PDO see the following referenced paper http://www.pnas.org/content/101/12/4136.full.pdf+html
Another key factor which will soon [ in 1-4 years] start to contribute to the global cooling of US and Canadian east coasts, the western coast of Europe and the Arctic will be the cooling of the North Atlantic as measured by the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation or AMO. This cooling started after 2005. But the AMO is affected by ENSO cycles, especially El Ninos, so we saw a brief warming of AMO during 2010. Climate history shows that global cooling was strongest when both the PDO andAMO were both simultaneously in the negative or cool mode – like in 1964-1976 and again 1916 to 1923. The AMO has been in the positive or warm mode since 1994. Its cycle is not as predictable as the 60 year PDO cycle, but more recently it followed the pattern of the PDO wait a lag [about a 20-year lag].
Its cycles have been quite variable. During its last cycle it was in the negative or cool mode for 30 years (1964-1994] and its cycle seems to be related to the Meridional Overturning Circulation [MOC] and the changes in the Atlantic Thermohaline Circulation [THC]. There are a number of estimates when it will again go negative. My best estimate is about 2015 based on the most frequent past intervals of around 20 years and the cooler waters that feed the MOC from the Southern Oceans. Once it does go negative, the global temperature anomalies may drop further until about 2030, the Arctic temperature may cool further and the Arctic ice extent should increase again.
What is the latest evidence of global cooling?
Planetary cycles cooling
– PDO has gone negative and cooling since Sept ember 2007 [probably for the next 20 -30 years]
– AMO has peaked and has started its decline again since July 2010. It is anticipated to go negative or cooling by 2015
– SOI has been high positive [around +20] since July [predicts cold weather 5-7 months later]
– AO and NAO are now more frequently at higher negative levels [AO had record monthly low of -4.266 in Feb 2010 and nearly -5 in December 2010]
– Solar activity continues low at near minimum levels
– Most Global mean temperature anomaly data sets show recent dropping anomalies in 2010
– Ocean SSTs are dropping
– Ocean heat content rise has leveled off for the last 6 years [major decline in the North Atlantic Ocean heat content]
World climate cooling
– Europe and Asia have had three cold winters in a row [new low record colds set 2010 in many regions]
– European annual temperature anomalies [land] have been dropping since 2007
– UK [CET] annual temperatures have been dropping since 2006[4years]
– 2010 was the coldest year [[8.83 C] for Central England UK since 1986 or in 14 years [8.74 C]
– UK Winter temperatures have been dropping since 2007 [4 years]. Last two winters were record cold in UK
– North American annual temperatures have been cooling since 2006
– Canadian winters have been cooling since 2001[El Nino winters excluded]
– US had one of its worst winters in 2010[15th coldest since 1895] despite an El Nino
– Record snow or new cold temperatures set in December 2010
– Sweden had coldest December in 110 years,
– UK had coldest December since in 120 years
– Germany had coldest December in 41 years
– Ireland had coldest December since 1881 or in129 years
– Similar cold records set in the Middle East, the Korean peninsula, the Caribbean, U.S. and Canadian Pacific Northwest, China, and India
– 2010 had the 2nd most snow extent for Northern Hemisphere since the1978/1979 winter [2008 had the 3rd highest since 1967]
– 2010 had the highest winter snow extent since 1967 and the extent has been climbing since 2006
– 5 of the 11 highest snow extents for Eurasia have happened since 2003[2003 was the2nd highest since 1967]
What is happening to global mean temperature anomalies?
Let’s do some fact-checking about our current global mean temperature anomaly.
The HADCRUT 3GL GLOBAL temperature anomalyshown in Figure 3 has been flat now for ten years in a row andis actually decreasing at least square trend slope of -0.0026 C per year. IPCC forecast called for an increase of 0.21 C per decade [+.0021C /year] for each of the next two decades [from 2000]. They predicted an anomaly of 0.6 by 2010. The actual is 0.392 C and it is falling.
