Dr Norman Page March 7, 2012 at 11:54 pm Permalink
As an Earth scientist I am appalled by the whole tone of this piece. You say “Frankly, the sentiment vacillated between utter disgust and sheer anger. ” You sound like a bunch of priests being appalled at hearing heresy which questions your received truth. In the piece there is nothing but unsubstantiated assertions and appeals to authority not one reference to data of any sort. That you think of yourselves as scientists shows the extent of your self delusion.There is currently a difference in approach to climate science between the sceptical Baconian – empirical appraoch solidly based on data and the Platonic IPCC approach – based on theoretical assumptions built into climate models.The question arises from the recent Muller – BEST furore -What is the best metric for a global measure of and for discussion of global warming or cooling. For some years I have suggested in various web comments and on my blog that the Hadley Sea Surface Temperature data is the best metric for the following reasons . (Anyone can check this data for themselves – Google Hadley Cru — scroll down to SST GL and check the annual numbers.)1. Oceans cover about 70% of the surface.2. Because of the thermal inertia of water – short term noise is smoothed out.3. All the questions re UHI, changes in land use local topographic effects etc are simply sidestepped.4. Perhaps most importantly – what we really need to measure is the enthalpy of the system – the land measurements do not capture this aspect because the relative humidity at the time of temperature measurement is ignored. In water the temperature changes are a good measure of relative enthalpy changes.5. It is very clear that the most direct means to short term and decadal length predictions is through the study of the interactions of the atmospheric sytems ,ocean currents and temperature regimes – PDO ,ENSO. SOI AMO AO etc etc. and the SST is a major measure of these systems.Certainly the SST data has its own problems but these are much less than those of the land data.
What does the SST data show? The 5 year moving SST temperature average shows that the warming trend peaked in 2003 and a simple regression analysis shows an eight year global SST cooling trend since then .The data shows warming from 1900 – 1940 ,cooling from 1940 to about 1975 and warming from 1975 – 2003. CO2 levels rose monotonically during this entire period.There has been no net warming since 1997 – 15 years with CO2 up 7.9% and no net warming. Anthropogenic CO2 has some effect but our knowledge of the natural drivers is still so poor that we cannot accurately estimate what the anthropogenic CO2 contribution is. Since 2003 CO2 has risen further and yet the global temperature trend is negative. This is obviously a short term on which to base predictions but all statistical analyses of particular time series must be interpreted in conjunction with other ongoing events and in the context of declining solar magnetic field strength and activity – to the extent of a possible Dalton or Maunder minimum and the negative phase of the Pacific Decadal a global 20 – 30 year cooling spell is more likely than a warming trend.
It is clear that the IPCC models , on which AL Gore based his entire anti CO2 scare campaign ,have been wrongly framed. and their predictions have failed completely.This paradigm was never well founded ,but ,in recent years, the entire basis for the Climate and Temperature trends and predictions of dangerous warming in the 2007 IPCC Ar4 Summary for Policy Makers has been destroyed. First – this Summary is inconsistent with the AR4 WG1 Science section. It should be noted that the Summary was published before the WG1 report and the editors of the Summary , incredibly ,asked the authors of the Science report to make their reports conform to the Summary rather than the other way around. When this was not done the Science section was simply ignored..I give one egregious example – there are many others.Most of the predicted disasters are based on climate models.Even the Modelers themselves say that they do not make predictions . The models produce projections or scenarios which are no more accurate than the assumptions,algorithms and data , often of poor quality,which were put into them. In reality they are no more than expensive drafting tools to produce power point slides to illustrate the ideas and prejudices of their creators. The IPCC science section AR4 WG1 section 8.6.4 deals with the reliability of the climate models .This IPCC science section on models itself concludes:
“Moreover it is not yet clear which tests are critical for constraining the future projections,consequently a set of model metrics that might be used to narrow the range of plausible climate change feedbacks and climate sensitivity has yet to be developed”
What could be clearer. The IPCC itself says that we don’t even know what metrics to put into the models to test their reliability.- i.e. we don’t know what future temperatures will be and we can’t yet calculate the climate sensitivity to anthropogenic CO2.This also begs a further question of what mere assumptions went into the “plausible” models to be tested anyway. Nevertheless this statement was ignored by the editors who produced the Summary. Here predictions of disaster were illegitimately given “with high confidence.” in complete contradiction to several sections of the WG1 science section where uncertainties and error bars were discussed.
A key part of the AGW paradigm is that recent warming is unprecedented and can only be explained by anthropogenic CO2. This is the basic message of the iconic “hockey stick ” However hundreds of published papers show that the Medieval warming period and the Roman climatic optimum were warmer than the present. The infamous “hide the decline ” quote from the Climategate Emails is so important. not so much because of its effect on one graph but because it shows that the entire basis if dendrothermometry is highly suspect. A complete referenced discussion of the issues involved can be found in “The Hockey Stick Illusion – Climategate and the Corruption of science ” by AW Montford.
Temperature reconstructions based on tree ring proxies are a total waste of time and money and cannot be relied on.There is no evident empirical correlation between CO2 levels and temperature, In all cases CO2 changes follow temperature changes not vice versa.It has always been clear that the sun is the main climate driver. One new paper ” Empirical Evidence for a Celestial origin of the Climate Oscillations and its implications “by Scafetta from Duke University casts new light on this. http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/scafetta-JSTP2.pdf Humidity, and natural CO2 levels are solar feedback effects not prime drivers. Recent experiments at CERN have shown the possible powerful influence of cosmic rays on clouds and climate.Solar Cycle 24 will peak in a year or two thus masking the cooling to some extent, but from 2014 on, the cooling trend will become so obvious that the IPCC will be unable to continue ignoring the real world – even now Hansen and Trenberth are desperately seeking ad hoc or epicycle type fixes to locate the missing heat.You might want to open your closed minds by checkinghttp://impactofcc.blogspot.com/2012/02/richard-s-lindzen-reconsidering-climate.htmlor http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/unified_theory_of_climate_poster_nikolov_zeller.pdfIn my first term as an undergrad at Oxford the value of geologists holding multiple working hypotheses was impressed upon me – y’all would do well to keep that thought in mind
Saturday, March 17, 2012
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Comment on Dot Earth 1/4/12
Andy - At various times over the last year you have appeared to consider climate science more objectively - yet here you go again with the notion of a "fundamental Republican science problem " . The Hadley Sea Surface Temperature data is the best metric for climate change . The 5 year moving SST temperature average shows that the warming trend peaked in 2003 and a simple regression analysis shows a nine year global SST cooling trend since then ..The data shows warming from 1900 – 1940 ,cooling from 1940 to about 1975 and warming from 1975 – 2003. CO2 levels rose monotonically during this entire period.There has been no net warming since 1997 – 14 years with CO2 up 7.9% and no net warming. Anthropogenic CO2 has some effect but our knowledge of the natural drivers is still so poor that we cannot accurately estimate what the anthropogenic CO2 contribution is. Since 2003 CO2 has risen further and yet the global temperature trend is negative. This is obviously a short term on which to base predictions but all statistical analyses of particular time series must be interpreted in conjunction with other ongoing events and in the context of declining solar magnetic field strength and activity – to the extent of a possible Dalton or Maunder minimum and the negative phase of the Pacific Decadal a global 20 – 30 year cooling spell is more likely than a warming trend. Please see http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/Scafetta_models_comparison_ATP.pdf IPCC models are junk science.
