See this page in Red and Black: Climate Change
After the alarm caused by Al Gore's film "An Inconvenient Truth" in 2006, these are my findings about the drivers of Earth's global climate.
Along the way, I learned about the "Greenhouse Theory" and how water vapor, methane and carbon dioxide delay outgoing heat radiation to space. I also learned about how atmospheric convection cools the Earth.
I learned about global climate as a statistical construct.
I learned about the Sun and its cycles, and about how they correlate to climate changes in the past.
I learned about continental drift and the ice core drillings, and how climate has always been changing from the beginnings of our planet, some 4,500 million years ago, and has continued to change since the origins of carbon-based life, some 3,800 million years ago.
I learned about the Milankovitch cycles and the celestial origin of the profound long-range climate oscillations.
I also learned about the "El Niño" and "La Niña" transferring heat across the Pacific Ocean, and their multidecadal effects on the global climate.
I studied the global temperature anomaly records and what they seemed to show, and about their problems with the warm microclimates near cities and inside towns and airports, where most thermometers are located.
I studied the satellite-based global temperature records since 1979.
I have also learned about the United Nations Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change, about how this political-scientific organization went about preparing their alarming Assessment Reports.
I have read theory on the effects of the Solar wind on the formation of clouds that shade the Earth reflecting sunlight out to space.
I have learned that carbon dioxide is the gas of life for carbon-based creatures on Earth.
I try to present this science in this long page.
I am thankful to the many scientists that present their work with clarity. I am thankful to the many professional and amateur "climate auditors" that will not let the scientific method be trampled on by politics.
Electronics Engineer, Solid State Physics
"Poverty is the greatest threat to the global environment"
From How Environmental Organizations Are Destroying The Environment (Willis Eschenbach, Watts Up With That?, June 26, 2013)
Lindzen: Understanding The IPCC AR5 Climate Assessment
"Carbon restriction policies, to have any effect on climate, would require that the most extreme projections of dangerous climate actually be correct, and would require massive reductions in the use of energy to be universally adopted. There is little question that such reductions would have negative impacts on income, development, the environment, and food availability and cost - especially for the poor. This would clearly be immoral."
"By contrast, the reasonable and moral policy would be to foster economic growth, poverty reduction and well being in order that societies be better able to deal with climate change regardless of its origin. Mitigation policies appear to have the opposite effect without significantly reducing the hypothetical risk of any changes in climate. While reducing vulnerability to climate change is a worthy goal, blind support for mitigation measures - regardless of the invalidity of the claims - constitutes what might be called bankrupt morality."
From Lindzen: Understanding The IPCC AR5 Climate Assessment (Dr. Richard Lindzen, Watts Up With That?, October 8, 2013)
"Weather is climate. More specifically, aggregations of weather are climate.
Means, averages, and distributions of daily weather comprise climate."
From Actually, Weather Is Climate (William M. Briggs, Statistician & Consultant. Jan. 22, '10)
Climate is long-range weather, it is a description of the average or prevailing weather in each season along the years. Climate varies widely among different regions on Earth. Also, in some regions it varies more or less widely with the seasons.
Predicting the weather for a particular region, even for a few days in advance, is one of the most complex problems in science. One basis for these predictions is that weather changes slowly, so tomorrow's weather will be similar to today's weather and so on (but with less certainty the further we go on, because the weather is mathematically chaotic). Also, that weather tends to repeat seasonally, for each region, changing slowly with the years.
The most obvious local cycle in the weather pattern is diurnal, basically controlled by the Sun. The warmest time of the day is usually after noon, after receiving the highest energy influx. The coldest is usually before dawn, after cooling all night.
The second cycle in importance is yearly, also controlled by the amount of energy received from the Sun. The warmest days occur in the summer and the coldest in the winter, when one hemisphere is tilted towards the Sun while the other is tilted away. The axis of the Earth is currently tilted 23.5° in respect to its orbital plane.
The Sun-Earth Connection:
Then there is the cycle of activity of the Sun itself, some 11 years, but not very constant in length or intensity.
Some of the effects of the Solar activity on the Earth's atmosphere are now just beginning to be studied.
The reconstructions of ancient climates reveal a close correlation between Solar activity and temperatures on Earth.