Something seems very wrong with the IPCC science and their predictions as the actual temperatures are going in the opposite direction to what they predicted despite the CO2 changes and this is only after the first decade of their forecast
Here are the global mean temperatures from 4 different datasets(least square trend line slope Jan-2001 to Oct-2010, last 118 months – Wood for Trees):
Can any sane people detect four thousandths of a degree C change per year and measured it across the entire globe? This is how absurd the global warming alarmism game has gone.
The historical Global Temperature Anomaly [GMTA] can be best visualized to consist of a linear anomaly component rising on the average rate of 0.0059 C per year since 1880] or 0.0045 C /year going back 150 years, according to IPCC figures plus an OSCILLATING component having a sinusoidal-like function with an amplitude of approximately 0.3C These two anomalies add and interact to produce an approximate 60 year cycle with alternating 30 years of cooling with 0.42C temperature drop and 30 years of warming with a 0.77°C temperature rise.
This pattern is somewhat modified by short term rises or drops in temperature due to ENSO cycles (EL NINO raises and La NINA lowers), major volcanic eruptions (VE4+) plus any changes in solar output. These short term disruptions can be significant (+/- by as much 0.40 to 0.5C outside the equation model).
What are the AGW forecasts for the future?
IPCC forecast: 2.4 to 6°C by 2100, or 0.02 to 0.06°C/year, which is 4 to 13 times the current observed rate of rise. Met Office forecast: 4°C by 2060, which is 0.08°C/year [18 times the current observed rate of rise.
What do non-AGW scientists project?
There is a growing list of over 30 different international climate scientists, academics, meteorologists, climate researchers and engineers who have researched this topic and who disagree with AGW and IPCC forecasts of unprecedented warming, and are projecting cooler weather for the next 1-3 decades. Few are even AGW supporters but disagree with warming projected for the next decade (See http://notrickszone.com/2010/12/28/global-cooling-consensus-is-heating-up-cooling-over-the-next-1-to-3-decades/) .Each of the writers gives their views about why they feel global cooling is ahead during the next 10-30 years. These authors expand on the natural factors affecting our future climate especially the impact of the possible reduced solar cycles in the future which this writer did not expand on at this time for brevity sake.
What do past planetary cycles project?
We just peaked on the last warm cycle in the early 2000’s and may have now started a 30 year cool cycle which will drop the global temperature anomaly by 0.42°C by 2030. There will still be some warm El Ninoyears as well but the overall trend will be cooler than the last 30 years. Based on the colder anomaly of 0.06C by 2030, the temperatures are likely to be similar to those of the late 1970’s and early 1980’s. The Hadcrut3 temperature anomaly is as of Sept/2010 0.391°C and it could drop to 0.16°C by 2020 and probably bottom out at about 0.06°C by 2030. The IPCC prediction is for 0.2°C increases for each of the next two decades andthe anomalies to be around 0.8°C by 2020. The two different projections, namely the natural planetary cycle forecast and the IPCC forecast are rapidly diverging.
Figure 4 is a graph of past and projected global mean temperature anomaly rise as presented by Syun-Ichi Akasofu (Founding Director and Professor of Physics, International Arctic Research Center, University of Alaska):
Figure 5 below is taken from a paper called Predictions of Global Man Temperatures & IPCC Projectionsby Girma Orssengo and was previously posted on WUWT. It is a simple mathematical model or over-fit empirical model based on curve fitting for the Global Mean Temperature Anomaly[GMTA] based on Hadcrut3. The equation or model is not calculated from any measurable parameters other than actual past global temperature anomalies. Although it is not calculated from any physics, energy mechanisms or physical realities underlying the equation, it is still an informative graph to some degree. It is based on actual past empirical data [hadcrut3] since 1880.
There is no guarantee that any future projection of this graph will actually materialize [neither is there evidence that the current agw computer models have any credibility yet either]. However, the graph below may still be useful. It is like the “poor man’s “global temperature model and indicates the following;
* The graph is a general climate trend indicator only based on historical past pattern [ is the cycle heading up or down?]
* There exists a repetitive 60 year climate cycle of 30 years of warming followed by 30 years of cooling.
