Paper finds 'warming since 1850 is mainly the result of natural climatic variations'

A paper published in Global and Planetary Change finds "Warming since 1850 is mainly the result of natural climatic variations." The authors studied "two climate series, the Svalbard (78°N) surface air temperature series 1912–2010, and the last 4000 years of the reconstructed surface temperature series from central Greenland. By this we are able to identify several cyclic climate variations which appear persistent on the time scales investigated." They find, "some identified cycles correspond to variations in the Moons' orbit around Earth" and "some identified cycles correspond to solar variations."

Fig. 8. Central Greenland (GISP2) surface temperature the past 4000 years (blue line). Natural cycle modelled and forecasted data are shown by the green line. The coefficient of determination (r²) for the hindcasting period is 0.63. The timing of certain historical warm periods in Europe is shown by red text, and the timing of Greenland cultures are shown in grey. The overall declining linear temperature trend during the last 4000 years is − 0.0052 °C per decade, and is assumed to continue when plotting the forecasted data beyond 1855.

Identifying natural contributions to late Holocene climate change

• Ole Humlum^a, b, , , 
• Jan-Erik Solheim^c, , 
• Kjell Stordahl^d, 

• ^a Department of Geosciences, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
• ^b Department of Geology, University Centre in Svalbard (UNIS), Svalbard, Norway
• ^c Institute of Theoretical Astrophysics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
• ^d Telenor Norway, Finance, Fornebu, Oslo, Norway

• http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2011.09.005, How to Cite or Link Using DOI

• Permissions & Reprints

Abstract

Analytic climate models have provided the means to predict potential impacts on future climate by anthropogenic changes in atmospheric composition. However, future climate development will not only be influenced by anthropogenic changes, but also by natural variations. The knowledge on such natural variations and their detailed character, however, still remains incomplete. Here we present a new technique to identify the character of natural climate variations, and from this, to produce testable forecast of future climate. By means of Fourier and wavelet analyses climate series are decomposed into time–frequency space, to extract information on periodic signals embedded in the data series and their amplitude and variation over time. We chose to exemplify the potential of this technique by analysing two climate series, the Svalbard (78°N) surface air temperature series 1912–2010, and the last 4000 years of the reconstructed GISP2 surface temperature series from central Greenland. By this we are able to identify several cyclic climate variations which appear persistent on the time scales investigated. Finally, we demonstrate how such persistent natural variations can be used for hindcasting and forecasting climate. Our main focus is on identifying the character (timing, period, amplitude) of such recurrent natural climate variations, but we also comment on the likely physical explanations for some of the identified cyclic climate variations. The causes of millennial climate changes remain poorly understood, and this issue remains important for understanding causes for natural climate variability over decadal- and decennial time scales. We argue that Fourier and wavelet approaches like ours may contribute towards improved understanding of the role of such recurrent natural climate variations in the future climate development.

Highlights

► We identified persistent cyclic variations in records from Svalbard and Greenland. ► Some identified cycles correspond to variations in the Moons' orbit around Earth. ► Some identified cycles correspond to solar variations. ► Warming since 1850 is mainly the result of natural climatic variations. ► Persistence of cycles makes climate forecasting feasible for limited time ranges.

New paper shows no 'average' change in El Ninos due to CO2

A paper published today in Geophysical Research Letters reports "the overall response to CO2 increases is determined using 27 [climate] models, and the ENSO [the El Nino Southern Oscillation] amplitude change based on the multi-model mean is indistinguishable from zero." Alarmists, such as Kevin Trenberth, claim that increased CO2 causes an increase in the frequency and intensity of El Ninos, but this paper finds that the mean response from climate models does not support such claims.

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, doi:10.1029/2012GL052759

Significant Changes to ENSO Strength and Impacts in the Twenty-First Century: Results from CMIP5

Key Points

• ENSO amplitude is insignificant in the majority of IPCC-class models.
• ENSO amplitude change is not due to mean state or seasonal cycle changes.
• The teleconnection response is sensitive to the ENSO amplitude change.

Author:

Samantha Stevenson

Changes to the El Ni\~{n}o/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and its atmospheric teleconnections under climate change are investigated using simulations conducted for the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5). The overall response to CO2 increases is determined using 27 models, and the ENSO amplitude change based on the multi-model mean is indistinguishable from zero. However, changes between ensembles run with a given model are sometimes significant: for four of the eleven models having ensemble sizes larger than three, the 21st century change to ENSO amplitude is statistically significant. In these four models, changes to SST and wind stress do not differ substantially from those in the models with no ENSO response, indicating that mean changes are not predictive of the ENSO sensitivity to climate change. Also, ocean vertical stratification is less (more) sensitive to CO2 in models where ENSO strengthens (weakens), likely due to a regulation of the subsurface temperature structure by ENSO-related poleward heat transport. Atmospheric teleconnections also show differences between models where ENSO amplitude does and does not respond to climate change; in the former case El Ni\~{n}o/La Ni\~{n}a-related sea level pressure anomalies strengthen with CO2, and in the latter they weaken and shift polewards and eastwards. These results illustrate the need for large ensembles to isolate significant ENSO climate change responses, and for future work on diagnosing the dynamical causes of inter-model teleconnection differences.