The correlation between Solar activity plus oceanic heat transport and temperatures
is much more closer than the correlation between the abundance of carbon dioxide (CO2) and temperatures.
At the beginning of 2011, we were near a minimum of the Solar Cycle 23 (on December 2008) that was "late to arrive", the next Solar maximum was expected to occur in May 2013.
"May 8, 2009 - The Solar Cycle 24 Prediction Panel has reached a consensus decision on the prediction of the next solar cycle (Cycle 24). First, the panel has agreed that solar minimum occurred in December, 2008. This still qualifies as a prediction since the smoothed sunspot number is only valid through September, 2008. The panel has decided that the next solar cycle will be below average in intensity, with a maximum sunspot number of 90. Given the predicted date of solar minimum and the predicted maximum intensity, solar maximum is now expected to occur in May, 2013. Note, this is a consensus opinion, not a unanimous decision. A supermajority of the panel did agree to this prediction."
[A second peak in sunspot number occurred in December 2013]
International Space Environment Service (ISES), Solar Cycle Sunspot Number Progression
See Solar Cycle Progression and Prediction Center (NOAA / NWS Space Weather Prediction Center)
Scientists studying sunspots for the past 2 decades have concluded that the magnetic field that triggers their formation has been steadily declining. If the current trend continues, by 2016 the sun's face may become spotless and remain that way for decades - a phenomenon that in the 17th century coincided with a prolonged period of cooling on Earth.
The last solar minimum should have ended in 2010, but something peculiar has been happening. Although solar minimums normally last about 16 months, Solar Cycle 23 stretched over 26 months - the longest in a century. One reason, according to a paper submitted to the International Astronomical Union Symposium No. 273, an online colloquium, Long-term Evolution of Sunspot Magnetic Fields (Matthew Penn, William Livingston, 3 Sep. 2010), is that the magnetic field strength of sunspots appears to be waning.
The phenomenon has happened before. Sunspots disappeared almost entirely between 1645 and 1715 during a period called the Maunder Minimum, which coincided with decades of lower-than-normal temperatures in Europe nicknamed the Little Ice Age. But Livingston cautions that the zero-sunspot prediction could be premature. "It may not happen," he says. "Only the passage of time will tell whether the solar cycle will pick up."
See Say Goodbye to Sunspots? (Phil Berardelli, AAAS ScienceNOW, 14 September 2010).
For a discussion, see The sun is still in a slump - still not conforming to NOAA "consensus" forecasts (Anthony Watts, Watts Up With That?, January 5, 2011).
International Space Environment Service (ISES), Solar Cycle Planetary Index, Ap Progression
[The Ap geomagnetic index is an indirect measure of the Solar magnetic field]
See Solar Cycle Progression and Prediction Center (NOAA / NWS Space Weather Prediction Center)
In the Sun, a missing jet stream, fading spots, and slower activity near the poles say that our Sun is heading for a rest period even as it is acting up for the first time in years, according to scientists at the National Solar Observatory (NSO) and the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL).
As the current sunspot cycle, Cycle 24, begins to ramp up toward maximum, independent studies of the solar interior, visible surface, and the corona indicate that the next 11-year solar sunspot cycle, Cycle 25, will be greatly reduced or may not happen at all.
See What's Down With The Sun? - Major Drop In Solar Activity Predicted (NSO Press Release, June 14, 2011),
Major Drop In Solar Activity Predicted (Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Planetary Science Directorate, June 14, 2011).
For a discussion, see "All three of these lines of research to point to the familiar sunspot cycle shutting down for a while." (Anthony Watts, Watts Up With That?, June 14, 2011).
The yearly averaged sunspot number for a period of 400 years (1610-2013)
The Maunder Minimum is shown during the second half of the 17th century
Solar Physics Group, NASA Marshall Space Flight Center [November 1, 2013]
"The Maunder Minimum: Early records of sunspots indicate that the Sun went through a period of inactivity in the late 17th century. Very few sunspots were seen on the Sun from about 1645 to 1715 (JPEG image). Although the observations were not as extensive as in later years, the Sun was in fact well observed during this time and this lack of sunspots is well documented. This period of solar inactivity also corresponds to a climatic period called the "Little Ice Age" when rivers that are normally ice-free froze and snow fields remained year-round at lower altitudes. There is evidence that the Sun has had similar periods of inactivity in the more distant past. The connection between solar activity and terrestrial climate is an area of on-going research."