*There could be two cooling cycles before we reach 2100 which may dwarf and over-ride any greenhouse gas warming
*It is probably more useful and accurate in the short term [next 10-30 years]
Figure 6 is a graph showing the possible future GMTA anomalies by year by showing the HISTORIC NATURAL PLANEATARY CYCLES and the middle IPPC projected scenario of 3.0°C rise by 2100]. Some of the other IPCC scenarios see temperatures rising in the range of 2.4 to 5.3°C by 2100 and which would have even steeper rates of temperature rise.
Why there could be less warming in the 21 st century than the past 2O TH Century [quote from the above Girma Orssengo paper]
…the century [20th] started when the oscillating anomaly was at its minimum near 1910 with GMTA of –0.64 deg C and ended when it was at its maximum near 2000 with GMTA of 0.48 deg C, giving a large global warming of 0.48+0.64=1.12 deg C. This large warming was due to the rare events of two global warming phases of.77 deg C each but only one cooling phase of 0.44 deg C occurring in the 20th century, giving a global warming of 2*0.77-0.42=1.12 deg C.
In contrast to the 20th century, from Figure 3, there will be nearly no change in GMTA in the 21st century. This is because the century started when the oscillating anomaly was at its maximum near 2000 with GMTA of 0.48 deg C and will end when it is at its minimum near 2090 with GMTA of 0.41 deg C, giving a negligible change in GMTA of 0.41-0.48=-0.07 deg C. This negligible change in GMTA is due to the rare events of two global cooling phases of 0.42 deg C each but only one warming phase of 0.77 deg C occurring in the 21st century, giving the negligible change in GMTA of 0.77-2*0.42=-0.07 deg C.
Noteworthy is that none of the predictions based on planetary cycles project global temperatures to go up by 2 or 4 or 6 degrees C as forecast by the IPCC or Met Office. These forecasts based on planetary cycles like those of Professor Easterbrook and Professor Syun-Ichi Akasofu predict a rise of less than 1 C by 2100, similar to what happened during the past 20th century.
Also Dr Roy Spencer of University of Alabama and Professor R. Lindzen of MIT feel that the global temperature rise might only be around 1°C by the end of the current century.
During the next 10-30 years we may experience cooler weather rather than unprecedented warming only. It does not mean that all of the next 10 -30 years will be colder, as there will be some warm El Nino years as well, but the overall trend for the next 2-3 decades may be cooler rather than unprecedented warming that AGW supporters claim.
There is no one on this planet who can tell with any certainty what the climate will be like 1 year ahead, next decade and most certainly not the 100 years. The purpose of this article was to show that there are other possible climate futures which do not necessarily require major reduction of carbon dioxide emissions up front. Another version of this climate which is based on natural planetary cycles may manifest much more likely with much more global impact and could occur much sooner than unprecedented global warming. Some of the winters could be quite severe like we saw during the latter part of the 1970’s. The initial observed signs from the real world are that the cooling option has already started in many parts of the globe.
Matt Vooro, P. Eng
Also refer to the following for further information about global cooling option
Hardly! Ed Caryl brings us a classic example of GISS temperature data “adjustment”.
Urban Heat Island at Providence Rhode Island
By Ed Caryl
A recent paper by Ping Zhang and Marc Imhoff of NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (NASA materials found here), pointed out the incredible heat island around some eastern U.S. cities, including Providence, Rhode Island, and Buffalo, New York. This author decided to examine this data, and compare it to the GISSTemp data for the same location.
First, here is the image from the NASA paper, and below it, a heat map image derived from it. Note the temperature scale on the bottom of both images. The temperature scales are from 20 to 40 degrees C. Find the airport in these images.
The airport should the easy to find, it is the hottest place on the map, about 15 degrees hotter than the cool countryside at the edges of the images. This is the Warwick/Providence TF Green State Airport.
Now, where do you suppose the temperature is being measured at this airport?
As at most airports, it is in between the main runway and the taxiway in front of the terminal. Right next to that purple spot on the heat image, the hottest place on the map. After all, the pilots want to know the runway temperature when they plan their landings and takeoffs.