Thursday, December 1, 2011
Comment on Tom Nelson post re Read Me Harry file 12/1/11
Here is part of an article written in 2000 by the Tim M(itchell)who wrote some of the CRU data base programs Harry refers to in the famous Harry Readme email
"Climate change and the ChristianIs global warming the end of the world or media scare-mongering?Global warming is often seen as either the end of the world as we know it, or as mere media scare-mongering. Which is right?Could it be that I, a respectable Christian, am partly to blame? Might I need to change the way I live? Before we search for climate changes, we ought first to understand what it is that might be changing.The climate system is made up of the earth's atmosphere, oceans, ice, vegetation, and streams. It is both beautiful and complex. Humans have a mandate to forecast its behaviour and use it (Genesis 1:28). However, we feel in awe of its destructive potential, seen in such things as hurricanes and floods, which are part of the curse inflicted upon the earth following the Fall (Genesis 3.17). Moreover, control and certainty belong to God alone (Job 38-41). So there is a possibility that our actions may affect the climate system in unexpected ways. It was claimed in the 1970s that the earth might be about to enter an ice age. The evidence for this was minimal, but the decades of painstaking research that have followed the 1970s have unveiled both the natural variability in the climate system, and the dramatic effects of human actions.To assemble a record of global climate changes over the last 150 years we use instrumental records, such as rain gauges and thermometers. Since it is only recently that such instruments have been widely used, to reconstruct climate changes prior to the 19th century we are compelled to use indirect sources of information, such as tree ring widths and ice core layers.Using this mixture of data, we have assembled global temperature records for the last millennium. There is much natural variability throughout the records, but there is also a 20th-century rise in global temperature that is unprecedented in its magnitude and rate of change. Is it merely a coincidence that this global warming has come at the same time as the huge expansion in human population and industrialisation that we have seen in the 20th century?..........Firstly, now that we know the consequences, should we continue to pollute? Secondly, given that we may be responsible for hurting our fellow humans, should we help them? To my mind, the Scriptures are clear. Humans are stewards, not masters, of God's creation (Genesis 2.15), and one day we will have to account for our stewardship (Luke 19.11-27). While it is not wrong to change the atmosphere, it is wrong to change it more than we need, certainly if it is at the expense of poor people. Making money at the expense of the weak is condemned (Luke 20.47), and to assist the weak is praised (James 1.27). Yet continuing as we are will make us richer at the expense of the poor. Given that we have stolen from the poor of the world by our pollution, we might learn from Zacchaeus (Luke 19.8). In our selfish world, each state pursues its own interests........The government urges us to reduce our energy usage so that we may indulge ourselves in other ways, but we have a higher motive for reducing waste (1 Timothy 6.17-19). Although I have yet to see any evidence that climate change is a sign of Christ's imminent return, human pollution is clearly another of the birth pangs of creation, as it eagerly awaits being delivered from the bondage of corruption (Romans. 19-22).Tim Mitchell works at the Climactic Research Unit, UEA, Norwich, and is a member of South Park Evangelical Church."Sounds like his motivations are similar to Sir John Houghton.Did this conciously affect the way he assembled the data bases? Who can say?
Sir John Houghton is a key promoter of the Cause and has used his top positions in the Met Office and IPCC to propagandise the warmist viewpoint. He is a religious evangelist and has said eg.
"Christians and other religious people believe that we've been put on the earth to look after it. Creation is not just important to us, we believe also it is important to God and that the rest of creation has an importance of its own... we are destroying forests, important forests. When I say "we" I mean "we" the human race of which we are part. We are party to the destruction, we allow it to happen, in fact it helps to make us richer. We really need to take our responsibility as ‘gardeners' more seriously"
Wiki says
He was brought up as a Calvinistic Methodist in the Presbyterian Church of Wales and has remained a strong Christian throughout his life and sees science and Christianity as strengthening each other and believes strongly in the connection between Christianity and environmentalism. Houghton's evangelical Christianity combined with his scientific background has made him a significant voice in evangelical Christian circles. Winning the support of Richard Cizik one of the most prominent Evangelical lobbyists in the United States is a notable example of how Houghton has had a significant effect. He is currently an elder at Aberdovey Presbyterian Church.......
Houghton is currently Honorary Scientist of the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research at the Meteorological Office; Honorary Scientist at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory; a Trustee of the Shell Foundation; and Chairman of the John Ray Initiative.[3]
Previously Sir John was
a Member of the UK Government Panel on Sustainable Development (1994–2000)
Chairman, Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (1992–98)
Chairman or Co-Chairman, Scientific Assessment Working Group, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (1988–2002)
Director General (later Chief Executive), UK Meteorological Office (1983–91)
Director Appleton, Science and Engineering Research Council (also Deputy Director, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory)(1979–83);
Professor of Atmospheric Physics, Oxford University (1976–83).
As can be seen by this brief career summary from Wiki he has been a key influence in the IPCC warmist paradigm.
"Climate change and the ChristianIs global warming the end of the world or media scare-mongering?Global warming is often seen as either the end of the world as we know it, or as mere media scare-mongering. Which is right?Could it be that I, a respectable Christian, am partly to blame? Might I need to change the way I live? Before we search for climate changes, we ought first to understand what it is that might be changing.The climate system is made up of the earth's atmosphere, oceans, ice, vegetation, and streams. It is both beautiful and complex. Humans have a mandate to forecast its behaviour and use it (Genesis 1:28). However, we feel in awe of its destructive potential, seen in such things as hurricanes and floods, which are part of the curse inflicted upon the earth following the Fall (Genesis 3.17). Moreover, control and certainty belong to God alone (Job 38-41). So there is a possibility that our actions may affect the climate system in unexpected ways. It was claimed in the 1970s that the earth might be about to enter an ice age. The evidence for this was minimal, but the decades of painstaking research that have followed the 1970s have unveiled both the natural variability in the climate system, and the dramatic effects of human actions.To assemble a record of global climate changes over the last 150 years we use instrumental records, such as rain gauges and thermometers. Since it is only recently that such instruments have been widely used, to reconstruct climate changes prior to the 19th century we are compelled to use indirect sources of information, such as tree ring widths and ice core layers.Using this mixture of data, we have assembled global temperature records for the last millennium. There is much natural variability throughout the records, but there is also a 20th-century rise in global temperature that is unprecedented in its magnitude and rate of change. Is it merely a coincidence that this global warming has come at the same time as the huge expansion in human population and industrialisation that we have seen in the 20th century?..........Firstly, now that we know the consequences, should we continue to pollute? Secondly, given that we may be responsible for hurting our fellow humans, should we help them? To my mind, the Scriptures are clear. Humans are stewards, not masters, of God's creation (Genesis 2.15), and one day we will have to account for our stewardship (Luke 19.11-27). While it is not wrong to change the atmosphere, it is wrong to change it more than we need, certainly if it is at the expense of poor people. Making money at the expense of the weak is condemned (Luke 20.47), and to assist the weak is praised (James 1.27). Yet continuing as we are will make us richer at the expense of the poor. Given that we have stolen from the poor of the world by our pollution, we might learn from Zacchaeus (Luke 19.8). In our selfish world, each state pursues its own interests........The government urges us to reduce our energy usage so that we may indulge ourselves in other ways, but we have a higher motive for reducing waste (1 Timothy 6.17-19). Although I have yet to see any evidence that climate change is a sign of Christ's imminent return, human pollution is clearly another of the birth pangs of creation, as it eagerly awaits being delivered from the bondage of corruption (Romans. 19-22).Tim Mitchell works at the Climactic Research Unit, UEA, Norwich, and is a member of South Park Evangelical Church."Sounds like his motivations are similar to Sir John Houghton.Did this conciously affect the way he assembled the data bases? Who can say?
Sir John Houghton is a key promoter of the Cause and has used his top positions in the Met Office and IPCC to propagandise the warmist viewpoint. He is a religious evangelist and has said eg.
"Christians and other religious people believe that we've been put on the earth to look after it. Creation is not just important to us, we believe also it is important to God and that the rest of creation has an importance of its own... we are destroying forests, important forests. When I say "we" I mean "we" the human race of which we are part. We are party to the destruction, we allow it to happen, in fact it helps to make us richer. We really need to take our responsibility as ‘gardeners' more seriously"
Wiki says
He was brought up as a Calvinistic Methodist in the Presbyterian Church of Wales and has remained a strong Christian throughout his life and sees science and Christianity as strengthening each other and believes strongly in the connection between Christianity and environmentalism. Houghton's evangelical Christianity combined with his scientific background has made him a significant voice in evangelical Christian circles. Winning the support of Richard Cizik one of the most prominent Evangelical lobbyists in the United States is a notable example of how Houghton has had a significant effect. He is currently an elder at Aberdovey Presbyterian Church.......
Houghton is currently Honorary Scientist of the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research at the Meteorological Office; Honorary Scientist at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory; a Trustee of the Shell Foundation; and Chairman of the John Ray Initiative.[3]
Previously Sir John was
a Member of the UK Government Panel on Sustainable Development (1994–2000)
Chairman, Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (1992–98)
Chairman or Co-Chairman, Scientific Assessment Working Group, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (1988–2002)
Director General (later Chief Executive), UK Meteorological Office (1983–91)
Director Appleton, Science and Engineering Research Council (also Deputy Director, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory)(1979–83);
Professor of Atmospheric Physics, Oxford University (1976–83).
As can be seen by this brief career summary from Wiki he has been a key influence in the IPCC warmist paradigm.
Saturday, November 19, 2011
Comments on IPCC SREX Summary for Policy Makers
Here is a comment I made on the SciGuy Houston Chronicle site and a subsequent exchange on the same thread.
November 18, 2011 at 4:00 pm
It’s amazing that the IPCC is finally paying attention to the real world. The most important thing they say is
“Uncertainty in the sign of projected changes in climate extremes over the coming two to three decades is relatively large because climate change signals are expected to be relatively small compared to natural climate variability”.
