Archive for August, 2008

Earth’s warming since the Little Ice Age

08/31/2008

“An almost linear global temperature increase of about 0.5C/100 years (~1F/100 years) seems to have started at least one hundred years before 1946, when manmade CO2 in the atmosphere began to increase rapidly. …

One possible cause of the linear increase may be Earth’s continuing recovery from the Little Ice Age (1400-1800). This trend (0.5C/100 years) should be subtracted from the temperature data during the last 100 years [0.6C increase] when estimating the manmade contribution to the present global warming trend.” “Is Earth still recovering from the Little Ice Age?”, IceCap, What’s New & Cool, August 28.

This leaves an upper limit of only 0.1C possibly due to CO2 increase in the 20th century from 280 to 380 ppmv. This in turn means, because of the logarithmic dependence of temperature on concentration, a doubling of CO2 to 560 ppmv might possibly lead to an upper limit on additional warming of only 0.1C.

This is not a crisis, this is not even a problem, in fact it is beneficial since CO2 will increase agricultural production and green the Earth.

Earth’s recovery from the Little Ice Age is a result of changes in solar cycles, just as the Little Ice Age itself was caused by the Maunder Minimum.

View Earth’s recovery from the Little Ice Age: Mendenhall Glacier; Ilulissat Glacier.

Advertisements

GOP platform plank on "global warming"

08/31/2008

“A final draft of the Republican Party platform includes a first-ever plank on global warming that says human activity has contributed to climate change.

“The same human activity that has brought freedom and opportunity to billions has also increased the amount of carbon in the atmosphere,” the draft reads. “Increased atmospheric carbon has a warming effect on the earth.”” “GOP Platform Draft: Global Warming is Man-Made

True, but the effect is trivial compared to natural effects (see next post above). It’s not broke, don’t fix it.

Oceanic and atmospheric cycles determine extent of arctic sea ice

08/30/2008

I’m posting this now because of the recent hysteria over arctic sea ice, even though it pre-dates the advent of this blog. You will recall this NASA press release from last October explaining that the loss of arctic sea ice last summer was not due to “global warming”:

“Nghiem said the rapid decline in winter perennial ice the past two years was caused by unusual winds. “Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic,” he said. When that sea ice reached lower latitudes, it rapidly melted in the warmer waters. “The winds causing this trend in ice reduction were set up by an unusual pattern of atmospheric pressure that began at the beginning of this century,” Nghiem said.” “NASA Examines Arctic Sea Ice Changes Leading to Record Low in 2007

Then came this NASA press release the following month:

“A team of NASA and university scientists has detected an ongoing reversal in Arctic Ocean circulation triggered by atmospheric circulation changes that vary on decade-long time scales. …

“Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation in the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by global warming,” said Morison. …

“The winter of 2006-2007 was another high Arctic Oscillation year and summer sea ice extent reached a new minimum,” he said. “It is too early to say, but it looks as though the Arctic Ocean is ready to start swinging back to the counterclockwise circulation pattern of the 1990s again.”” “NASA Sees Arctic Ocean Circulation Do an About-Face

Ocean temperature determines atmospheric temperature

08/30/2008

“Evidence is presented that the recent worldwide land warming has occurred largely in response to a worldwide warming of the oceans rather than as a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) over land. Atmospheric model simulations of the last half-century with prescribed observed ocean temperature changes, but without prescribed GHG changes, account for most of the land warming. …

Indeed we find compelling evidence from several atmospheric general circulation model simulations without prescribed GHG, aerosol, and solar forcing variations (Table 1) that the continental warming in Fig. 1a is largely a response to the warming of the oceans rather than directly due to GHG increases over the continents (Table 2). …

In summary, our results emphasize the significant role of remote oceanic influences, rather than the direct local effect of anthropogenic radiative forcings, in the recent continental warming.” “Oceanic Influences on Recent Continental Warming

Ocean temperature determines atmospheric CO2 concentration

08/30/2008


“In the past, sea temperatures were obtained from measurements by passing ships in the sea lanes of the world. It is only in the past three decades that more accurate data on sea surface temperatures has become available. The analysis of this recent data by the author shows that:

— the oceans regulate the composition of the
atmosphere;

— the influence on climate of human-generated carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere is negligible; and

— global climate change has natural causes.

The oceans and the atmosphere are quite shallow in relation to the vast surface area of the oceans. The interaction of the atmosphere and the oceans is essentially a phenomenon of the ocean surface. It would be expected that there would be almost a direct correlation between levels of CO2 in the air and the global mean sea surface temperatures, and that is the case. …

The chart shows that the CO2 levels in the atmosphere and global average sea surface temperatures are locked together. The correlation is so firm it is reasonable to include it as a condition in the computer simulations used to study climate change. …

Global average sea surface temperatures are now starting to fall. It is reasonable to contemplate that sea temperatures may gradually decline towards the average of the previous century. That would be a drop of about 0.35˚C. That would mean that atmospheric CO2 levels would also similarly decline towards the average of the past century.” “Carbon dioxide and the oceans

More of the same crap from the CCSP

08/30/2008

“A perversion of science” — Pat Michaels

Steve McIntyre notes that the report features Mann’s infamous creation, the thoroughly debunked “hockey stick” temperature graph, on p. 2.

“A new all-time low for NOAA” — Joe D’Aleo

“As a result we do not have a unified synthesis product but a document that promotes a particular narrow perspective on climate science based on the prejudices of the Editors” — Roger Pielke, Sr.