China's Solyndra Economy

Government subsidies to green energy and high-speed rail have led to mounting losses and costly bailouts. This is not a road the U.S. should travel.

By PATRICK CHOVANEC   WSJ.COM    9.11.12

On Aug. 3, the owner of Chengxing Solar Company leapt from the sixth floor of his office building in Jinhua, China. Li Fei killed himself after his company was unable to repay a $3 million bank loan it had guaranteed for another Chinese solar company that defaulted. One local financial newspaper called Li's suicide "a sign of the imminent collapse facing the Chinese photovoltaic industry" due to overcapacity and mounting debts.

President Barack Obama has held up China's investments in green energy and high-speed rail as examples of the kind of state-led industrial policy that America should be emulating. The real lesson is precisely the opposite. State subsidies have spawned dozens of Chinese Solyndras that are now on the verge of collapse.

Unveiled in 2010, Beijing's 12th Five-Year Plan identified solar and wind power and electric automobiles as "strategic emerging industries" that would receive substantial state support. Investors piled into the favored sectors, confident the government's backing would guarantee success. Barely two years later, all three industries are in dire straits.

This summer, the NYSE-listed LDK Solar, the world's second largest polysilicon solar wafer producer, defaulted on $95 billion owed to over 20 suppliers. The company lost $589 million in the fourth quarter of 2011 and another $185 million in the first quarter of 2012, and has shed nearly 10,000 jobs. The government in LDK's home province of Jiangxi scrambled to pledge $315 million in public bailout funds, terrified that any further defaults could pull down hundreds of local companies.

Chinese solar companies blame many of their woes on the antidumping tariffs recently imposed by the U.S. and Europe. The real problem, however, is rampant overinvestment driven largely by subsidies. Since 2010, the price of polysilicon wafers used to make solar cells has dropped 73%, according to Maxim Group, while the price of solar cells has fallen 68% and the price of solar modules 57%. At these prices, even low-cost Chinese producers are finding it impossible to break even.

Wind power is seeing similar overcapacity. China's top wind turbine manufacturers, Goldwind and Sinovel, saw their earnings plummet by 83% and 96% respectively in the first half of 2012, year-on-year. Domestic wind farm operators Huaneng and Datang saw profits plunge 63% and 76%, respectively, due to low capacity utilization. China's national electricity regulator, SERC, reported that 53% of the wind power generated in Inner Mongolia province in the first half of this year was wasted. One analyst told China Securities Journal that "40-50% of wind power projects are left idle," with many not even connected to the grid.

A few years ago, Shenzhen-based BYD (short for "Build Your Dreams") was a media darling that brought in Warren Buffett as an investor. It was going to make China the dominant player in electric automobiles. Despite gorging on green energy subsidies, BYD sold barely 8,000 hybrids and 400 fully electric cars last year, while hemorrhaging cash on an ill-fated solar venture. Company profits for the first half of 2012 plunged 94% year-on-year.

China's high-speed rail ambitions put the Ministry of Railways so deeply in debt that by the end of last year it was forced to halt all construction and ask Beijing for a $126 billion bailout. Central authorities agreed to give it $31.5 billion to pay its state-owned suppliers and avoid an outright default, and had to issue a blanket guarantee on its bonds to help it raise more. While a handful of high-traffic lines, such as the Shanghai-Beijing route, have some prospect of breaking even, Prof. Zhao Jian of Beijing Jiaotong University compared the rest of the network to "a 160-story luxury hotel where only 11 stories are used and the occupancy rate of those floors is below 50%."

China's Railway Ministry racked up $1.4 billion in losses for the first six months of this year, and an internal audit has uncovered dangerous defects due to lax construction on 12 new lines, which will have to be repaired at the cost of billions more. Minister Liu Zhijun, the architect of China's high-speed rail system, was fired in February 2011 and will soon be prosecuted on corruption charges that reportedly include embezzling some $120 million. One of his lieutenants, the deputy chief engineer, is alleged to have funneled $2.8 billion into an offshore bank account.

Many in Washington have developed a serious case of China-envy, seeing it as an exemplar of how to run an economy. In fact, Beijing's mandarins are no better at picking winners, and just as prone to blow money on boondoggles, as their Beltway counterparts.

In his State of the Union address earlier this year, President Obama declared, "I will not cede the wind or solar or battery industry to China . . . because we refuse to make the same commitment here." Given what's really happening in China, he may want to think again.

Mr. Chovanec is an associate professor of practice at Tsinghua University's School of Economics and Management in Beijing, China.

New paper finds Antarctic Peninsula has accumulated significant extra ice since 1850

A paper published today in Geophysical Research Letters finds the Antarctic Peninsula has experienced a "significant accumulation" of "up to 45 meters of extra ice thickness over the past 155 years." This finding is contrary to the alarmist claims of the highly-flawed study published by RealClimate's Dr. Eric Steig, which alleged that the Antarctic Peninsula is rapidly warming. The finding is particularly surprising since the "significant accumulation" of ice has occurred since the end of the Little Ice Age in ~ 1850. 