Note uncertainty in the “sign” means they think the earth may even be cooling- but they still shy away from using the c word.I have suggested in various web comments that the Hadley Sea Surface Temperature data is the best metric for climate change . The 5 year moving SST temperature average shows that the warming trend peaked in 2003 and a simple regression analysis shows an eight year global SST cooling trend since then .The 5 year moving SST temperature average shows that the warming trend peaked in 2003 and a simple regression analysis shows an eight year global SST cooling trend since then .The data shows warming from 1900 – 1940 ,cooling from 1940 to about 1975 and warming from 1975 – 2003. CO2 levels rose monotonically during this entire period.There has been no net warming since 1997 – 14 years with CO2 up 7% and no net warming. Anthropogenic CO2 has some effect but our knowledge of the natural drivers is still so poor that we cannot accurately estimate what the anthropogenic CO2 contribution is. Since 2003 CO2 has risen further and yet the global temperature trend is negative. This is obviously a short term on which to base predictions but all statistical analyses of particular time series must be interpreted in conjunction with other ongoing events and in the context of declining solar magnetic field strength and activity – to the extent of a possible Dalton or Maunder minimum and the negative phase of the Pacific Decadal a global 20 – 30 year cooling spell is more likely than a warming trend.This seems to be now at least compatible with the IPCC.As to Texas weather simple empirical observations show that1) the PDO has an approximate 30 year cycle2) During the last period of negative PDOs from 1940 – 75 global temperatures fell 0.25 – 0.3 degrees3) The PDO has been negative for the last few years. During this phase La Ninas become more frequent El Ninos less frequent. The empirical weather system changes mean that the Jet stream has a more meridional component with the formation of blocking highs, greater weather variability because of sharper temperature gradients across the edges of the highs bringing e.g.more tornadoes and snowricanes to the eastern USA more snow to the western mountains hence more spring flooding in the interior and droughts in Texas.4. The solar magnetic field strength decline since 2004 is unprecedented in the satellite age – and suggests the possible disappearance of sunspots in the next 5 – 10 years as last seen in the little ice age and the Maunder minimum.http://www.sott.net/articles/show/164199-Livingston-and-Penn-paper-Sunspots-may-vanish-by-2015-My forecast is not based on such an extreme event but it remains a possibility.5 .The SST 5 year moving average rolled over circa 2003and regression analysis since then shows a decline which would amount to 0.28 in 30 years.It’s really about time that the Chronicle published an op ed along the lines of the above comments.
Glenn Beak says:
November 18, 2011 at 11:55 pm
“Uncertainty in the sign of projected changes in climate extremes over the coming two to three decades is relatively large because climate change signals are expected to be relatively small compared to natural climate variability”.Note uncertainty in the “sign” means they think the earth may even be cooling- but they still shy away from using the c word.
No, it means that while the Earth is warming, it is a long term climate trend that will show a lot of variation. It means your “eight year global SST cooling trend” is well within expected random variation.
The solar magnetic field strength decline since 2004 is unprecedented in the satellite age – and suggests the possible disappearance of sunspots in the next 5 – 10 years as last seen in the little ice age and the Maunder minimum.
The paper you and Watts mention came out in 2006. It used data mostly collected between 2000 (when sunspot cycle 23 peaked) and 2005. With a straight face they claim “A linear extrapolation of thesetrends suggests that few sunspots will be visible after 2015.” The monthly sunspot count in 2004 ranged from 18 to 51. Last month 88 sunspots were observed.
Dr Norman Page says:
November 19, 2011 at 3:22 pm
Glenn you are still making the same gross scientific error of judgement or deliberate misrepresentation that was made by IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers previous to this latest one ( thru AR4) This was the assumption that they or you knew or know what the natural variability was/is.. You cannot possibly say that the ” “eight year SST global cooling trend” is well within expected random variation ” if you dont know what the expected range of random variation is.To say nothing of the fact that to say a variation is random also implies that you don’t know what the cause is and can’t be bothered to find out.In AR4 for example the Summary for Policymakers is inconsistent with the AR4 WG1 Science section. You should note that the Summary was published before the WG1 report and the editors of the Summary , incredibly ,asked the authors of the Science report to make their reports conform to the Summary rather than the other way around. When this was not done the Science section was simply ignored.. I give one egregious example – there are many others.Most of the predicted disasters are based on climate models.Even the Modelers themselves say that they do not make predictions . The models produce projections or scenarios which are no more accurate than the assumptions,algorithms and data , often of poor quality,which were put into them. In reality they are no more than expensive drafting tools to produce power point slides to illustrate the ideas and prejudices of their creators. The IPCC science section AR4 WG1 section 8.6.4 deals with the reliability of the climate models .This IPCC science section on models itself concludes:
“Moreover it is not yet clear which tests are critical for constraining the future projections,consequently a set of model metrics that might be used to narrow the range of plausible climate change feedbacks and climate sensitivity has yet to be developed”
What could be clearer. The IPCC AR4 science section itself says that we don’t even know what metrics to put into the models to test their reliability.- i.e. we don’t know what future temperatures will be and we can’t yet calculate the climate sensitivity to anthropogenic CO2.This also begs a further question of what mere assumptions went into the “plausible” models to be tested anyway. Nevertheless this statement was ignored by the editors who produced the Summary. Here predictions of disaster were illegitimately given “with high confidence.” in complete contradiction to several sections of the WG1 science section where uncertainties and error bars were discussed.
The importance of the new report is that finally the IPCC recognises that the uncertainties of climate prediction are much greater than they previously acknowledged. They are now in the embarassing position of having to acknowledge that the whole UN CO2 scare is built on very uncertain foundations and they somehow need to as quietly as possible change their position.The first thing they do is to change the definition of climate change (Global Warming no longer seems a convenient term to use) They say :
“several of the definitions used in this Special Report differ inbreadth or focus from those used in the AR4 and other IPCC reports.]
Climate Change: A change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g., by using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer. Climate change may be due to naturalinternal processes or external forcings, or to persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use.2[INSERT FOOTNOTE 2: This definition differs from that in the United Nations FrameworkConvention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), where climate change is defined as: “a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed overcomparable time periods.” The UNFCCC thus makes a distinction between climate change attributable to human activities altering the atmospheric composition, and climate variability attributable to natural causes.]
In other words where previously climate change meant change due to human activity now it means change due to human and natural causes . As previously quoted in the original post they now say that they can’t distinguish these causes for the next 30 years.The rest of their predictions re extreme events are simply trivial and tautologous speculation – they simply say that if warming continues, certain extreme events are more likely to occur. If they don’t know what is happening in the next 30 years they certainly don’t know what will happen in th next hundred.As to the Pennington sun paper – first Pennington updates the measurements on an ongoing basis . He is not measuring sunspot numbers as your answer would imply . He measures the trends in Umbral intensity Umbral Magnetic field strength. If you check post #604 on this thread ( page 41 Sunspot Magnetism Livingstone and Penn) message linkhttp://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread you will see that his original trends have continued as originally forecast up to the present. The key thing anyway in this matter is not the sunspot number but the magnetic field strength and its effect on the solar wind. The idea is that if the Umbral intensity trend increases ie temperature gets hotter- then by 2015 the spot will be indistinguishable from the background ( not non existent ) as in the Maunder minimum when earths climate cooled.
November 18, 2011 at 4:00 pm
It’s amazing that the IPCC is finally paying attention to the real world. The most important thing they say is
“Uncertainty in the sign of projected changes in climate extremes over the coming two to three decades is relatively large because climate change signals are expected to be relatively small compared to natural climate variability”.
Note uncertainty in the “sign” means they think the earth may even be cooling- but they still shy away from using the c word.I have suggested in various web comments that the Hadley Sea Surface Temperature data is the best metric for climate change . The 5 year moving SST temperature average shows that the warming trend peaked in 2003 and a simple regression analysis shows an eight year global SST cooling trend since then .The 5 year moving SST temperature average shows that the warming trend peaked in 2003 and a simple regression analysis shows an eight year global SST cooling trend since then .The data shows warming from 1900 – 1940 ,cooling from 1940 to about 1975 and warming from 1975 – 2003. CO2 levels rose monotonically during this entire period.There has been no net warming since 1997 – 14 years with CO2 up 7% and no net warming. Anthropogenic CO2 has some effect but our knowledge of the natural drivers is still so poor that we cannot accurately estimate what the anthropogenic CO2 contribution is. Since 2003 CO2 has risen further and yet the global temperature trend is negative. This is obviously a short term on which to base predictions but all statistical analyses of particular time series must be interpreted in conjunction with other ongoing events and in the context of declining solar magnetic field strength and activity – to the extent of a possible Dalton or Maunder minimum and the negative phase of the Pacific Decadal a global 20 – 30 year cooling spell is more likely than a warming trend.This seems to be now at least compatible with the IPCC.As to Texas weather simple empirical observations show that1) the PDO has an approximate 30 year cycle2) During the last period of negative PDOs from 1940 – 75 global temperatures fell 0.25 – 0.3 degrees3) The PDO has been negative for the last few years. During this phase La Ninas become more frequent El Ninos less frequent. The empirical weather system changes mean that the Jet stream has a more meridional component with the formation of blocking highs, greater weather variability because of sharper temperature gradients across the edges of the highs bringing e.g.more tornadoes and snowricanes to the eastern USA more snow to the western mountains hence more spring flooding in the interior and droughts in Texas.4. The solar magnetic field strength decline since 2004 is unprecedented in the satellite age – and suggests the possible disappearance of sunspots in the next 5 – 10 years as last seen in the little ice age and the Maunder minimum.http://www.sott.net/articles/show/164199-Livingston-and-Penn-paper-Sunspots-may-vanish-by-2015-My forecast is not based on such an extreme event but it remains a possibility.5 .The SST 5 year moving average rolled over circa 2003and regression analysis since then shows a decline which would amount to 0.28 in 30 years.It’s really about time that the Chronicle published an op ed along the lines of the above comments.