From The Sunspot Cycle and Solar Cycle Prediction (NASA Solar Physics, Marshall Space Flight Center).
See Daily Sunspot Number and Prediction 1985-2020 (.gif, Solar Cycles 22, 23 and 24. Hathaway/NASA/MSFC).
See Average Daily Sunspot Area (.gif, Solar Cycles 12 to 24. NASA Solar Physics, Marshall Space Flight Center).
See Solar Variability and Terrestrial Climate (NASA Science. January 8, 2013).
History and Calibration of Sunspot Numbers:
"The sunspot number (SSN) record (1610-present) is the primary time sequence of solar and solar-terrestrial physics, with application to studies of the solar dynamo, space weather, and climate change. Contrary to common perception, and despite its importance, the international sunspot number (as well as the alternative widely-used group SSN) series is inhomogeneous and in need of calibration. We trace the evolution of the sunspot record and show that significant discontinuities arose in ~1885 (resulting in a ~50% step in the group SSN) and again when Waldmeier took over from Brunner in 1945 (~20% step in Zürich SSN). We follow Wolf and show how the daily range of geomagnetic activity can be used to maintain the sunspot calibration and use this technique to obtain a revised, homogeneous, and single sunspot series from 1835-2011."
From History and Calibration of Sunspot Numbers (.pdf, Edward W. Cliver, Leif Svalgaard, Kenneth H. Schatten. July 6, 2011)
The "Greenhouse Effect":
Svante Arrhenius (Physicist/Chemist, Sweden, 1859-1927) proposed in 1896 a theory to account for the Earth's ice ages, he was the first scientist to speculate that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature of the Earth through a "greenhouse effect".
He suggested that the human emission of CO2 would be strong enough to prevent the world from entering a new ice age, and that a warmer earth would be needed to feed the rapidly increasing population. He was the first person to predict that emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels and other combustion processes would cause global warming.
In 1896 Arrhenius estimated that a halving of CO2 would decrease temperatures by 4-5°C and a doubling of CO2 would cause a temperature rise of 5-6°C. In his 1906 publication Arrhenius adjusted this value down to 1.6°C (including water vapor feedback: 2.1°C).
See Svante Arrhenius - Biographical (The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1903, Nobelprize.org)
Recent estimates from IPCC (2007) say this value (the Climate Sensitivity) is likely to be between 2 and 4.5°C. But Sherwood Idso in 1998 calculated the Climate Sensitivity to be 0.4°C, and more recently Richard Lindzen at 0.5°C. Roy Spencer calculated 1.3°C in 2011.
See Carbon Dioxide and Global Warming (C. D. Idso and K. E. Idso. co2science.org, 1998)
See Taking Greenhouse Warming Seriously (Richard S. Lindzen, 2007, lower in this page)
See Global Warming 101 (Roy Spencer, Ph. D., Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville - UAH)
See Weak Warming of the Oceans 1955-2010 Implies Low Climate Sensitivity (May 12, 2011. Roy Spencer, Ph. D., Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville - UAH)
See More Musings from the Greenhouse (February 19, 2012. Roy Spencer, Ph. D., Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville - UAH)
Even More Low Climate Sensitivity Estimates:
"The average value of the best estimate of the equilibrium climate sensitivity across all the new studies is about 2.0°C. The average climate sensitivity of the climate models used by the IPCC to project future climate changes (and their impacts) is about 3.4°C - some 70 percent higher than the recent studies indicate."
From Current Wisdom: Even More Low Climate Sensitivity Estimates (Patrick J. Michaels, George Mason University, Cato Institute, August 14, 2013)
IPCC - AR5:
Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6°C (medium confidence) 16.
16 No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.
From IPCC - AR5 - Summary for Policymakers (D.2 Quantification of Climate System Responses, Working Group I, Approved 27 Sep. 2013)
The IPCC AR5 - First impressions:
According to the AR4 report, the "likely equilibrium range of sensitivity" was 2.0 to 4.5°C per CO2 doubling. According to the newer AR5 report, it is 1.5 to 4.5°C, i.e., the likely equilibrium sensitivity is now known less accurately. But they write: "This assessment reflects improved understanding". How ridiculous can you be?