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, doi:10.1029/2012GL052559

Increased ice loading in the Antarctic Peninsula since the 1850s and its effect on Glacial Isostatic Adjustment

Key Points

• Accumulation increase results in up to 45 m extra ice thickness over 155 years
• Model predicts GIA-related subsidence of up to 7 mm/yr which will affect GPS
• GRACE-derived rates of ice-mass change are biased low by ignoring this signal

Authors:

Grace A. Alexandra Nield

Pippa L. L Whitehouse

Matt A. A King

Peter J. J Clarke

Michael J. J Bentley

Antarctic Peninsula (AP) ice core records indicate significant accumulation increase since 1855, and any resultant ice mass increase has the potential to contribute substantially to present-day Glacial Isostatic Adjustment (GIA). We derive empirical orthogonal functions from climate model output to infer typical spatial patterns of accumulation over the AP and, by combining with ice core records, estimate annual accumulation for the period 1855-2010. In response to this accumulation history, high resolution ice-sheet modeling predicts ice thickness increases of up to 45 m, with the greatest thickening in the northern and western AP. Whilst this thickening is predicted to affect GRACE estimates by no more than 6.2 Gt/yr, it may contribute up to -7 mm/yr to the present-day GIA uplift rate, depending on the chosen Earth model, with a strong east-west gradient across the AP. Its consideration is therefore critical to the interpretation of observed GPS velocities in the AP.

Should donations to Michael Mann's Climate Science Legal Defense Fund be tax-deductible?

The US tax laws strictly limit the activities of non-profit organizations which receive tax-deductible donations organized under Section 501 (c) 3 of the Internal Revenue code. The tax code specifies that none of the earnings of a non-profit organization may inure to any private individual. According to the donation page of the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund, "Through PEER, a private non-profit organization organized under Section 501 (c) 3 of the Internal Revenue code, your contribution [to the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund] will be tax deductible." According to the fund's blog page, the only activity so far has been to pay Michael Mann's legal fees. Mann's legal fees include private matters such as his libel lawsuit against climatologist Dr. Tim Ball as well as legal threats against The National Review and Mark Steyn. Mann also incurred legal fees in the FOIA case of Cuccinelli (Attorney General of Virginia) vs. the University of Virginia, but was not a defendant in that case and thus his legal fees were incurred at his own discretion for his private interests. I'm not an attorney or tax expert, but think it is unlikely that donations used to pay legal expenses related to an individual's private interests could lawfully be tax-deductible.

Official positions of Obama and Romney on climate change

From a questionnaire produced by sciencedebate.org:

Question: Climate Change. The Earth’s climate is changing and there is concern about the potentially adverse effects of these changes on life on the planet. What is your position on cap-and-trade, carbon taxes, and other policies proposed to address global climate change—and what steps can we take to improve our ability to tackle challenges like climate change that cross national boundaries?
Barack Obama: Climate change is the one of the biggest issues of this generation, and we have to meet this challenge by driving smart policies that lead to greater growth in clean energy generation and result in a range of economic and social benefits. Since taking office I have established historic standards limiting greenhouse gas emissions from our vehicles for the first time in history. My administration has made unprecedented investments in clean energy, proposed the first-ever carbon pollution limits for new fossil-fuel-fired power plants and reduced carbon emissions within the Federal Government. Since I took office, the U.S. is importing an average of 3 million fewer barrels of oil every day, and our dependence on foreign oil is at a 20-year low. We are also showing international leadership on climate change, reaching historic agreements to set emission limits in unison with all major developed and developing nations. There is still more to be done to address this global problem. I will continue efforts to reduce our dependence on oil and lower our greenhouse gas emissions while creating an economy built to last. Additional questions for Obama: 1. What specific "economic and social benefits" have your "smart policies" provided? 2. What evidence do you have to support your claim that the trace, essential gas carbon dioxide, 96% of which is produced by nature, is "pollution"? 3. Regarding the 3 million fewer barrels of oil imports, how many are due to economic contraction, and how many are due to new fracking technology developed by the domestic oil industry without your help? 4. What "historic agreements to set emission limits in unison with all major developed and developing nations" have you reached? Why did you skip the Rio+20 Earth Summit on what you claim is "one of the biggest issues of this generation."?		Mitt Romney: I am not a scientist myself, but my best assessment of the data is that the world is getting warmer, that human activity contributes to that warming, and that policymakers should therefore consider the risk of negative consequences. However, there remains a lack of scientific consensus on the issue — on the extent of the warming, the extent of the human contribution, and the severity of the risk — and I believe we must support continued debate and investigation within the scientific community. Ultimately, the science is an input to the public policy decision; it does not dictate a particular policy response. President Obama has taken the view that if global warming is occurring, the American response must be to slash carbon dioxide emissions by imposing enormous costs on the U.S. economy. First he tried a massive cap-and-trade bill that would have devastated U.S. industry. When that approach was rejected by Congress, he declared his intention to pursue the same course on his own and proceeded through his EPA to impose rules that will bankrupt the coal industry. Nowhere along the way has the President indicated what actual results his approach would achieve — and with good reason. The reality is that the problem is called Global Warming, not America Warming. China long ago passed America as the leading emitter of greenhouse gases. Developed world emissions have leveled off while developing world emissions continue to grow rapidly, and developing nations have no interest in accepting economic constraints to change that dynamic. In this context, the primary effect of unilateral action by the U.S. to impose costs on its own emissions will be to shift industrial activity overseas to nations whose industrial processes are more emissions-intensive and less environmentally friendly. That result may make environmentalists feel better, but it will not better the environment. So I oppose steps like a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system that would handicap the American economy and drive manufacturing jobs away, all without actually addressing the underlying problem. Economic growth and technological innovation, not economy-suppressing regulation, is the key to environmental protection in the long run. So I believe we should pursue what I call a “No Regrets” policy — steps that will lead to lower emissions, but that will benefit America regardless of whether the risks of global warming materialize and regardless of whether other nations take effective action. For instance, I support robust government funding for research on efficient, low-emissions technologies that will maintain American leadership in emerging industries. And I believe the federal government must significantly streamline the regulatory framework for the deployment of new energy technologies, including a new wave of investment in nuclear power. These steps will strengthen American industry, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and produce the economically-attractive technologies that developing nations must have access to if they are to achieve the reductions in their own emissions that will be necessary to address what is a global issue.