Glenn Beak says:
November 18, 2011 at 11:55 pm
“Uncertainty in the sign of projected changes in climate extremes over the coming two to three decades is relatively large because climate change signals are expected to be relatively small compared to natural climate variability”.Note uncertainty in the “sign” means they think the earth may even be cooling- but they still shy away from using the c word.
No, it means that while the Earth is warming, it is a long term climate trend that will show a lot of variation. It means your “eight year global SST cooling trend” is well within expected random variation.
The solar magnetic field strength decline since 2004 is unprecedented in the satellite age – and suggests the possible disappearance of sunspots in the next 5 – 10 years as last seen in the little ice age and the Maunder minimum.
The paper you and Watts mention came out in 2006. It used data mostly collected between 2000 (when sunspot cycle 23 peaked) and 2005. With a straight face they claim “A linear extrapolation of thesetrends suggests that few sunspots will be visible after 2015.” The monthly sunspot count in 2004 ranged from 18 to 51. Last month 88 sunspots were observed.
Dr Norman Page says:
November 19, 2011 at 3:22 pm
Glenn you are still making the same gross scientific error of judgement or deliberate misrepresentation that was made by IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers previous to this latest one ( thru AR4) This was the assumption that they or you knew or know what the natural variability was/is.. You cannot possibly say that the ” “eight year SST global cooling trend” is well within expected random variation ” if you dont know what the expected range of random variation is.To say nothing of the fact that to say a variation is random also implies that you don’t know what the cause is and can’t be bothered to find out.In AR4 for example the Summary for Policymakers is inconsistent with the AR4 WG1 Science section. You should note that the Summary was published before the WG1 report and the editors of the Summary , incredibly ,asked the authors of the Science report to make their reports conform to the Summary rather than the other way around. When this was not done the Science section was simply ignored.. I give one egregious example – there are many others.Most of the predicted disasters are based on climate models.Even the Modelers themselves say that they do not make predictions . The models produce projections or scenarios which are no more accurate than the assumptions,algorithms and data , often of poor quality,which were put into them. In reality they are no more than expensive drafting tools to produce power point slides to illustrate the ideas and prejudices of their creators. The IPCC science section AR4 WG1 section 8.6.4 deals with the reliability of the climate models .This IPCC science section on models itself concludes:
“Moreover it is not yet clear which tests are critical for constraining the future projections,consequently a set of model metrics that might be used to narrow the range of plausible climate change feedbacks and climate sensitivity has yet to be developed”
What could be clearer. The IPCC AR4 science section itself says that we don’t even know what metrics to put into the models to test their reliability.- i.e. we don’t know what future temperatures will be and we can’t yet calculate the climate sensitivity to anthropogenic CO2.This also begs a further question of what mere assumptions went into the “plausible” models to be tested anyway. Nevertheless this statement was ignored by the editors who produced the Summary. Here predictions of disaster were illegitimately given “with high confidence.” in complete contradiction to several sections of the WG1 science section where uncertainties and error bars were discussed.
The importance of the new report is that finally the IPCC recognises that the uncertainties of climate prediction are much greater than they previously acknowledged. They are now in the embarassing position of having to acknowledge that the whole UN CO2 scare is built on very uncertain foundations and they somehow need to as quietly as possible change their position.The first thing they do is to change the definition of climate change (Global Warming no longer seems a convenient term to use) They say :
“several of the definitions used in this Special Report differ inbreadth or focus from those used in the AR4 and other IPCC reports.]
Climate Change: A change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g., by using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer. Climate change may be due to naturalinternal processes or external forcings, or to persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use.2[INSERT FOOTNOTE 2: This definition differs from that in the United Nations FrameworkConvention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), where climate change is defined as: “a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed overcomparable time periods.” The UNFCCC thus makes a distinction between climate change attributable to human activities altering the atmospheric composition, and climate variability attributable to natural causes.]
In other words where previously climate change meant change due to human activity now it means change due to human and natural causes . As previously quoted in the original post they now say that they can’t distinguish these causes for the next 30 years.The rest of their predictions re extreme events are simply trivial and tautologous speculation – they simply say that if warming continues, certain extreme events are more likely to occur. If they don’t know what is happening in the next 30 years they certainly don’t know what will happen in th next hundred.As to the Pennington sun paper – first Pennington updates the measurements on an ongoing basis . He is not measuring sunspot numbers as your answer would imply . He measures the trends in Umbral intensity Umbral Magnetic field strength. If you check post #604 on this thread ( page 41 Sunspot Magnetism Livingstone and Penn) message linkhttp://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread you will see that his original trends have continued as originally forecast up to the present. The key thing anyway in this matter is not the sunspot number but the magnetic field strength and its effect on the solar wind. The idea is that if the Umbral intensity trend increases ie temperature gets hotter- then by 2015 the spot will be indistinguishable from the background ( not non existent ) as in the Maunder minimum when earths climate cooled.
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Climate Metric - and current trends.
There is currently a difference in approach to climate science between the sceptical Baconian - empirical appraoch solidly based on data and the Platonic IPCC approach - based on theoretical assumptions built into climate models.The question arises from the recent Muller - BEST furore -What is the best metric for a global measure of and for discussion of global warming or cooling. For some years I have suggested in various web comments and on my blog that the Hadley Sea Surface Temperature data is the best metric for the following reasons . (Anyone can check this data for themselves - Google Hadley Cru -- scroll down to SST GL and check the annual numbers.)
1. Oceans cover about 70% of the surface.
2. Because of the thermal inertia of water – short term noise is smoothed out.
3. All the questions re UHI, changes in land use local topographic effects etc are simply sidestepped.
4. Perhaps most importantly – what we really need to measure is the enthalpy of the system – the land measurements do not capture this aspect because the relative humidity at the time of temperature measurement is ignored. In water the temperature changes are a good measure of relative enthalpy changes.
5. It is very clear that the most direct means to short term and decadal length predictions is through the study of the interactions of the atmospheric sytems ,ocean currents and temperature regimes – PDO ,ENSO. SOI AMO AO etc etc. and the SST is a major measure of these systems.Certainly the SST data has its own problems but these are much less than those of the land data.
What does the SST data show? The 5 year moving SST temperature average shows that the warming trend peaked in 2003 and a simple regression analysis shows an eight year global SST cooling trend since then .The data shows warming from 1900 - 1940 ,cooling from 1940 to about 1975 and warming from 1975 – 2003. CO2 levels rose monotonically during this entire period.There has been no net warming since 1997 - 15 years with CO2 up 7.9% and no net warming. Anthropogenic CO2 has some effect but our knowledge of the natural drivers is still so poor that we cannot accurately estimate what the anthropogenic CO2 contribution is. Since 2003 CO2 has risen further and yet the global temperature trend is negative. This is obviously a short term on which to base predictions but all statistical analyses of particular time series must be interpreted in conjunction with other ongoing events and in the context of declining solar magnetic field strength and activity – to the extent of a possible Dalton or Maunder minimum and the negative phase of the Pacific Decadal a global 20 – 30 year cooling spell is more likely than a warming trend.
It is clear that the IPCC models , on which AL Gore based his entire anti CO2 scare campaign ,have been wrongly framed. and their predictions have failed completely.This paradigm was never well founded ,but ,in recent years, the entire basis for the Climate and Temperature trends and predictions of dangerous warming in the 2007 IPCC Ar4 Summary for Policy Makers has been destroyed. First - this Summary is inconsistent with the AR4 WG1 Science section. It should be noted that the Summary was published before the WG1 report and the editors of the Summary , incredibly ,asked the authors of the Science report to make their reports conform to the Summary rather than the other way around. When this was not done the Science section was simply ignored..
I give one egregious example - there are many others.Most of the predicted disasters are based on climate models.Even the Modelers themselves say that they do not make predictions . The models produce projections or scenarios which are no more accurate than the assumptions,algorithms and data , often of poor quality,which were put into them. In reality they are no more than expensive drafting tools to produce power point slides to illustrate the ideas and prejudices of their creators. The IPCC science section AR4 WG1 section 8.6.4 deals with the reliability of the climate models .This IPCC science section on models itself concludes:
"Moreover it is not yet clear which tests are critical for constraining the future projections,consequently a set of model metrics that might be used to narrow the range of plausible climate change feedbacks and climate sensitivity has yet to be developed"
What could be clearer. The IPCC itself says that we don't even know what metrics to put into the models to test their reliability.- i.e. we don't know what future temperatures will be and we can't yet calculate the climate sensitivity to anthropogenic CO2.This also begs a further question of what mere assumptions went into the "plausible" models to be tested anyway. Nevertheless this statement was ignored by the editors who produced the Summary. Here predictions of disaster were illegitimately given "with high confidence." in complete contradiction to several sections of the WG1 science section where uncertainties and error bars were discussed.