I think the real reason why there is no improvement in the understanding of climate sensitivity is the following. If you have a theory which is correct, then as progressively more data comes in, the agreement becomes better. Sure, occasionally some tweaks have to be made, but overall there is an improved agreement. However, if the basic premises of a theory are wrong, then there is no improved agreement as more data is collected. In fact, it is usually the opposite that takes place, the disagreement increases. In other words, the above behavior reflects the fact that the IPCC and alike are captives of a wrong conception.
From The IPCC AR5 - First impressions (Nir Shaviv. ScienceBits, 2013-10-02)
New Report: Climate Less Sensitive To CO2 Than Models Suggest [March 5, 2014]
Oversensitive: How The IPCC Hid The Good News On Global Warming
A new report published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation shows that the best observational evidence indicates our climate is considerably less sensitive to greenhouse gases than climate models are estimating.
The clues for this and the relevant scientific papers are all referred to in the recently published Fifth Assessment report (AR5) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). However, this important conclusion was not drawn in the full IPCC report - it is only mentioned as a possibility - and is ignored in the IPCC's Summary for Policymakers (SPM).
For over thirty years climate scientists have presented a range for climate sensitivity (ECS) that has hardly changed. It was 1.5-4.5°C in 1979 and this range is still the same today in AR5. The new report suggests that the inclusion of recent evidence, reflected in AR5, justifies a lower observationally-based temperature range of 1.25-3.0°C, with a best estimate of 1.75°C, for a doubling of CO2. By contrast, the climate models used for projections in AR5 indicate a range of 2-4.5°C, with an average of 3.2°C.
This is one of the key findings of the new report Oversensitive: how the IPCC hid the good news on global warming, written by independent UK climate scientist Nic Lewis and Dutch science writer Marcel Crok. Lewis and Crok were both expert reviewers of the IPCC report, and Lewis was an author of two relevant papers cited in it.
In recent years it has become possible to make good empirical estimates of climate sensitivity from observational data such as temperature and ocean heat records. These estimates, published in leading scientific journals, point to climate sensitivity per doubling of CO2 most likely being under 2°C for long-term warming, with a best estimate of only 1.3-1.4°C for warming over a seventy year period.
"The observational evidence strongly suggest that climate models display too much sensitivity to carbon dioxide concentrations and in almost all cases exaggerate the likely path of global warming", says Nic Lewis.
These lower, observationally-based estimates for both long-term climate sensitivity and the seventy-year response suggest that considerably less global warming and sea level rise is to be expected in the 21st century than most climate model projections currently imply.
"We estimate that on the IPCC's second highest emissions scenario warming would still be around the international target of 2°C in 2081-2100", Lewis says.
From New Report: Climate Less Sensitive To CO2 Than Models Suggest (Global Warming Policy Foundation. 05/03/14)
Note on the Theory of the Greenhouse:
By Professor R. W. Wood
"There appears to be a widespread belief that the comparatively high temperature produced within a closed space covered with glass, and exposed to solar radiation, results from a transformation of wave-length, that is, that the heat waves from the sun, which are able to penetrate the glass, fall upon the walls of the enclosure and raise its temperature: the heat energy is re-emitted by the walls in the form of much longer waves, which are unable to penetrate the glass, the greenhouse acting as a radiation trap."
"I have always felt some doubt as to whether this action played any very large part in the elevation of temperature. It appeared much more probable that the part played by the glass was the prevention of the escape of the warm air heated by the ground within the enclosure. If we open the doors of a greenhouse on a cold and windy day, the trapping of radiation appears to lose much of its efficacy."
"As a matter of fact I am of the opinion that a greenhouse made of a glass transparent to waves of every possible length would show a temperature nearly, if not quite, as high as that observed in a glass house. The transparent screen allows the solar radiation to warm the ground, and the ground in turn warms the air, but only the limited amount within the enclosure. In the 'open', the ground is continually brought into contact with cold air by convection currents."
"To test the matter I constructed two enclosures of dead black cardboard, one covered with a glass plate, the other with a plate of rock-salt of equal thickness. The bulb of a thermometer was inserted in each enclosure and the whole packed in cotton, with the exception of the transparent plates which were exposed."
"When exposed to sunlight the temperature rose gradually to 65°C,
the enclosure covered with the salt plate keeping a little ahead of the other,
owing to the fact that it transmitted the longer waves from the sun,
which were stopped by the glass.