WHY DO WE BURN OUR FOOD?

AUTHOR // Carl Brehmer

             Image via Wikimedia

      Out of curiosity I ran some numbers related to ethanol production, which turns food into fuel.  To produce one gallon of ethanol about 22 pounds of corn (1) needs to be sacrificed.  22 lbs of corn contains about 10,560 calories, (2) which is enough calories to feed one person for about four days. (3) Therefore the calories sacrificed to make 90 gallons of ethanol could sustain one person for an entire year.  Since the US currently produces 10.6 billion gallons (4) of ethanol yearly, enough corn is being sacrificed each year for ethanol production in the United States to feed 117 million people.  This is occurring at the same time that the United States Department of Agriculture is reporting that over 50,000,000 people living in the United States are in "food-insecure households" (5) because their families do not have sufficient funds to purchase adequate amounts of food.

      The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 mandates that by 2022 36 billion gallons of biofuels will be produced in the United States.  15 billion gallons of this biofuel is expected to come from corn. (6) This will require the sacrifice of enough food to feed 166,000,000 people--over half the current population of the United States.  This doesn't even take into consideration that it takes at least 2/3 gallon of fossil fuel, by the US Department of Energy's own figures, to produce one gallon of ethanol. (7)  (Ethanol producers do not use ethanol to produce ethanol because it is too expensive.)

      Why do we do this?  Because our policy makers have come to believe that the air-born plant food carbon dioxide is a “pollutant” (8) that must be reduced or severe damage will be done to the biosphere. Acting on this belief the US government is planning on turning enough food into fuel by 2022 that could feed half the population of the United States!  Even if carbon dioxide were a “pollutant” the use of biofuels produces little or no net reduction in carbon emissions since by some estimates it takes more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than what one gets back from it when it is burned.  "Adding up the energy costs of corn production and its conversion to ethanol, 131,000 BTUs are needed to make 1 gallon of ethanol. One gallon of ethanol has an energy value of only 77,000 BTU." (9)  

      One might protest these figures saying that not all ethanol is made from corn, because there is also "cellulosic ethanol," which is made from the non-edible parts of plants. The problem is that there is "currently, no large-scale cellulosic ethanol production facilities . . . operating or under construction." (10)  This is because "cellulosic ethanol" is much more expensive to produce than corn ethanol.  For example, it is estimated that a large-scale "cellulosic ethanol" production facility would cost in the neighborhood of $300 million dollars to build (11) vs. $67 million for a corn-based plant of similar size and a number of "cellulosic ethanol" production hurdles have yet to be overcome. (12)

      So, why has carbon dioxide become a “pollutant” when throughout the known geological history of our planet it has been nothing more than air-born plant food?  Three words—“the greenhouse effect.”  In spite of what one might hear, “the greenhouse effect” is a highly controversial, scientific hypothesis that asserts that carbon dioxide, along with other “greenhouse gases,” is the Earth’s thermostat.  That is, humanity can control the temperature of the Earth by controlling the amount of carbon dioxide that it puts into the air mostly through the burning of “fossil” fuels, i.e., coal, natural gas, and oil.  Here are some scientists who contest that hypothesis (13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18,19).  Read what they have to say and make up your own mind. 

      Apart from the highly controversial notion that carbon dioxide has the power to regulate the Earth’s temperature, what is it?  In one word “food”—food for plants, which becomes food for animals, including human beings.  Carbon dioxide is food because carbon is one of the essential building blocks of organic life (Organic - “Belonging to a family of compounds characterized by chains or rings of carbon atoms.”[20]) and most life on earth is organic life.  Also, plants thrive in a carbon dioxide rich environment and along with water, nitrogen from the air and minerals from the soil, powered by sunlight, through the process of photosynthesis make food for animals to eat and oxygen for animals to breathe.  Did you know that gardeners actually pump up to four times the current atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide into greenhouses to promote plant growth?  So, even at current emission levels from the use of fossil fuels the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will not reach a level for optimal plant growth for at least 200 years and CO2 levels will not become toxic until well into the next ice age >10,000 years from now.  That is, of course, if the Earth’s natural processes of limiting atmospheric carbon dioxide levels cease to operate.  You see, since carbon dioxide is constantly being cycled through the natural “carbon cycle” much of the carbon dioxide that humanity has produced since the beginning of the industrial revolution has already been removed from the atmosphere.  In fact only 4% of the carbon dioxide currently in the atmosphere is from the burning of fossil fuels. (21) So, if carbon dioxide is, indeed, a pollutant than the Earth is polluting itself since 96% of the air's carbon dioxide content has come from natural sources.