Look at the 2 images below from the U. S. Geological Survey, and Google respectively. The weather instruments are near the navigation beacon (the dark spot, at the arrow, near the center of the USGS photo):
What does GISSTemp say about this location? There are two records in the GISS database: a raw data file, and a corrected file that they use for further processing, such as the U.S. and the global average temperature. The default file is the uncorrected raw data. The URL looks like this:
If you change the digit after the “set=” to a 2, you get the corrected data. Both sets of data are available as text files from a link below the resulting chart. Both sets of data were downloaded and charted below, along with the mathematical difference, the “correction”.
Both sets of data show a warming trend, but the uncorrected data (Providence 1) shows much more warming than Providence 2. The difference is a stepwise correction, warming the past by as much as 1.2 degrees C.
One would think that any correction should be to cool the more recent temperatures to correct for the increasing UHI, but that isn’t what they have done. And, most of the correction was done to data before 1940. This doesn’t make sense either, as most of the infrastructure and population buildup around the airport didn’t happen until WWII and after. Also, the correction amount doesn’t approach the UHI temperature rise measured by Dr Zhang.
Will Drs Hansen and Zhang get together?
Most of the surface temperature data that goes into the averages, whether world-wide, or here in the U. S., come from airports. In the U. S., the number is 121 out of 134 stations. Each of the airports in the images in the NASA paper can be clearly seen as a hot spot. Clearly, some work needs to be done to correct the surface temperature record in light of this information.
I think some people are not aware of, or seriously underestimate, Germany’s contribution to this global warmist movement. It really isn’t scientific at all. It’s purely political. Science (junk science) is just one of the engines they use to propel it.
A reader brought my attention to an interview with Hartmut Grassl at the leftwing newspaper TAZ in Berlin. Grassl is one of the grand-daddies of the German global warming movement.
He was the Director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology (MPI), a member of the Enquête Commission, a main Kyoto Protocal player, director of climate research programs at the World Meteorological Organization, board member of the über-alarmist Munich Re re-insurer and also the Academy of Sciences in Hamburg. He’s kind of like the German version of Stephen Schneider.
Here’s how this seemingly distinguished individual views the growing scepticism (answers from the TAZ interview paraphrased).
On handling sceptics (paraphrased):
Have they ever published anything? In 99% of the cases, that’s already the end of the debate – their literature has nothing to do with science.
What motivates the sceptics (paraphrased)?
Some get money from oil companies. Others are just people who are against everything. I used to try to convince them with scientific arguments, but it was hopeless. When I get e-mails from them they are highly aggressive and filled with exclamation points and sentences in block letters.
On Climategate (paraphrased)
They were released just before Copenhagen. They always get real loud before major conferences. In the USA the sceptics have been traditionally strong; a lot of money flows in part from the oil industry.
On storms and exaggerations (recall he is a board member at Munich Re!):
One also has to say that people who exaggerate climate change are not helpful. Some environmental organisations even claim that climate change leads to more storms.”
Are there any credible sceptics? (paraphrased)
Yes, but very few. Richard Lindzen from MIT in Boston for example: He doesn’t dispute CO2’s greenhouse gas, but doubts the feedback effects. The climate models have probably gotten better as a result of his critique. But, the debate over his objections is pretty much over.
On Henrik Svensmark
Also Svensmark has been refuted a number of times. But scientists are often unable to let go of worn out theories, especially their own.”
What about the geologists?
Of course there have been temperature rises of 4 to 5 °C over periods of 10,000 years. But today we are talking about a warming of 2 to 3°C within 100 years!
There you have it. Sounds like our reader Dana doesn’t he? I mean that in a friendly way. I really like his answer about Svensmark. It’s kind of like the black pot insisting the white porcelain vase is black.
And shall we add a few more exclamation marks to the last statement and put it in block letters as well? Which 100 years is he talking about anyway? The computer model-fantasy century?
Just for the record, so far in this observed century the temperature has risen 0°C. plus or minus a few hundredths.
Expected climate warming: +1.5 to +5.5°C.
This century’s trend so far: – 0.2°C.
I think I’m going to post “This Century’s Trend So Far” every month.
But in the future I will not cheat. and use instead UAH and RSS, which below shows a slight warming of about 0.6°C per century, well below the IPCC scenarios.