In order to eliminate this action the sunlight was first passed through a glass plate.
There was now scarcely a difference of one degree between the temperatures of the two enclosures.
The maximum temperature reached was about 55°C.
From what we know about the distribution of energy in the spectrum of the radiation emitted by a body at 55°C,
it is clear that the rock-salt plate is capable of transmitting practically all of it, while the glass plate stops it entirely.
This shows us that the loss of temperature of the ground by radiation is very small in comparison to the loss by convection, in other words that we gain very little from the circumstance that the radiation is trapped."
"Is it therefore necessary to pay attention to trapped radiation in deducing the temperature of a planet as affected by its atmosphere?
The solar rays penetrate the atmosphere, warm the ground which in turn warms the atmosphere by contact and by convection currents. The heat received is thus stored up in the atmosphere, remaining there on account of the very low radiating power of a gas. It seems to me very doubtful if the atmosphere is warmed to any great extent by absorbing the radiation from the ground, even under the most favourable conditions."
"I do not pretend to have gone very deeply into the matter, and publish this note merely to draw attention to the fact that trapped radiation appears to play but a very small part in the actual cases with which we are familiar."
See Note on the Theory of the Greenhouse
(Professor R. W. Wood, Philosophical Magazine, 1909. Vol. 17, pp. 319-320) [in tech-archive.net]
Robert Williams Wood (1868-1955) was an American physicist and inventor.
See Robert W. Wood (Wikipedia)
Does a Greenhouse Operate through the Greenhouse Effect?
"One of the oft-cited objections to the term 'greenhouse effect' is that it is a misnomer, that a real greenhouse (you know, the kind you grow plants in) doesn't work by inhibiting infrared energy loss. It is usually claimed that a real greenhouse works by inhibiting convective heat loss by trapping the sun-heated air inside."
"Of course, changing any of the assumed numbers will change the result. But, assuming I haven't made a fundamental mistake, I think you would find that the 'greenhouse effect' will consistently be larger than the convective inhibition effect."
"So, maybe the greenhouse effect really does work like a real greenhouse."
See Does a Greenhouse Operate through the Greenhouse Effect? (August 11, 2013. Roy Spencer, Ph. D., Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville - UAH)
CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic's view of potential climate change
Sherwood B. Idso
U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory, Phoenix, Arizona. April 9, 1998.
"Over the course of the past 2 decades, I have analyzed a number of natural phenomena that reveal how Earth's near-surface air temperature responds to surface radiative perturbations.
These studies all suggest that a 300 to 600 ppm doubling of the atmosphere's CO2 concentration could raise the planet's mean surface air temperature by only about 0.4°C.
Even this modicum of warming may never be realized, however, for it could be negated by a number of planetary cooling forces that are intensified by warmer temperatures and by the strengthening of biological processes that are enhanced by the same rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration that drives the warming.
Several of these cooling forces have individually been estimated to be of equivalent magnitude, but of opposite sign, to the typically predicted greenhouse effect of a doubling of the air's CO2 content, which suggests to me that little net temperature change will ultimately result from the ongoing buildup of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere.
Consequently, I am skeptical of the predictions of significant CO2-induced global warming that are being made by state-of-the-art climate models and believe that much more work on a wide variety of research fronts will be required to properly resolve the issue."
From CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic's view of potential climate change (Sherwood B. Idso, April 9, 1998. Climate Research, Vol. 10, No. 1)
What If There Was No Greenhouse Effect?
"As Dick Lindzen alluded to back in 1990, while everyone seems to understand that the greenhouse effect warms the Earth's surface, few people are aware of the fact that weather processes greatly limit that warming. And one very real possibility is that the 1 deg. C direct warming effect of doubling our atmospheric CO2 concentration by late in this century will be mitigated by the cooling effects of weather to a value closer to 0.5 deg. C or so (about 1 deg. F). This is much less than is being predicted by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or by NASA's James Hansen, who believe that weather changes will amplify, rather than reduce, that warming."
What If There Was No Greenhouse Effect?
(Roy Spencer, Ph. D., Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville - UAH. December 31 '09)
Some remarks on global warming
(Richard S. Lindzen, 1990. Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 24, Pages 424-427, .pdf)
Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus
(Richard S. Lindzen, 1992. Cato Institute)
The case of Venus:
The early climate of Venus is thought to have been controlled by a "runaway" atmospheric greenhouse effect that evaporated its oceans.