      Beyond these points, global warming is a good thing that promotes life, e.g., human civilizations have always faired better during warm periods in history than during cold periods; more people die from cold every year than from heat; many plants die or go dormant in the winter and come to life in the spring and summer; the warm equator is teaming with life while the cold poles have sparse life. 

      The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change produced the following video in time-lapse photography, which shows the profoundly positive effect that increased levels of carbon dioxide has on the growth of plants: http://www.co2science.org/education/truthalerts/v13/cowpea.php I have verified is effect experimentally in my own home. http://myweb.cableone.net/carlallen/Greenhouse_Effect_Research/CO2%20Enrichment%20Experiment.html

      Since fossil fuels produce carbon dioxide as a by-product, which promotes plant growth, they are, in reality, the only truly “green” source of energy that human beings use at the present time.  Replacing gasoline with ethanol will therefore not only reduce the amount of food that is available for humans; it will also reduce the amount of food that is available for plants.  That is, food that is turned into ethanol is not be available for human consumption and if ethanol does, in fact, reduce the concentration of carbon dioxide in the air then there will be less food available for plant consumption.  Wouldn't it therefore be wise to rethink this policy and practice?

  ______________________________ 

(1) From research performed at Cornell University http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Aug01/corn-basedethanol.hrs.html

(2) One pound of corn = 480 calories - http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_calories_in_one_pound_of_corn

(3) “United Nations UN recommends 2350 calories per day.”  http://wilderdom.com/games/descriptions/WorldMeal.html

(4)  Yearly U.S. Ethanol Production 2009 - http://www.biofuelsjournal.com/info/bf_articles.html?type=ec&;ID=25474

(5) http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/FoodSecurity/stats_graphs.htm

(6) “The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) requires use of 36 billion gallons of renewable transportation fuels in the U.S. by 2022. Of that quantity, 16 billion gallons must be cellulosic biofuels. Ethanol from corn is capped at 15 billion gallons.”   http://www.energy.gov/news/archives/documents/Myths_and_Facts.pdf ibid.

(7) ". . . each gallon of ethanol produced from corn today delivers one third or more energy than is used to produce it."    US Department of Energy

 http://www.energy.gov/news/archives/documents/Myths_and_Facts.pdf

(8) See: Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007)

(9) From research performed at Cornell University http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Aug01/corn-basedethanol.hrs.html

(10) US Department of Energy 2007, "Biofuels in the U.S. Transportation Sector," http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/analysispaper/biomass.html

(11) O. Port, “Not Your Father’s Ethanol,” Business Week (February 21, 2005), web site www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_08/b3921117.htm. 

(12) O’Neal, Michael, “Scientists seek cheap, plentiful energy alternatives,” October 13, 2006  http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0610130128oct13,0,2156857.story

(13) T.J Blom, W.A. Straver, F.J. Ingratta, Shalin Khosla - Factsheet Carbon Dioxide in Greenhouses - Order No. 94-077, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs

(14) C. D. Idso and K. E. Idso, Carbon Dioxide and Global Warming, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change

(15) Clark, R., A Null Hypothesis For CO2, EPA submission, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171 6/17/09

(16) Richard S. Lindzen and Yong-Sang Choi, On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data Program in Atmospheres, Oceans, and Climate, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Revised on July 14, 2009 for publication to Geophysical Research Letters  “The observed behavior of radiation fluxes implies negative feedback processes associated with relatively low climate sensitivity.  This is the opposite of the behavior of 11 atmospheric models forced by the same SSTs.”

(17) Evans, David Dr., The Missing Hotspot, 21 July 2008, Last major revision 22 Mar 2009, Last minor revision 18 Sept 2010,

Web address: http://sciencespeak.com/MissingSignature.pdf

(18) Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner,  “Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics,” International Journal of Modern Physics B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (30 January 2009), 275-364

(19) John O'Sullivan, Hans Schreuder, Claes Johnson, and Alan Siddons Slaying the Sky Dragon - Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory, Jan 18, 2011, Stairway Press, 1500A East College Way #554 Mount Vernon, WA 98273, ISBN 978 0 9827734 0 6

(20) Encarta® World English Dictionary © 1999 Microsoft Corporation

(21) "Man's contribution to atmospheric CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels is small, maximum 4% found by carbon isotope mass balance calculations."  Segalstad, T. V. 1996: The distribution of CO2 between atmosphere, hydrosphere, and lithosphere; minimal influence from anthropogenic CO2 on the global "Greenhouse Effect". In Emsley, J. (Ed.): The Global Warming Debate. The Report of the European Science and Environment Forum. Bourne Press Ltd., Bournemouth, Dorset, U.K. (ISBN 0952773406), pp. 41-50. 