A key part of the AGW paradigm is that recent warming is unprecedented and can only be explained by anthropogenic CO2. This is the basic message of the iconic "hockey stick " However hundreds of published papers show that the Medieval warming period and the Roman climatic optimum were warmer than the present. The infamous "hide the decline " quote from the Climategate Emails is so important. not so much because of its effect on one graph but because it shows that the entire basis if dendrothermometry is highly suspect. A complete referenced discussion of the issues involved can be found in "The Hockey Stick Illusion - Climategate and the Corruption of science " by AW Montford.
Temperature reconstructions based on tree ring proxies are a total waste of time and money and cannot be relied on.
There is no evident empirical correlation between CO2 levels and temperature, In all cases CO2 changes follow temperature changes not vice versa.It has always been clear that the sun is the main climate driver. One new paper " Empirical Evidence for a Celestial origin of the Climate Oscillations and its implications "by Scafetta from Duke University casts new light on this. http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/scafetta-JSTP2.pdf Humidity, and natural CO2 levels are solar feedback effects not prime drivers. Recent experiments at CERN have shown the possible powerful influence of cosmic rays on clouds and climate.
Solar Cycle 24 will peak in a year or two thus masking the cooling to some extent, but from 2014 on, the cooling trend will become so obvious that the IPCC will be unable to continue ignoring the real world - even now Hansen and Trenberth are desperately seeking ad hoc fixes to locate the missing heat.
1. Oceans cover about 70% of the surface.
2. Because of the thermal inertia of water – short term noise is smoothed out.
3. All the questions re UHI, changes in land use local topographic effects etc are simply sidestepped.
4. Perhaps most importantly – what we really need to measure is the enthalpy of the system – the land measurements do not capture this aspect because the relative humidity at the time of temperature measurement is ignored. In water the temperature changes are a good measure of relative enthalpy changes.
5. It is very clear that the most direct means to short term and decadal length predictions is through the study of the interactions of the atmospheric sytems ,ocean currents and temperature regimes – PDO ,ENSO. SOI AMO AO etc etc. and the SST is a major measure of these systems.Certainly the SST data has its own problems but these are much less than those of the land data.
What does the SST data show? The 5 year moving SST temperature average shows that the warming trend peaked in 2003 and a simple regression analysis shows an eight year global SST cooling trend since then .The data shows warming from 1900 - 1940 ,cooling from 1940 to about 1975 and warming from 1975 – 2003. CO2 levels rose monotonically during this entire period.There has been no net warming since 1997 - 15 years with CO2 up 7.9% and no net warming. Anthropogenic CO2 has some effect but our knowledge of the natural drivers is still so poor that we cannot accurately estimate what the anthropogenic CO2 contribution is. Since 2003 CO2 has risen further and yet the global temperature trend is negative. This is obviously a short term on which to base predictions but all statistical analyses of particular time series must be interpreted in conjunction with other ongoing events and in the context of declining solar magnetic field strength and activity – to the extent of a possible Dalton or Maunder minimum and the negative phase of the Pacific Decadal a global 20 – 30 year cooling spell is more likely than a warming trend.
It is clear that the IPCC models , on which AL Gore based his entire anti CO2 scare campaign ,have been wrongly framed. and their predictions have failed completely.This paradigm was never well founded ,but ,in recent years, the entire basis for the Climate and Temperature trends and predictions of dangerous warming in the 2007 IPCC Ar4 Summary for Policy Makers has been destroyed. First - this Summary is inconsistent with the AR4 WG1 Science section. It should be noted that the Summary was published before the WG1 report and the editors of the Summary , incredibly ,asked the authors of the Science report to make their reports conform to the Summary rather than the other way around. When this was not done the Science section was simply ignored..
I give one egregious example - there are many others.Most of the predicted disasters are based on climate models.Even the Modelers themselves say that they do not make predictions . The models produce projections or scenarios which are no more accurate than the assumptions,algorithms and data , often of poor quality,which were put into them. In reality they are no more than expensive drafting tools to produce power point slides to illustrate the ideas and prejudices of their creators. The IPCC science section AR4 WG1 section 8.6.4 deals with the reliability of the climate models .This IPCC science section on models itself concludes:
"Moreover it is not yet clear which tests are critical for constraining the future projections,consequently a set of model metrics that might be used to narrow the range of plausible climate change feedbacks and climate sensitivity has yet to be developed"
What could be clearer. The IPCC itself says that we don't even know what metrics to put into the models to test their reliability.- i.e. we don't know what future temperatures will be and we can't yet calculate the climate sensitivity to anthropogenic CO2.This also begs a further question of what mere assumptions went into the "plausible" models to be tested anyway. Nevertheless this statement was ignored by the editors who produced the Summary. Here predictions of disaster were illegitimately given "with high confidence." in complete contradiction to several sections of the WG1 science section where uncertainties and error bars were discussed.
A key part of the AGW paradigm is that recent warming is unprecedented and can only be explained by anthropogenic CO2. This is the basic message of the iconic "hockey stick " However hundreds of published papers show that the Medieval warming period and the Roman climatic optimum were warmer than the present. The infamous "hide the decline " quote from the Climategate Emails is so important. not so much because of its effect on one graph but because it shows that the entire basis if dendrothermometry is highly suspect. A complete referenced discussion of the issues involved can be found in "The Hockey Stick Illusion - Climategate and the Corruption of science " by AW Montford.
Temperature reconstructions based on tree ring proxies are a total waste of time and money and cannot be relied on.
There is no evident empirical correlation between CO2 levels and temperature, In all cases CO2 changes follow temperature changes not vice versa.It has always been clear that the sun is the main climate driver. One new paper " Empirical Evidence for a Celestial origin of the Climate Oscillations and its implications "by Scafetta from Duke University casts new light on this. http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/scafetta-JSTP2.pdf Humidity, and natural CO2 levels are solar feedback effects not prime drivers. Recent experiments at CERN have shown the possible powerful influence of cosmic rays on clouds and climate.
Solar Cycle 24 will peak in a year or two thus masking the cooling to some extent, but from 2014 on, the cooling trend will become so obvious that the IPCC will be unable to continue ignoring the real world - even now Hansen and Trenberth are desperately seeking ad hoc fixes to locate the missing heat.
Sunday, November 14, 2010
EPA Emissions Guidelines
Texas has rightly refused to revise its permitting rules for power plants and large industrial plants to include CO2 as required by new EPA guidelines. These guidelines are the thin end of the wedge by which the ultra left Obama Administration is attempting to ultimately control essentially all US economic activity by using the UN - IPCC anthropogenic CO2 global warming hypothesis as a means to scare the citizenry into giving up their economic freedom and creating essentially a socialist economy.
There is no evidence or empirical data that anthropogenic CO2 will cause damaging climate change in the foreseeable future. In fact the Hadley Center (UK) Sea Surface Temperature data show that warming peaked in 2003. The earth is now in a natural cooling phase controlled by declining Solar activity for at least the next 30 years.
The EPA policy is based on the 2007 IPCC AR4 Summary for Policy Makers. This was a political document and was written before the Science section of the same report on which it was supposedly founded . Most of the predicted disasters are based on climate models.Even the Modelers themselves say that thy do not make predictions . The models produce projections or scenarios which are no more accurate than the assumptions,algorithms and data , often of poor quality,which were put into them. In reality they are no more than expensive drafting tools to produce power point slides to illustrate the ideas and prejudices of their creators. The IPCC science section AR4 WG1 section 8.6.4 deals with the reliability of the climate models .This IPCC science section on models concludes:
"Moreover it is not yet clear which tests are critical for constraining the future projections,consequently a set of model metrics that might be used to narrow the range of plausible climate change feedbacks and climate sensitivity has yet to be developed"
What could be clearer. The IPCC itself says that we don't even know what metrics to put into the models to test their reliability.- i.e. we don't know what future temperatures will be and we can't yet calculate the climate sensitivity to anthropogenic CO2.This also begs a further question of what mere assumptions went into the "plausible" models to be tested anyway. Nevertheless this statement was ignored by the political hacks who produced the Summary. Here predictions of disaster were illegitimately given "with high confidence." in complete contradiction to several sections of the WG1 science section where uncertainties and error bars were discussed. These doomsday scenarios were then seized upon by the main stream media , talking heads and chattering classes and above all by those Western Politicians who saw them as a wonderful tool for grabbing economic control and central government power for themselves.
The Waxman - Markey bill showed where these ideas would lead. Government climate police disguised as real estate appraisers would decide all real property evaluations based on Federal climate control based rules. The price and mix of all energy and thus all goods and services would be determined by the government to achieve whatever objectives it saw fit. Truly an Orwellian Brave New World.