CO2 is now near 96.5% in its atmosphere (3.5% is nitrogen) and the surface of Venus receives little direct visible sunlight.
The Venusian atmosphere is full of dense, high clouds; 30 to 40 Km thick with bases at 30 or 35 Km of altitude. Venusian climate is determined by its distance to the Sun (0.72 A.U.), its higher albedo and its atmospheric density.
Our atmosphere is not totally cloud-covered, as is Venus (albedo of 0.76); globally, about 40% of the sky is always clear on Earth (albedo of 0.37). Venus has an extremely high atmospheric pressure; 90 times greater than on Earth, and the mean surface temperature on Venus is 465°C, 15°C on Earth.
See Venus compared to Earth (European Space Agency - ESA: Venus Express mission)
The Svensmark Hypothesis:
"Scientists have only recently come to suspect that cosmic rays have an important influence on Earth's climate.
Cosmic rays are highly energetic charged particles that originate from various sources in outer space."
"Scientists have found a link between cosmic ray levels and thunderstorms. There is also a positive correlation between cosmic ray flux (CRF) and low-altitude cloud formation."
"Ions created in the troposphere by cosmic rays could provide a mechanism for cloud formation."
"The influence of galactic cosmic ray modulation is strongest on low-level clouds."
"When the Sun is active, its magnetic field is stronger and as a result fewer global cosmic rays (GCR) arrive in the vicinity of Earth."
"The variations of the cosmic ray flux, as predicted from the galactic model and as observed from the iron meteorites, are in sync with the occurrence of ice age epochs on Earth. The agreement is both in period and in phase."
"The inverse relationship between temperature and CRF is clear; when CRF rises, temperature falls, when CRF drops off, temperature climbs."
"The evidence of correlations between paleoclimate records and solar and cosmic ray activity indicators, suggests that extraterrestrial phenomena are responsible for climatic variability on time scales ranging from days to millennia."
"The movement of the solar system in and out of the spiral arms of the Milky Way galaxy is responsible for changes in the amount of cosmic rays impacting Earth's atmosphere."
"Cosmic Ray Flux variations explain more than two-thirds of the variance in the reconstructed temperature, making CRF variability the dominant climate driver over geologic time scales."
"It has been known for some time that a 62 ±3 million-year cycle in fossil diversity has persisted over the past 542 million years."
"Recently, it has been proposed that the cycle is caused by modulation of CRF due to the solar system's vertical oscillation in the galaxy, which has a period of around 64 million years."
"Decadal - Cosmic ray muons regulated by the Solar cycle. This accounts for temperature variability in sync with the 11 year sunspot cycle."
"Hundreds to thousands of years - Solar regulation of cosmic rays plus changes in Solar irradiance. This variability includes historical climate change as witnessed in the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period."
"Tens to hundreds of thousands of years - The Croll-Milankovitch cycles that combine Earth's attitudinal and orbital variations. This variability drives the glacial-interglacial cycles during ice ages."
"Millions to hundreds of millions of years - The solar system's transit of the galactic spiral arms, causing variation in overall cosmic ray intensity. This variability regulates the cycles of ice ages and hot-house periods."
From The Resilient Earth (Book. Doug L. Hoffman & Allen Simmons, 2008). Chapter 11, Cosmic Rays.