New paper finds climate models are unable to simulate effects of large volcanic eruptions

A paper published today in the Journal of Geophysical Research finds that current climate models are unable to simulate the climate following large volcanic eruptions, a major cause of natural climate variability. According to the authors, the paper confirms others with the same findings and "raises concern for the ability of current climate models to simulate the response of a major mode of [climate change]." 

The paper adds to many others showing current climate models are unable to model climate change due to natural changes in solar activity, ozone, ocean oscillations, volcanic eruptions, and clouds.

JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, doi:10.1029/2012JD017607

Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 5 (CMIP5) simulations of climate following volcanic eruptions

Key Points

• Large volcanic eruptions cause a major dynamical response in the atmosphere
• CMIP5 models are assessed for their ability to simulate this response
• No models in the CMIP5 database sufficiently represent this response

Authors:

Simon Driscoll

Alessio Bozzo

Lesley J. Gray

Alan Robock

Georgiy Stenchikov

The ability of the climate models submitted to the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 5 (CMIP5) database to simulate the Northern Hemisphere winter climate following a large tropical volcanic eruption is assessed. When sulfate aerosols are produced by volcanic injections into the tropical stratosphere and spread by the stratospheric circulation, it not only causes globally averaged tropospheric cooling but also a localized heating in the lower stratosphere, which can cause major dynamical feedbacks. Observations show a lower stratospheric and surface response during the following one or two Northern Hemisphere (NH) winters, that resembles the positive phase of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). Simulations from 13 CMIP5 models that represent tropical eruptions in the 19th and 20th century are examined, focusing on the large-scale regional impacts associated with the large-scale circulation during the NH winter season. The models generally fail to capture the NH dynamical response following eruptions. They do not sufficiently simulate the observed post-volcanic strengthened NH polar vortex, positive NAO, or NH Eurasian warming pattern, and they tend to overestimate the cooling in the tropical troposphere. The findings are confirmed by a superposed epoch analysis of the NAO index for each model. The study confirms previous similar evaluations and raises concern for the ability of current climate models to simulate the response of a major mode of global circulation variability to external forcings. This is also of concern for the accuracy of geoengineering modeling studies that assess the atmospheric response to stratosphere-injected particles.

New paper finds another mechanism by which the Sun controls climate

A paper published today in the Journal of Geophysical Research describes an additional mechanism by which small changes in solar activity are amplified to cause climate change. According to the authors, the "mechanism describes how solar UV changes can lead to a significant enhancement of the small initial signal and corresponding changes in stratospheric dynamics", which in combination with a natural atmospheric circulation, the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation, causes a "significant ocean response," alterations of the Southern Annular Mode, wind anomalies, and deviations in ocean currents. The IPCC dismisses the Sun as a cause of recent climate change by assuming solar activity is a constant [the "solar constant" or TSI], and by ignoring amplifying factors on solar activity such as clouds, sunshine hours, ozone, large changes in solar UV within and between solar cycles, and the mechanism described by this new paper.

The paper also points out yet another shortcoming of current climate models, stating "it is concluded that comprehensive climate model studies require a middle atmosphere as well as a coupled ocean to investigate and understand natural climate variability."

Related:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/07/paper-finds-climate-is-highly-sensitive.html
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/03/new-paper-claims-ozone-is-most.html

JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, doi:10.1029/2011JD017390

Impact of the solar cycle and the QBO on the atmosphere and the ocean

Key Points

• Modeled oceanic solar cycle response depends on realistically modeled stratosphere
• A realistically modeled stratospheric solar cycle response requires a QBO

Authors:

Christof Petrick

Katja Matthes

Henryk Dobslaw

Maik Thomas

The Solar Cycle and the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation are two major components of natural climate variability. Their direct and indirect influences in the stratosphere and troposphere are subject of a number of studies. The so-called ``top-down' mechanism describes how solar UV changes can lead to a significant enhancement of the small initial signal and corresponding changes in stratospheric dynamics. How the signal then propagates to the surface is still under investigation. We continue the ``top-down' analysis further down to the ocean and show the dynamical ocean response with respect to the solar cycle and the QBO. For this we use two 110-year chemistry climate model experiments from NCAR's Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model (WACCM), one with a time varying solar cycle only and one with an additionally nudged QBO, to force an ocean general circulation model, GFZ's Ocean Model for Circulation and Tides (OMCT). We find a significant ocean response to the solar cycle only in combination with a prescribed QBO. Especially in the Southern Hemisphere we find the tendency to positive Southern Annular Mode (SAM) like pattern in the surface pressure and associated wind anomalies during solar maximum conditions. These atmospheric anomalies propagate into the ocean and induce deviations in ocean currents down into deeper layers, inducing an integrated sea surface height signal. Finally, limitations of this study are discussed and it is concluded that comprehensive climate model studies require a middle atmosphere as well as a coupled ocean to investigate and understand natural climate variability.

New paper finds Southwestern US temperatures 'have been relatively stable over last 500 years'

A paper published today in Geophysical Research Letters finds from temperature reconstructions that "Temperature trends in Southwest US have been relatively stable over last 5 centuries" and that there has been "no sustained monotonic rise in temperature or a step-like increase since the late 19th century."  This would imply that there has been no significant influence of man-made CO2 on temperatures of the Southwest US. 