Do you remember January 22, 1986? On this day a press conference took place in Bonn at the Hotel am Tulpenfeld. The German Physikalische Gesellschaft e. V. (German Physical Society) invited journalists and presented them with the “Warning of a Pending Climate Catastrophe”. Written on the invitation: ‘The Energy Work Group of the German Physical Society urgently warns in the accompanying document of an imminent threatening climate catastrophe’.
Later that year in August, Der Spiegel came out with its infamous Climate Catastrophe issue whose front cover showed Germany’s beloved Cologne Cathedral landmark half-submerged in sea water. The warning on the cover read: “Ozone Hole – Ice Cap Melt – Greenhouse Effect: Scientists warn of THE CLIMATE CATASTROPHE”.
In its story Der Spiegel wrote:
A consequence of not immediately reducing greenhouse gas emissions will be sea levels rising dramatically and the Cologne Cathedral will find itself in the middle of North Sea water. The Greens reacted spontaneously and produced a paper on September 28, 1986 called: “Overhaul of the Industrial Society“.
The sudden doomsday predictions even prompted the government in 1987 to launch the so-called Enquete Commission with the task “Precautions for Protecting the Earth’s Atmosphere.” And so the panic in Germany had begun. The following year in the United States, James Hansen gave his infamous, sweaty testimony before Congress.
Today, 25 years after Tulpenfeld, and after 15 UN climate conferences with nothing to show, the climate catastrophe still remains elusive. In fact sea level rise has decelerated over the last 5 years, and the 0.5°C is far less than what was projected 25 years ago, and is likely due to natural causes (PDO). Indeed the accumulated cyclone energy reached a record low last year.
“Utopian pipe dreams”
Thüne explains in depth the origins and definitions of the term “climate”, calling concepts like climate catastrophe and climate protection absurd, and reminds us that “climate” is an abstract term, whose currently accepted definition hardly goes beyond a simplistic bureaucratic meaning, and is naively defined as the average of 30 years of weather.
Thüne slams attempts to limit global temperature rise to 2°C, or to steer weather so that it complies with the specifications of a “climate” that is derived by averaging an arbitrary 30-year period of weather. He calls such efforts “utopian pipe dreams”.
In view of our paleo-climatic knowledge that there have been numerous temperature fluctuations during the earth’s history, and picking a random 30-year period as the standard for the quality of the climate is an expression of unprecedented ignorance of nature.”
Even more absurd, says Thüne, is Chancellor Angela Merkel’s concept of implementing: “global climate justice“. Thüne adds:
No matter what is tried, man will never be able to stop the always ongoing process of weather-climate change.”
The German Physical Society, with its climate warning, has outed itself as an anti-scientific lobbyist for special interest groups.”
The sun, not CO2, drives the climate
Thüne clearly thinks the focus on CO2 is grossly misplaced, saying solar and orbital factors play the biggest role by far. Thüne writes (emphasis added):
Suppressing this knowledge and making threats with a climate catastrophe is unforgivable, and is to be tagged as scientifically criminal. The German Physical Society has to know that the climate that it uses as a threat and for spreading fear, does not exist. That climate is an abstract term, a feature or, as Al Gore correctly says, a phantom.
Thüne explains how many people do not even understand the solar constant, which is not constant at all. Radiation is not constant at 1368 watts/m².
In reality, because of the earth’s varying distance from the sun during its orbit, the ‘solar constant’ is between 1320 and 1416 W/m2. That means that at the start of January the earth receives 96 W/m2 more in solar radiation then it does at the beginning of July.”
Thüne reminds that the solar climate on the sun indeed impacts the climate on the earth.
It always comes down to the angle of the sun rays striking the solar energy-absorbing earth’s surface. Every physicist or natural scientist has to know that.
Unfortunately, many are paid handsomely to ignore that, and to focus on CO2.
========================================================= Dr. Wolfgang Peter Thüne, retired, was a meteorologist at the German Weather Service (DWD), meteorologist for ZDF television from 1971-1986. Received a Dr. phil. summa cum laude in Sociology, Political Sciences and Geography in 1986, was a representative of the Konrad-Adenauer-Foundation for Brazil in Rio de Janeiro from 1986-1990, and then served in the Mininistry of Environment.