Britain and Europe are well on the way to creating this nightmare state.The new U.S Congress must strip the EPA administrators of their clearly unconstitutional authority and return such dictatorial powers to the elected reprentatives of the people. Governor Perry and Texas must stand firm for freedom economic liberty and data based science.
There is no evidence or empirical data that anthropogenic CO2 will cause damaging climate change in the foreseeable future. In fact the Hadley Center (UK) Sea Surface Temperature data show that warming peaked in 2003. The earth is now in a natural cooling phase controlled by declining Solar activity for at least the next 30 years.
The EPA policy is based on the 2007 IPCC AR4 Summary for Policy Makers. This was a political document and was written before the Science section of the same report on which it was supposedly founded . Most of the predicted disasters are based on climate models.Even the Modelers themselves say that thy do not make predictions . The models produce projections or scenarios which are no more accurate than the assumptions,algorithms and data , often of poor quality,which were put into them. In reality they are no more than expensive drafting tools to produce power point slides to illustrate the ideas and prejudices of their creators. The IPCC science section AR4 WG1 section 8.6.4 deals with the reliability of the climate models .This IPCC science section on models concludes:
"Moreover it is not yet clear which tests are critical for constraining the future projections,consequently a set of model metrics that might be used to narrow the range of plausible climate change feedbacks and climate sensitivity has yet to be developed"
What could be clearer. The IPCC itself says that we don't even know what metrics to put into the models to test their reliability.- i.e. we don't know what future temperatures will be and we can't yet calculate the climate sensitivity to anthropogenic CO2.This also begs a further question of what mere assumptions went into the "plausible" models to be tested anyway. Nevertheless this statement was ignored by the political hacks who produced the Summary. Here predictions of disaster were illegitimately given "with high confidence." in complete contradiction to several sections of the WG1 science section where uncertainties and error bars were discussed. These doomsday scenarios were then seized upon by the main stream media , talking heads and chattering classes and above all by those Western Politicians who saw them as a wonderful tool for grabbing economic control and central government power for themselves.
The Waxman - Markey bill showed where these ideas would lead. Government climate police disguised as real estate appraisers would decide all real property evaluations based on Federal climate control based rules. The price and mix of all energy and thus all goods and services would be determined by the government to achieve whatever objectives it saw fit. Truly an Orwellian Brave New World.
Britain and Europe are well on the way to creating this nightmare state.The new U.S Congress must strip the EPA administrators of their clearly unconstitutional authority and return such dictatorial powers to the elected reprentatives of the people. Governor Perry and Texas must stand firm for freedom economic liberty and data based science.
Friday, June 18, 2010
Thirty Year Climate Forecast
.
The geologic record shows clearly that the sun is the main climate driver. The Milankovitch multi-millennial orbital cycles in NH insolation are firmly established in the record as are the Schwab and deVries cycles. Other millennial and decadal variations in solar activity are present in the record. TSI is not the only or even the best indicator of solar activity – variations in EUV radiation and the GCR flux (via cloud formation and earth’s albedo) seem to be more important on decadal and centennial scales . Earth’s climate is the result of complex resonances between all these solar cycles with the lunar declination cycles and endogenous earth processes.
At this time the sun has entered a quiet phase with a dramatic drop in solar magnetic field strength since 2004. This suggests the likelihood of a cooling phase on earth with Solar Cycles 21, 22 ,23 equivalent to Solar Cycles 2,3,4, and the delayed Cycle 24 comparable with Cycle 5 so that a Dalton type minimum is probable.
It is now clear that the patterns of the earth’s ocean and atmospheric current systems provide the most immediate guide to the current state of the climate when climate is considered as the result of the complex processes discussed above and these systems provide the best clues as to l developments over the next 20 – 30 years. Beyond that time span predictions are currently of little practical value. The small effect of anthropogenic CO2 cannot be calculated with any useful accuracy until we can better quantify the effect of the natural variations.
The IPCC CO2 -anthropogenic warming projections are based on models. AR4 WG1 section 8.6.4 deals with the reliability of the projections.This IPCC science section on models concludes
"Moreover it is not yet clear which tests are critical for constraining the future projections,consequently a set of model metrics that might be used to narrow the range of plausible climate change feedbacks and climate sensitivity has yet to be developed"
What could be clearer. The IPCC itself says that we dont even know what metrics to put into the models to test their reliability.- ie we don't know what future temperatures will be and we can't calculate the climate sensitivity to CO2.This also begs a further question of what mere assumptions went into the "plausible" models to be tested anyway.
Of particular note in climate forecasting is the negative phase of the PDO which began perhaps five years ago and may well last for another 25years. This suggests that La Ninas will be more frequent than El Ninos during this time span. A general earth cooling is thus more likely as was the case from 1940 to 1970 when similar conditions prevailed. Concurrent changes in the Arctic Oscillation suggest a pattern of meridional atmospheric flow will be more common than the more latitudinal flows of warmer periods.
Policymakers may wish to note the following possible effects on earth’s climate for the next 20 – 30 years. A cooler world with lower SSTs usually means a dryer world. Thus droughts will be more likely in for example east Africa with possible monsoon failures in India. In California the PDO will mean less rainfall with more forest fires in the south. However in the Cascades and Northern Sierras snowpack could increase since more of the rain could occur as snow. Northern Hemisphere growing seasons will be shorter with occasional early and late frosts and drought in the US corn belt and in Asia repeats of the harsh Mongolian and Chinese winters of 2009 – 10 . In Europe cold snowy winters and cool cloudy summers will be more frequent .
There will be a steeper temperature gradient from the tropics to the poles so that violent thunderstorms with associated flooding and tornadoes will be more frequent in the USA, At the same time the jet stream will swing more sharply North – South thus local weather in the Northern hemisphere in particular will be generally more variable with occasional more northerly heat waves and more southerly unusually cold snaps. In the USA hurricanes may strike the east coast with greater frequency in summer and storm related blizzards more common in winter.
The southern continents will be generally cooler with more frequent droughts and frost and snowin winter,
Arctic and Antarctic sea ice may react differentially to an average global cooling. We might expect sea ice to increase in the Antarctic but in the NH the Arctic Oscillation while bringing cooler temperatures further south may also occasionaly bring warmer air into the Arctic with possible relative loss of sea ice in that areaduring those years.
The most general advice is that world food production will be subject to occasional serious severe restriction because of cold and drought. The use of food crops for biofuels should be abandoned and stockpiles built up for possible lean times ahead.. Northern cities and transportation systems should prepare for more frequent heavy snow and ice storms.
There is no threat from the burning of fossil fuels for the forseeable future, indeed an increase in CO2 would positively help in feeding the burgeoning population.
For the next 20 years climate science should be devoted to improving and enlarging the entire climate data base in particular with regard to solar data of all kinds. No climate model runs should be made until 2025 by which time the inputs will hopefully be more relevant to the real world.
The geologic record shows clearly that the sun is the main climate driver. The Milankovitch multi-millennial orbital cycles in NH insolation are firmly established in the record as are the Schwab and deVries cycles. Other millennial and decadal variations in solar activity are present in the record. TSI is not the only or even the best indicator of solar activity – variations in EUV radiation and the GCR flux (via cloud formation and earth’s albedo) seem to be more important on decadal and centennial scales . Earth’s climate is the result of complex resonances between all these solar cycles with the lunar declination cycles and endogenous earth processes.
At this time the sun has entered a quiet phase with a dramatic drop in solar magnetic field strength since 2004. This suggests the likelihood of a cooling phase on earth with Solar Cycles 21, 22 ,23 equivalent to Solar Cycles 2,3,4, and the delayed Cycle 24 comparable with Cycle 5 so that a Dalton type minimum is probable.
It is now clear that the patterns of the earth’s ocean and atmospheric current systems provide the most immediate guide to the current state of the climate when climate is considered as the result of the complex processes discussed above and these systems provide the best clues as to l developments over the next 20 – 30 years. Beyond that time span predictions are currently of little practical value. The small effect of anthropogenic CO2 cannot be calculated with any useful accuracy until we can better quantify the effect of the natural variations.
The IPCC CO2 -anthropogenic warming projections are based on models. AR4 WG1 section 8.6.4 deals with the reliability of the projections.This IPCC science section on models concludes
"Moreover it is not yet clear which tests are critical for constraining the future projections,consequently a set of model metrics that might be used to narrow the range of plausible climate change feedbacks and climate sensitivity has yet to be developed"
What could be clearer. The IPCC itself says that we dont even know what metrics to put into the models to test their reliability.- ie we don't know what future temperatures will be and we can't calculate the climate sensitivity to CO2.This also begs a further question of what mere assumptions went into the "plausible" models to be tested anyway.