Secular temperature trends for the southern Rocky Mountains over the last five centuries

from Geophysical Research Letters by M. Berkelhammer and L. D. Stott

Key Points

• Temp. trends in the SW US can be reconstructed using isotopes in tree rings
• A process model of the proxy can be used to characterize uncertainty in proxy
• Temperature trends in SW US have been relatively stable over last 5 centuries

Pre-instrumental surface temperature variability in the Southwestern United States has traditionally been reconstructed using variations in the annual ring widths of high altitude trees that live near a growth-limiting isotherm. A number of studies have suggested that the response of some trees to temperature variations is non-stationary, warranting the development of alternative approaches towards reconstructing past regional temperature variability. Here we present a five-century temperature reconstruction for a high-altitude site in the Rocky Mountains derived from the oxygen isotopic composition of cellulose (δ18Oc) from Bristlecone Pine trees. The record is independent of the co-located growth-based reconstruction while providing the same temporal resolution and absolute age constraints. The empirical correlation between δ18Oc and instrumental temperatures is used to produce a temperature transfer function. A forward-model for cellulose isotope variations, driven by meteorological data and output from an isotope-enabled General Circulation Model, is used to evaluate the processes that propagate the temperature signal to the proxy. The cellulose record documents persistent multidecadal variations in δ18Oc that are attributable to temperature shifts on the order of 1°C but no sustained monotonic rise in temperature or a step-like increase since the late 19th century. The isotope-based temperature history is consistent with both regional wood density-based temperature estimates and some sparse early instrumental records.

Note: Bristlecone pines from California were a source of Mann's hockey stick reconstruction and their use not recommended for temperature reconstructions by the National Academy of Sciences.

Dutch analysis finds wind power is a 'money pit with virtually no merit of CO2 emission reduction or fossil fuel saving'

A Dutch analysis finds that wind energy reduces emissions and fossil fuel use by a maximum of only 1.6% compared to directly generating energy from fossil fuels. Furthermore, the study finds that with large wind installations, power is often wasted since the electricity grid cannot always absorb the intermittent supply, resulting in more fossil fuel consumption than directly generating power from fossil fuels. Thus,  the study concludes, "wind developments are a money pit with virtually no merit in terms of the intended goal of CO₂ emission reduction or fossil fuel saving."

Conclusion and outlook 

Adding it all up, one must conclude that under the present conditions in the Netherlands a 100 MW (Megawatt) 'name plate' capacity wind development produces on average 23 MW because of the capacity factor. 4,6 MW (20%) of this has to be subtracted from the final net result because of initial energy investments. From the actual Statline production figures we know that 27% of this 23 MW = 6,17 MW represents the actual fossil fuel and CO₂ savings. But from this figure we need to subtract the amount of energy invested in the construction works: 4,6 MW. The net total of fuel saving electricity provided by our windturbines therefore is 6,17 - 4,6 = 1,57 MW on average over the year. That is ~ 1,6% of the installed capacity. It makes wind developments a Mega money pit with virtually no merit in terms of the intended goal of CO₂ emission reduction or fossil fuel saving.  

What is going to happen next? The current plan is to extend wind capacity to 8 GW onshore and 4 GW offshore. Presently wind name plate capacity is about 15% of the average domestic electric power need, which is roughly 14 GW. If the capacity exceeds 20% we enter into a new phase in which frequent curtailment sets in: there wil be periods in which the grid simply cannot absorb the supply. This situation already exists in Denmark and Ireland. Then we shall see a further dramatic decrease of the fuel-replacing effectiveness. In a previous study (6), we used a model in which the most conservative scenario had a thus defined windpenetration of 20%. We found that in that case savings were already negative, which means that wind developments actually caused an increase in fossil fuel consumption. The present study based on actual data shows that we are well on the way to reach that stage.

RealClimate admits doubling CO2 could only heat the oceans 0.002ºC at most

A post at the RealClimate blog called, "Why greenhouse gases heat the ocean," acknowledges that infrared radiation emitted by greenhouse gases only penetrates the oceans by a few microns and therefore cannot directly heat the bulk of the oceans [71% of Earth's surface]:

"However, some have insisted that there is a paradox here – how can a forcing driven by longwave absorption and emission impact the ocean below since the infrared radiation does not penetrate more than a few micrometers into the ocean? Resolution of this conundrum is to be found in the recognition that the skin layer temperature gradient not only exists as a result of the ocean-atmosphere temperature difference, but also helps to control the ocean-atmosphere heat flux. (The ‘skin layer‘ is the very thin – up to 1 mm – layer at the top of ocean that is in direct contact with the atmosphere). Reducing the size of the temperature gradient through the skin layer reduces the flux. Thus, if the absorption of the infrared emission from atmospheric greenhouse gases reduces the gradient through the skin layer, the flow of heat from the ocean beneath will be reduced, leaving more of the heat introduced into the bulk of the upper oceanic layer by the absorption of sunlight to remain there to increase water temperature. Experimental evidence for this mechanism can be seen in at-sea measurements of the ocean skin and bulk temperatures."