See The Svensmark Hypothesis
(Calder's Updates, Nigel Calder)
- "No, you mustn't say what it means!" (CERN chief forbids "interpretation" of CLOUD results, July 17 '11)
See Cosmic Rays and Climate (Prof. Nir J. Shaviv, Hebrew University of Jerusalem)
Indirect Solar Forcing of Climate by Galactic Cosmic Rays: An Observational Estimate
(May 19 '11),
A Primer on Our Claim that Clouds Cause Temperature Change (Sept. 3 '11. Lower in this page)
(Roy Spencer, Ph. D., Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville - UAH)
See Probing the cosmic-ray-climate link (physicsworld.com, Institute of Physics, Aug 24, 2011)
See CERN's CLOUD experiment provides unprecedented insight into cloud formation (CERN Press Release, Aug 25 '11)
See CERN Finds "Significant" Cosmic Ray Cloud Effect (GWPF, Dr. David Whitehouse, Aug 25, 2011)
See Henrik Svensmark: The Cosmic-Ray/Cloud Seeding Hypothesis Is Converging With Reality (GWPF, Dr. David Whitehouse, Sep 2, 2011)
See Cosmic Rays vs. CO2: The Battle for Climate Change Primacy (Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso)
See The Other Climate Theory (The Wall Street Journal, Anne Jolis, Sep 7, 2011)
Do clouds disappear when cosmic rays get weaker?:
Calder's Updates, May 3, 2010
"The Sun makes fantastic natural experiments" Henrik Svensmark says, "that allow us to test our ideas about its effects on the Earth's climate". Most dramatic are the events called Forbush decreases. Ejections of gas from the Sun, carrying magnetic fields, can suddenly cut the influx of cosmic rays coming to the Earth from exploded stars.
According to the Svensmark hypothesis, cosmic rays seed the formation of low clouds, so there should be a reduction in the Earth's low cloud cover in the aftermath of a Forbush decrease.
With the right tracking skills, the Copenhagen team confirmed all their expectations about the Forbush decreases.
Combined data for the five strongest Forbush decreases since 1998 show a loss of fine aerosols from the atmosphere, especially about 5 days after the cosmic ray minimum (red curve). Within a few days after that, three different sets of data from satellites revealed the loss of low, wet clouds, with clouds over the oceans holding about 7% less liquid water than they did before the events. Dates of the five Forbush minima, ranked in order of the downturn in ionization of the lower air, compared with the overall variation in the course of a solar cycle, were 31/10/2003 (119%), 19/1/2005 (83%), 13/9/2005 (75%), 16/7/2000 (70%) and 12/4/2001 (64%).
The first of the graphics shows a temporary shortage of fine aerosols, chemical specks in the air that normally grow until water vapour can condense on them, so seeding the liquid water droplets of low-level clouds. The remaining three graphs display the observable loss of the clouds that would have been seeded if the aerosols had survived to do their job. Three different kinds of satellite observations tell the same story.
Cosmic rays continuously promote the formation of micro-clusters of sulphuric acid and water molecules, but initially these are far too small to be detectable by remote observation. After growing routinely over a number of days the invisible specks floating in the air influence the normal colour of sunlight as seen from the ground, by scattering away its violet light. Conversely, a shortage of fine aerosols after a shortage of cosmic rays should make the Sun appear abnormally bright in at the violet end of the spectrum.
As the graphs above show, all of these observational data sets showed much the same pattern of events after the strongest Forbush decreases since 1998, namely a decrease in liquid water clouds that reached its lowest point six to nine days after the minimum count of cosmic rays.
As for the magnitude of the impact on cloud cover, it was huge. A 7% decrease in cloud water seen by SSM/I translates into 3 billion tonnes of liquid water vanishing from the sky. The water remains there in vapour form, but unlike cloud droplets it does not block sunlight trying to warm the ocean. After the same five Forbush decreases, the extent of liquid-water clouds measured by MODIS fell on average by 4%, while ISCCP showed 5% less cloud below 3200 metres over the ocean.
From solar activity to cosmic ray ionization to aerosols and liquid-water clouds, a causal chain appears to operate on a global scale.
Although they are too short-lived to have a lasting effect on the climate, the Forbush decreases dramatize the cosmic climate mechanism that works more patiently during the 11-year solar cycle. When the Sun becomes more active, the decline in low-altitude cosmic radiation is greater than that seen in most Forbush events, and the loss of low cloud cover persists for long enough to warm the world. That explains the alternations of warming and cooling seen in the lower atmosphere and in the oceans during solar cycles. And the overall increase in solar activity during the 20th Century implies a loss of low clouds sufficient to explain most of the "global warming".