Of particular note in climate forecasting is the negative phase of the PDO which began perhaps five years ago and may well last for another 25years. This suggests that La Ninas will be more frequent than El Ninos during this time span. A general earth cooling is thus more likely as was the case from 1940 to 1970 when similar conditions prevailed. Concurrent changes in the Arctic Oscillation suggest a pattern of meridional atmospheric flow will be more common than the more latitudinal flows of warmer periods.
Policymakers may wish to note the following possible effects on earth’s climate for the next 20 – 30 years. A cooler world with lower SSTs usually means a dryer world. Thus droughts will be more likely in for example east Africa with possible monsoon failures in India. In California the PDO will mean less rainfall with more forest fires in the south. However in the Cascades and Northern Sierras snowpack could increase since more of the rain could occur as snow. Northern Hemisphere growing seasons will be shorter with occasional early and late frosts and drought in the US corn belt and in Asia repeats of the harsh Mongolian and Chinese winters of 2009 – 10 . In Europe cold snowy winters and cool cloudy summers will be more frequent .
There will be a steeper temperature gradient from the tropics to the poles so that violent thunderstorms with associated flooding and tornadoes will be more frequent in the USA, At the same time the jet stream will swing more sharply North – South thus local weather in the Northern hemisphere in particular will be generally more variable with occasional more northerly heat waves and more southerly unusually cold snaps. In the USA hurricanes may strike the east coast with greater frequency in summer and storm related blizzards more common in winter.
The southern continents will be generally cooler with more frequent droughts and frost and snowin winter,
Arctic and Antarctic sea ice may react differentially to an average global cooling. We might expect sea ice to increase in the Antarctic but in the NH the Arctic Oscillation while bringing cooler temperatures further south may also occasionaly bring warmer air into the Arctic with possible relative loss of sea ice in that areaduring those years.
The most general advice is that world food production will be subject to occasional serious severe restriction because of cold and drought. The use of food crops for biofuels should be abandoned and stockpiles built up for possible lean times ahead.. Northern cities and transportation systems should prepare for more frequent heavy snow and ice storms.
There is no threat from the burning of fossil fuels for the forseeable future, indeed an increase in CO2 would positively help in feeding the burgeoning population.
For the next 20 years climate science should be devoted to improving and enlarging the entire climate data base in particular with regard to solar data of all kinds. No climate model runs should be made until 2025 by which time the inputs will hopefully be more relevant to the real world.
Monday, June 7, 2010
AR5 - Summary for Policymakers 2012
It is the habit of the IPCC to produce the Summary for Policymakers ahead of the science section of their reports so their scientists can produce the science necessary to fit the policy. Amazingly the 2012 Summary already exists in the minds of the IPCC editors and by channeling that great climate spirit Dr Norpag I was able to obtain the text of this report for the enlightenment of climate scientists in general.
IPCC AR5 – Summary for Policymakers 2012
Our AR4 report included the following statement:
The understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate has improved since the TAR, leading to very high confidence that the global average net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming, with a radiative forcing of +1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4] W m–2 "
We further estimated an increase in temperature of about 3 degrees C. for a doubling of CO2.
We now realize that our knowledge of the factors controlling earth’s climate is much more limited than we previously thought and we are at this time unable to calculate the possible future effect of anthropogenic CO2 with any degree of certainty useful for policymakers. We apologise to those policymakers who embarked upon economically destructive carbon emission control schemes based upon our previous statements and similarly apologise to those members of the western intelligencia who spent sleepless nights worrying about the fate of the planet and their days trying to reduce their carbon footprint.
We can however make some possibly useful comments with suggestions for policymakers .
It is now clear that the patterns of the earths ocean current systems provide the best guide to the current state of the climate and the best clues as to developments over the next 20 – 30 years. Beyond that time span predictions are of little practical value.
Of particular note is the negative phase of the PDO which began about ten years ago and may well last for another 20 years. This suggests that La Ninas will be more frequent than El Ninos during this time span. A general earth cooling is thus more likely as was the case from 1940 to 1970 when similar conditions prevailed. Concurrent changes in the Arctic Oscillation suggest a pattern of meridional atmospheric flow will be more common than the more latitudinal flows of warmer periods.
In addition the sun has entered a quiet phase with a dramatic drop in solar magnetic field strength since 2004. This reinforces the probability of a cooling phase on earth.
Policymakers may wish to note the following possible effects on earths climate for the next 20 – 30 years. A cooler world with lower SSTs usually means a dryer world. Thus droughts will be more likely in for example California, and east Africa with possible monsoon failures in India. Northern Hemisphere growing seasons will be shorter with occasional early and late frosts and repeats of the harsh Central Asia (Mongolia) winters of 2009 – 10 . Cold European winters and cool cloudy summers will be more frequent .
There will be a steeper temperature gradient from the tropics to the poles so that tornadoes will be more violent and more frequent in the USA, At the same time the jet stream will swing more sharply North – South thus local weather world wide will be generally more variable with occasional more northerly heat waves and more southerly unusually cold snaps. In the USA hurricanes may strike the east coast with greater frequency.
The most general advice is that world food production may be subject to occasional serious severe restriction because of cold and drought. The use of food crops for biofuels should be abandoned and stockpiles built up for possible lean times ahead. Northern cities and transportation systems should prepare for more frequent heavy snow and ice storms.
For the next 20 years climate science should be devoted to improving and enlarging the entire climate data base in particular with regard to solar data of all kinds. No climate model runs should be made until 2025 by which time the inputs will be more relevant to the real world.
IPCC AR5 – Summary for Policymakers 2012
Our AR4 report included the following statement:
The understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate has improved since the TAR, leading to very high confidence that the global average net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming, with a radiative forcing of +1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4] W m–2 "
We further estimated an increase in temperature of about 3 degrees C. for a doubling of CO2.
We now realize that our knowledge of the factors controlling earth’s climate is much more limited than we previously thought and we are at this time unable to calculate the possible future effect of anthropogenic CO2 with any degree of certainty useful for policymakers. We apologise to those policymakers who embarked upon economically destructive carbon emission control schemes based upon our previous statements and similarly apologise to those members of the western intelligencia who spent sleepless nights worrying about the fate of the planet and their days trying to reduce their carbon footprint.
We can however make some possibly useful comments with suggestions for policymakers .
It is now clear that the patterns of the earths ocean current systems provide the best guide to the current state of the climate and the best clues as to developments over the next 20 – 30 years. Beyond that time span predictions are of little practical value.
Of particular note is the negative phase of the PDO which began about ten years ago and may well last for another 20 years. This suggests that La Ninas will be more frequent than El Ninos during this time span. A general earth cooling is thus more likely as was the case from 1940 to 1970 when similar conditions prevailed. Concurrent changes in the Arctic Oscillation suggest a pattern of meridional atmospheric flow will be more common than the more latitudinal flows of warmer periods.
In addition the sun has entered a quiet phase with a dramatic drop in solar magnetic field strength since 2004. This reinforces the probability of a cooling phase on earth.
Policymakers may wish to note the following possible effects on earths climate for the next 20 – 30 years. A cooler world with lower SSTs usually means a dryer world. Thus droughts will be more likely in for example California, and east Africa with possible monsoon failures in India. Northern Hemisphere growing seasons will be shorter with occasional early and late frosts and repeats of the harsh Central Asia (Mongolia) winters of 2009 – 10 . Cold European winters and cool cloudy summers will be more frequent .
There will be a steeper temperature gradient from the tropics to the poles so that tornadoes will be more violent and more frequent in the USA, At the same time the jet stream will swing more sharply North – South thus local weather world wide will be generally more variable with occasional more northerly heat waves and more southerly unusually cold snaps. In the USA hurricanes may strike the east coast with greater frequency.
Arctic and Antarctic sea ice may react differentially to an average global cooling. We might expect sea ice to increase in the Antarctic but the Arctic Oscillation while bringing cooler temperatures further south may also bring warmer air into the Arctic with possible loss of sea ice in that area.
The most general advice is that world food production may be subject to occasional serious severe restriction because of cold and drought. The use of food crops for biofuels should be abandoned and stockpiles built up for possible lean times ahead. Northern cities and transportation systems should prepare for more frequent heavy snow and ice storms.
There is no threat from the burning of fossil fuels for the forseeable future, indeed an increase in CO2 would positively help in feeding the burgeoning population.
For the next 20 years climate science should be devoted to improving and enlarging the entire climate data base in particular with regard to solar data of all kinds. No climate model runs should be made until 2025 by which time the inputs will be more relevant to the real world.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Climate Wars March 2010
The one good thing that the IPCC - Al Gore AGW campaign has done is to draw attention to the importance of Climate Science in attempting to evaluate future threats to the basic problem of feeding the estimated 9 billion expected on earth by mid- century. Unfortunately the science was distorted and "results " hyped to promote the political agenda ,career interests and financial interests of various parties with varying motivations. What can we agree on? I think the following statements represent what we know and how certain we may be about the "facts"
1. The quality of the basic temperature data base is not very good.
2 . In the 20th century temperatures rose from 1900 - 1940. dropped from 1940 - 70 and rose from 1970 to a peak about 2003. There was about 0.8 degrees warming in total.