“This comment therefore focuses on one fundamental issue that must be corrected if the report is to have any credibility. Data integrity problems contaminate the historical record that is the underpinning of the entire report.” — Joe D’Aleo

“The CCSP established a rigorous process for the writing and editing of its reports in order to limit the ability of political appointees to massage the report in desired directions. But apparently the CCSP review process has left a gaping hole for a single non-governmental, non-technical, non-expert to shape the report in politically desirable ways.

On an issue as high politicized as climate change, where bloggers and others are paying close attention, the inclusion of a doctored image, the cribbing of an old, misleading figure, and the inclusion of an editor’s personal views in the guise of a science assessment is remarkable, even in a draft for public comment. Even if the excuse is plain old sloppiness, the report is a big fat black eye for the world’s leading climate science program.” — Roger Pielke, Jr.

“To say the least, I’m shocked that NCDC’s leadership has changed from being the nation’s record keeper of weather and climatic data, to being what appears to me now as an advocacy group. The draft document reads more like a news article in many places than it does a scientific document, and unlike a scientific document, it has a number of what I would call “emotionally based graphics” in it that have nothing to do with the science.” — Anthony Watts

A striking feature of the Report is a unilateral presentation of information, with an almost exclusive concentration on greenhouse gases, and particularly on the man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, as the dominant cause of the Modern Warm Period. The Report totally ignores studies which disagree with the man-made warming hypothesis.” — Zbigniew Jaworowski

“If this nation is to develop an effective climate change policy it needs to be grounded on sound science. Asking the public to comment on documents it has not seen is about as far from the scientific method as one can possibly get. The public deserves scientific information if it is to validate this report.” — Bill Kovacs, U.S. Chamber of Commerce

“This … CCSP report is Co-Chaired by Thomas R. Karl, Jerry Melillo, and Thomas C. Peterson with the Senior Editor and Synthesis Team Coordinator Susan J. Hassol. These are the same individuals who have led past CCSP reports … with Tom Karl and Tom Peterson deliberately excluding scientific perspectives that differ from their viewpoints … Susan Hassol was writer of the HBO Special “Too Hot Not to Handle”. This HBO show clearly had a specific perspective on the climate change issue, and lacked a balanced perspective. The HBO Executive Producer was Ms. Laurie David. As a result, this report continues the biased narrow perspective of the earlier CCSP reports …

Thus the conclusion is that the US CCSP Program has failed in it’s mission. These reports have become state and in-bred, since the same people are repeating their perspective on the climate issue. …

As recommended in the Climate Science weblog … we need new scientists who are not encumbered by their prior advocacy positions on climate change to lead the preparation of balanced climate assessment reports.

The response of the media when this report is released in its final form will also be enlightening. Those reporters who parrot the synthesis without questioning its obvious bias and conflict of interest should be identified as sycophants. Those who adequately communicate the diversity of scientifically supported disagreements with the report should be lauded for the true journalist that they are.” — Roger Pielke, Sr.

Apparently NOAA, NCDC, and CCSP got the message. They have yanked the report: “Climate Report Held Following Exposure“; “Skeptics win one! NOAA/NCDC to hold the CCSP report“.

David Archibald on solar minimum and global cooling

08/30/2008


“It is apparent that Solar Cycle 23 is a long one. I agree with Jan Janssens’ spotless day-derived result of month of minimum being July 2009. If Solar Cycle 24 is as weak as I think it will be, then it will have a slow ramp up – much slower than the late 19th century cycles used for comparison.

This leads to another point. Solar cycles generally have four years of rise and seven years of decline. Solar Cycle 5 (the first half of the Dalton Minimum) had 6.9 years of rise and 5.4 years of decline. If Solar Cycle 24 mimics Solar Cycle 4 in this way, then year of maximum will be 2016, four years after the latest estimate from NASA’s solar prediction panel. …

Each day’s passing of anaemic Solar Cycle 24 sunspot activity reinforces the imminent cooling.

The above graph is for a 13 year Solar Cycle 23. If it turns out to be 13.6 years, that will result in a further 0.4 degree decline.” “Progression of Solar Cycle 23/24 Minimum

The "Greenland is melting!" scare debunked

08/30/2008


Recently the New York Times published an alarmist article by Stephan Ferris, “Ice Free“, warning of the melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet and accompanying sea level rise of 23 feet. Debunked here by Joe D’Aleo: “Greenland Again

Marc Morano's round-up of global cooling articles

08/30/2008

Global Cooling: Global Warming has Ended – Many Scientists Say

Oceanic and atmospheric cycles determine extent of arctic sea ice

08/30/2008

I’m posting this now because of the recent hysteria over arctic sea ice, even though it pre-dates the advent of this blog. You will recall this NASA press release from last October explaining that the loss of arctic sea ice last summer was not due to “global warming”:

“Nghiem said the rapid decline in winter perennial ice the past two years was caused by unusual winds. “Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic,” he said. When that sea ice reached lower latitudes, it rapidly melted in the warmer waters. “The winds causing this trend in ice reduction were set up by an unusual pattern of atmospheric pressure that began at the beginning of this century,” Nghiem said.” “NASA Examines Arctic Sea Ice Changes Leading to Record Low in 2007

Then came this NASA press release the following month:

“A team of NASA and university scientists has detected an ongoing reversal in Arctic Ocean circulation triggered by atmospheric circulation changes that vary on decade-long time scales. …

“Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation in the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by global warming,” said Morison. …

“The winter of 2006-2007 was another high Arctic Oscillation year and summer sea ice extent reached a new minimum,” he said. “It is too early to say, but it looks as though the Arctic Ocean is ready to start swinging back to the counterclockwise circulation pattern of the 1990s again.”” “NASA Sees Arctic Ocean Circulation Do an About-Face