The RealClimate post then shows the experimental evidence [a single paper] for the remaining claim that greenhouse gases reduce the size of the temperature gradient to reduce heat flow from the oceans to the atmosphere, showing this graph:

Figure 2: The change in the skin temperature to bulk temperature difference as a function of the net longwave radiation.

and stating:

"There is an associated reduction in the difference between the 5 cm and the skin temperatures. The slope of the relationship is 0.002ºK (W/m2)-1. Of course the range of net infrared forcing caused by changing cloud conditions (~100W/m2) is much greater than that caused by increasing levels of greenhouse gases (e.g. doubling pre-industrial CO2 levels will increase the net forcing by ~4W/m2), but the objective of this exercise was to demonstrate a relationship."

According to the IPCC, a doubling of CO2 levels allegedly increases forcing by 3.7 Wm-2 at the top of the atmosphere and by only about 1 Wm-2 at the surface. The paper cited by RealClimate is measuring the effect of longwave forcing at the surface, therefore we assume 1 Wm-2 from doubled CO2 at the surface. Using the slope of the relationship, 0.002ºK (W/m2)-1, we find that doubling of CO2 concentrations could only reduce the temperature gradient 0.002*1 = 0.002ºC. 

Furthermore, a reduced temperature gradient of 0.002ºC could at the very, very most result in an increase in bulk ocean temperature of 0.002ºC. In reality, this will never happen since the heat capacity of the ocean is more than 1000 times greater than the atmosphere, and therefore the ability for a doubling of CO2 to warm the oceans is essentially zero.

Related: New paper finds world's oceans have warmed only 0.09°C over past 55 years

Greens against green energy

Greens Against Green Energy 
Big Solar gets the Big Oil treatment 
WSJ.COM 9/5/12

A couple of weeks ago we wondered if green lobbying groups would object to new Department of Interior rules to streamline environmental approval for solar energy projects on hundreds of thousands of acres of federal land. ("The Solar-Painted Desert," Aug. 13, 2012.) Well, here we go. Three environmental groups—Western Lands Project, Basin and Range Watch, and Solar Done Right—have filed a formal complaint of the kind that often presages a lawsuit.

The letter of protest to the Bureau of Land Management alleges that the agency "failed to analyze numerous impacts of solar energy plant development within several Solar Energy Zones" and that allowing "industrial-scale solar generation" could result in the "virtual privatization of public lands."

But here's the real shocker: The letter complains that "no scientific evidence has been presented to support the claim that these projects reduce greenhouse emissions." And "the opposite may be true. Recent work at the Center for Conservation Biology University of California, Riverside, suggests that soil disturbance from large-scale solar development may disrupt Pleistocene-era caliche deposits that release carbon to the atmosphere when exposed to the elements, thus 'negat[ing] the solar development C [carbon] gains.'"

So solar energy, like corn ethanol, really doesn't reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Now they tell us.

And there's more, says the letter: The environmental impact from these solar panels "are long-term (decades to centuries)" and they threaten the habitat of "endangered species, including the desert tortoise, Mojave fringe-toed lizard, flat-tailed horned lizard, golden eagle and desert bighorn."

Who knows if these objections have any factual basis. They're similar to the exaggerated complaints that greens have used for decades to kill or delay natural gas drilling, coal mining, road building, and the construction of dams for hydropower. But it's certainly news that some greens are even turning against green energy. Welcome to the club, Big Solar.

New paper finds solar activity has a strong influence on Arctic winter severity

A paper published today in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics finds the ice winter severity index over the past 600 years in the Baltic Sea [located a few degrees south of the Arctic circle] is "strongly modulated" by solar activity over periods as short as one decade. The authors also found that the 180 year cycle of the Barycenter modulates solar activity and the ice winter severity index.

Solar forcing on the ice winter severity index in the western Baltic region

• M.C. Leal-Silv^a, , , 
• V.M. Velasco Herrera^b, 

• ^a Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Del. Coyoacán, 04510, México City
• ^b Instituto de Geofísica, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Del. Coyoacán, 04510, México City

• http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2012.08.010, How to Cite or Link Using DOI

• Permissions & Reprints

Abstract

The Sun is the fundamental energy sources of the Earth's climate and therefore its variations can contribute to natural climate variations. In the present work we study the variability of ice winter severity index in the Baltic Sea since the 15th century and its possible connection with solar activity, based in a new method for finding and measuring amplitude-phase cross-frequency coupling in time series with a low signal/noise ratio, we suggests that the ice winter severity index in the Baltic Sea is modulated by solar activity and solar motion in several frequency bands during the last 500 yrs. According to our model a strong coupling between the decadal periodicity in the ice winter severity index time series and the secular periodicity of solar activity is present. We found that the ice winter severity index is strongly modulated by solar activity at the decadal periodicity. We also found that the 180 year periodicity of the Barycentre motion modulates the amplitudes of the decadal periodicity of solar activity and the Ice winter severity index. This method represents a useful tool for study the solar-terrestrial relationships.

Highlights

► We present a new method for assessing amplitude-phase cross-frequency coupling. ► We applied the cross-frequency coupling method to different time series. ► The ice winter severity index is strongly modulated by solar activity.