There’s nothing wrong with a friendly bet among gentlemen. I’d like to think that Rob Honeycutt and NoTricksZone had a difference of opinion, and so we decided to cordially shake hands on it like two gentlemen would. No one tried to drag the other through the mud.
But what we see at Joe Romm’s Climate Progress here is something totally different. Irked by growing public skepticism and statements made by Joe Bastardi on why he thinks the globe is starting to cool, Romm just couldn’t take it anymore. Frustrated, he lashes out.
Like a schoolyard bully who has just lost his best marbles, he calls Joe Bastardi out to the schoolyard to settle it once and for all, publicly taunting and singling out Joe Bastardi to meet him out there to duke it out in a climate bet. Romm has clearly reduced himself to a sort of schoolyard climate punk, thinking he can drag people through the mud and settle things that way. Clearly he has long exhausted his professional means.
Romm, you blew it; you’ve shown you got no class acting like that. Twelve-year olds can act like that, but not professionals.
Maybe some other punk in your neighborhood will show up for your classless bet, but Bastardi isn’t coming for it. He’s got something maybe you had long ago – CLASS.
Joe Bastardi has left his response at his European Website here. And he’s right; this is not about meeting out in the schoolyard to settle scores. Things will be settled in time, scientifically, professionally. That’s why I tell the cock-sure warmists…be patient, things will unfold. Qué será, será.
And Bastardi asks what I think is the key question:
But what will you do if it goes down? Will you actually stop your obsession with destroying those that disagree with you and shutting down debate? Can we get your committment to that? If it goes up, I will be forced to become an advocate for your position, which if I am proven wrong, I will. I rather doubt the vast majority of people opposed to me will open their eyes even if we went into a mini ice age, as some have opined. In the end, there is the difference. I am not guided by blind faith, but faith formed from the foundation of facts on past events. If the facts prove me wrong, then I will be guided by what I know to be is right.”
The answer to the above question depends on how much class these people have. So far, it looks like they don’t have much. Joe says that if the temperature rises in the next 10 years, he’ll change his position, not because of losing, but because of what obsrvation and science say. But Bastardi accepts the challenge, like a gentleman with class would.
But at the very least, the challenge has been accepted, and you can keep your money. What you need to do is be rich enough in your heart to open your mind to other ideas, and if need be, like me, change if you are proven wrong over the coming years.
Given what I have experienced so far, it’s much easier to believe the globe will cool than people actually admit it is doing so, no matter what.”
I hope that Joe Bastardi didn’t let Romm get under his skin too much. His reply was too long, meaning he spent too much time responding to a classless person that deserves to be ignored.
Overall in this preliminary wrestling match, Bastardi just pinned his opponent in about 6 seconds flat.
A reader has pointed out that Rob Honeycutt and NoTricksZone appear to have started a trend: Climate Bets For Charity. Here at NTZ, the warmists have entered in a bet (for charity) with the coolists on whether the 2011-2020 decade will be warmer or cooler.
Now other blogs are following. It’s the new motto now spreading in climate science:
Either put up, or shut up!”
The latest bet out there is from the outspoken Joe Romm of Climate Progress, who offers to bet Joe Bastardi on temperature and Arctic ice melt. Glad to see he wants to settle it that way, and not through a wrestling match (though the result may very well end up being the same).
Romm’s proposal is very similar to our bet here at NTZ.
In the temperature bet, Romm wants to use the 2000-2009 period instead of the 2001-2010, thus moving the high temperature year of 2010 into his column. His bet is also for charity and insists using the average of RSS and UAH – as we are doing.
But Joe Romm is adding an escape clause: If 2 Pinatubo-size volcanoes erupt, then the bet is off. Such confidence!
I haven’t checked to see what Joe Bastardi’s reaction is. I think he’ll accept both bets. Go for it Bastardi! Unfortunately it’s going to take 10 years to shut this Romm loudmouth up.