3. Temperatures have entered a downtrend since then.
4. These general trends are perturbed by El Nino - La Nina and volcanic events
5. CO2 rose steadily during this period but the CO2 trend is not correlative with the temperature trend.
6. Ice core data shows that CO2 follows temperature not vice versa.
7. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
8. Anthropogenic CO2 has contributed some ,probably small, amount to 20th century warming.
9.Until we know the forcings and feedbacks of the natural system we can't calculate with any accuracy the contribution of anthropogenic CO2 to the temperature.
10.In any event the temperature - CO2 equation is logarithmic so that any future increase in emitted CO2 has progressivley smaller effect.
11. Warm periods with higher CO2 are good for mankind and food production in general.
12. Abundant geologic data and gelogic history show very clearly that the sun is the main climate driver.
13 Our investigation of the Sun - climate system is really only just starting but Milankovich orbital cycles are well documented as are solar activity cycles of various lengths which interact with each other in complex ways.
14. Total Solar Irradiance is only one measure if solar activity . The Svensmark solar magnetism - GCR - cloud cover hypothesis is supported by a lot of evidence and is probably true.
15.Based on current solar activity and the current negative phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscilation we are more likely than not to have 20 - 30 years of cooling with maybe a Dalton or even a Maunder minimum. Solar magnetic field strength has dropped precipitously over the last 5 years .
16. One or two degrees of cooling might well produce occasional serious crop failures in the worlds chief growing areas. This would be much more dangerous to the population than a warmer world with more CO2.
17. Government efforts would be better directed towards preparing for cooling rather than warming. eg building grain and cattlefeed stockpiles.
18. The IPCC Summary for Policy makers should be abandoned as a guide to future climate trends because our knowledge is insufficient to predict temperatures 100 years out with any accuracy at all.. This is the scientific conclusion of the IPCC itself . The WG1 ( science) section on climate forcings and climate sensitvity concludes (8.6.4)
"Moreover it is not yet clear which tests are critical for constraining the future projections,consequently a set of model metrics that might be used to narrow the range of plausible climate change feedbacks and climate sensitivity has yet to be developed"
What could be clearer. The IPCC says that we dont even know what metrics to put into the models to test their reliability.- ie we don't know what future temperatures will be and we can't calculate the climate sensitivity to CO2 with any certainty.This also begs a further question of what mere assumptions went into the "plausible" models to be tested anyway.Nobody ever seems to read or quote the AR4 - WG1 report- certainly not the compiler of the Summary or the AGW faithful.
19. The chief threat to the environment and humanity is the expected population increase.
20. The best way to control that is to increase as quickly as possible living standards throughout the world and at the same time raise the status and education of women.This latter will also require changing cultural behaviour in large groups of populations.
21. The world needs to get energy to the developing world as cheaply and as quickly as possible.Fossil fuels are the cheapest energy source for the forseeable future and should be extracted and used in as environmentally friendly way as possible while remembering that CO2 is an effecint fertiliser and not a pollutant and does not need to be controlled.
1. The quality of the basic temperature data base is not very good.
2 . In the 20th century temperatures rose from 1900 - 1940. dropped from 1940 - 70 and rose from 1970 to a peak about 2003. There was about 0.8 degrees warming in total.
3. Temperatures have entered a downtrend since then.
4. These general trends are perturbed by El Nino - La Nina and volcanic events
5. CO2 rose steadily during this period but the CO2 trend is not correlative with the temperature trend.
6. Ice core data shows that CO2 follows temperature not vice versa.
7. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
8. Anthropogenic CO2 has contributed some ,probably small, amount to 20th century warming.
9.Until we know the forcings and feedbacks of the natural system we can't calculate with any accuracy the contribution of anthropogenic CO2 to the temperature.
10.In any event the temperature - CO2 equation is logarithmic so that any future increase in emitted CO2 has progressivley smaller effect.
11. Warm periods with higher CO2 are good for mankind and food production in general.
12. Abundant geologic data and gelogic history show very clearly that the sun is the main climate driver.
13 Our investigation of the Sun - climate system is really only just starting but Milankovich orbital cycles are well documented as are solar activity cycles of various lengths which interact with each other in complex ways.
14. Total Solar Irradiance is only one measure if solar activity . The Svensmark solar magnetism - GCR - cloud cover hypothesis is supported by a lot of evidence and is probably true.
15.Based on current solar activity and the current negative phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscilation we are more likely than not to have 20 - 30 years of cooling with maybe a Dalton or even a Maunder minimum. Solar magnetic field strength has dropped precipitously over the last 5 years .
16. One or two degrees of cooling might well produce occasional serious crop failures in the worlds chief growing areas. This would be much more dangerous to the population than a warmer world with more CO2.
17. Government efforts would be better directed towards preparing for cooling rather than warming. eg building grain and cattlefeed stockpiles.
18. The IPCC Summary for Policy makers should be abandoned as a guide to future climate trends because our knowledge is insufficient to predict temperatures 100 years out with any accuracy at all.. This is the scientific conclusion of the IPCC itself . The WG1 ( science) section on climate forcings and climate sensitvity concludes (8.6.4)
"Moreover it is not yet clear which tests are critical for constraining the future projections,consequently a set of model metrics that might be used to narrow the range of plausible climate change feedbacks and climate sensitivity has yet to be developed"
What could be clearer. The IPCC says that we dont even know what metrics to put into the models to test their reliability.- ie we don't know what future temperatures will be and we can't calculate the climate sensitivity to CO2 with any certainty.This also begs a further question of what mere assumptions went into the "plausible" models to be tested anyway.Nobody ever seems to read or quote the AR4 - WG1 report- certainly not the compiler of the Summary or the AGW faithful.
19. The chief threat to the environment and humanity is the expected population increase.
20. The best way to control that is to increase as quickly as possible living standards throughout the world and at the same time raise the status and education of women.This latter will also require changing cultural behaviour in large groups of populations.
21. The world needs to get energy to the developing world as cheaply and as quickly as possible.Fossil fuels are the cheapest energy source for the forseeable future and should be extracted and used in as environmentally friendly way as possible while remembering that CO2 is an effecint fertiliser and not a pollutant and does not need to be controlled.
Friday, February 12, 2010
IPCC Scientific Malfeasance.
The entire IPCC evaluation process is flawed to the point of fraudulence. The Summary for Policymakers was finalised and published before the WG1 (Science) section. The editors of the latter were under implicit pressure and in some cases ,I believe explicit instructions to make the latter fit the former instead of the other way around as should have been the case.Where this was not done the conclusions of WG1 were simply ignored by the editors of the Summary. The most egregious case goes to the heart of and in fact destroys the entire AGW paradigm. The key part of the science is in section WG1 8.6 which deals with forcings, feedbacks and climate sensitivity. The conclusions are in section 8.6.4 which deals with the reliability of the projections.It concludes:
"Moreover it is not yet clear which tests are critical for constraining the future projections,consequently a set of model metrics that might be used to narrow the range of plausible climate change feedbacks and climate sensitivity has yet to be developed"
What could be clearer. The IPCC says that we dont even know what metrics to put into the models to test their reliability.- ie we don't know what future temperatures will be and we can't calculate the climate sensitivity to CO2.This also begs a further question of what mere assumptions went into the "plausible" models to be tested anyway.
Nobody ever seems to read or quote the WG1 report- certainly not the compiler of the Summary. In spite of the WG1 8.6.4. conclusion the Summary says:
"The understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate has improved sincethe TAR, leading to very high confidence that the global average net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming, with a radiative forcing of +1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4] W m–2 "
This statement is fraudulent on its face when compared to 8.6.4.
Those of us interested in objective science should try to see that the 8.6.4 conclusion gets as much exposure as possible. It deserves to be on the front page of the NY Times, The Guardian quoted by the BBC and read into the Congressional record in the USA.
"Moreover it is not yet clear which tests are critical for constraining the future projections,consequently a set of model metrics that might be used to narrow the range of plausible climate change feedbacks and climate sensitivity has yet to be developed"
What could be clearer. The IPCC says that we dont even know what metrics to put into the models to test their reliability.- ie we don't know what future temperatures will be and we can't calculate the climate sensitivity to CO2.This also begs a further question of what mere assumptions went into the "plausible" models to be tested anyway.
Nobody ever seems to read or quote the WG1 report- certainly not the compiler of the Summary. In spite of the WG1 8.6.4. conclusion the Summary says:
"The understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate has improved sincethe TAR, leading to very high confidence that the global average net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming, with a radiative forcing of +1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4] W m–2 "
This statement is fraudulent on its face when compared to 8.6.4.
Those of us interested in objective science should try to see that the 8.6.4 conclusion gets as much exposure as possible. It deserves to be on the front page of the NY Times, The Guardian quoted by the BBC and read into the Congressional record in the USA.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)