Joe Romm seems awfully cocky. I wonder if he has the guts to make a sea level bet. That’s the issue where warmist blow the most hot air, yet are most afraid of touching. What do you say Romm? 5 mm/year over the next decade? That’s way below what Gore and the PIK in Germany are forcasting.
Don’t hold your breath.
Another blog has also got into the climate betting for charity action, but on a more modest scale. Georg Hoffmann here is betting 100 € that 2011 Arctic sea ice extent will reach a record low (NSIDC). Also an attractive bet for coolists.
If all this keeps up, then it won’t be necessary to make up a global warming scare for redistributing global wealth. Looks like the betting is going to care of that itself.
The usual German media outlets today feature the usual scientists who are out in force spreading the dreck science that global warming is leading to more weather extremes, and La Ninas.
These “scientists” are from the usual source: the alarmist Potsdam Institute For Climate Impact Research (PIK). Amazingly, one of these scientists even claims that the current La Nina is warm, and caused by global warming.
The interviews come on the heels of Der Spiegel’s report late last week on a paper appearing in Science that shows just the opposite has been true in history: Warming leads to milder climates, which lead to human prosperity.
German Stern magazine did an interview with PIK scientist Anders Levermann, who is a lead author on the IPCC 5th Assessment Report on the subject of sea level. Here’s his comment on the media-ballyhooed weather extremes we’ve been hearing about:
Certain is: In a rapidly warming world, we will experience more frequent stronger extreme weather events like flooding, droughts and high winds.”
Everything is caused by global warming – even the “record snowfalls in Germany”. Other than sci-fi reports from reinsurer Munich Re, I have yet to see one scientific report that links these weather events to global warming. In fact Accumulated Cyclone Energy last year reached a record low.
On the Australian floods, Levermann attributes them to warm waters around Australia, in combination with the current La Nina, which he says:
Together with the La Niña climate phenomena, which provides a warming of natural origin, the warmer water temperatures lead to the worst rainfalls in a 100 years. The higher ocean temperatures in turn are very likely a consequence of global warming.”
[Update:To be fair, Levermann here most likely meant: The higher ocean temperatures near Australia (and not the Pacific in general) in turn are very likely a consequence of global warming. I guess he wants to say the La Nina pushed the warm water to Australia, and this water is warmer than usual because of warming. The statement he makes above is very misleading, to say the least].
On weather extremes in Germany this winter, Levermann serves up this observation (fantasy):
In any case one has to say that the snowfall of last winter was unusual. Also this winter was a record winter when compared with the past 100 years. Such 100-year records are tumbling one after the other, and it’s going to happen even more often in the future.”
Rahmstorf says there’s a connection (but he doesn’t see it yet)
The planet is getting hotter and wetter. 2010, together with 2005, was the warmest year since measurements began, and it was also the one with the most precipitation. Also the increase in devastating floods can be explained by global warming says Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute For Climate Impact Research (PIK).”
Everything today can be attributed to global warming. The theory is unfalsifiable. If it happens, it’s because of global warming. Anf if it doesn’t happen (droughts), that too is because of global warming.
The Handelsblatt then asks Rahmstorf if the floods in Australia and Brazil are not the results of the La Nina? Here’s Rahmstorf’s reply:
Of course these events are, in the forefront, traced back to La Niña. But the change between El Niño and La Niña is a cyclic phenomena occurring every three to seven years. But that does not explain why this year records which have stood for 100 years have been broken. There are experts who believe that the fluctuations between El Niño and La Niña are more severe. Right now we are having an Extreme-La-Niña. In 1998 we had the most extreme El Niño.”
His colleague Levermann suggests it’s because of global warming. Note that Rahmstorf cites some experts who say so. But what does Rahmstorf himself believe? Handelsblatt:
But I do believe that it’s still too early to robustly show there is indeed a change.”
This has been typical of Rahmstorf and PIK lately, having it both ways. Notice how he starts by claiming that the extremes are due to global warming, and that the ENSOs are getting more extreme too. But then he says he can’t robustly show a connection between global warming and ENSO extremes. It’s there, it just can’t be shown.
Just another day at the PIK. Doing all it can to link everything to global warming.