See Do clouds disappear when cosmic rays get weaker? (Nigel Calder, Calder's Updates, May 3, 2010)
See also Center for Sun-Climate Research (Technical University of Denmark)
See also Center for Sun-Climate Research - Publications (Technical University of Denmark)
See also Cosmic Rays and Climate (arXiv:0804.1938v1, Dr. Jasper Kirkby, 11 April 2008, CERN, Geneva, Switzerland)
See also CO2 and climate change - v7 (Dr. Noor van Andel, 14-02-2011, climategate.nl, .pdf)
The Antarctic climate anomaly and galactic cosmic rays:
It has been proposed that galactic cosmic rays may influence the Earth's climate by affecting cloud formation. If changes in cloudiness play a part in climate change, their effect changes sign in Antarctica. Satellite data from the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) are here used to calculate the changes in surface temperatures at all latitudes, due to small percentage changes in cloudiness. The results match the observed contrasts in temperature changes, globally and in Antarctica. Evidently clouds do not just respond passively to climate changes but take an active part in the forcing, in accordance with changes in the solar magnetic field that vary the cosmic-ray flux.
See The Antarctic climate anomaly and galactic cosmic rays (Henrik Svensmark, December 14, 2006)
Cloud tops have a high albedo and exert their cooling effect by scattering back into the cosmos much of the sunlight
that could otherwise warm the surface.
But the snows on the Antarctic ice sheets are dazzlingly white, with a higher albedo than the cloud tops.
There, extra cloud cover warms the surface, and less cloudiness cools it.
Satellite measurements show the warming effect of clouds on Antarctica,
and meteorologists at far southern latitudes confirm it by observation.
Greenland too has an ice sheet, but it is smaller and not so white.
And while conditions in Greenland are coupled to the general climate of the northern hemisphere,
Antarctica is largely isolated by vortices in the ocean and the air.
The cosmic-ray and cloud-forcing hypothesis therefore predicts that temperature changes in Antarctica should be opposite in sign to changes in temperature in the rest of the world. This is exactly what is observed, in a well-known phenomenon that some geophysicists have called the polar see-saw, but for which "the Antarctic climate anomaly" seems a better name.
See Cosmoclimatology (Professor Henrik Svensmark, 2007. Institute for Free Enterprise (IUF), .pdf)
Evidence of nearby supernovae affecting life on Earth:
Today the Royal Astronomical Society in London publishes (online) Henrik Svensmark's latest paper entitled "Evidence of nearby supernovae affecting life on Earth". After years of effort Svensmark shows how the variable frequency of stellar explosions not far from our planet has ruled over the changing fortunes of living things throughout the past half billion years. Appearing in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, It's a giant of a paper, with 22 figures, 30 equations and about 15,000 words. See the RAS press release at Did exploding stars help life on Earth to thrive? (Professor Henrik Svensmark, Royal Astronomical Society, April 24 2012)
For Svensmark, the changes driven by the stars govern the amount of carbon dioxide in the air. Climate and life control CO2, not the other way around.
See A stellar revision of the story of life (Nigel Calder, April 24 2012)
Did exploding stars help life on Earth to thrive?
Observations of open star clusters in the Solar neighbourhood are used to calculate local supernova (SN) rates for the past 510 Myr. Peaks in the SN rates match passages of the Sun through periods of locally increased cluster formation which could be caused by spiral arms of the Galaxy. A statistical analysis indicates that the Solar system has experienced many large short-term increases in the flux of Galactic cosmic rays (GCR) from nearby SNe. The hypothesis that a high GCR flux should coincide with cold conditions on the Earth is borne out by comparing the general geological record of climate over the past 510 Myr with the fluctuating local SN rates. Surprisingly, a simple combination of tectonics (long-term changes in sea level) and astrophysical activity (SN rates) largely accounts for the observed variations in marine biodiversity over the past 510 Myr. An inverse correspondence between SN rates and carbon dioxide (CO2) levels is discussed in terms of a possible drawdown of CO2 by enhanced bio-productivity in oceans that are better fertilized in cold conditions - a hypothesis that is not contradicted by data on the relative abundance of the heavy isotope of carbon,13C.
See Did exploding stars help life on Earth to thrive? (Professor Henrik Svensmark, National Space Institute, Technical University of Denmark, April 22 2012, .pdf)
Danish experiment suggests unexpected magic by cosmic rays in cloud formation:
Technical University of Denmark
Wednesday 04 Sep. 13
Researchers in the Technical University of Denmark (DTU) are hard on the trail of a previously unknown molecular process that helps commonplace clouds to form. Tests in a large and highly instrumented reaction chamber in Lyngby, called SKY2, demonstrate that an existing chemical theory is misleading.
Back in 1996 Danish physicists suggested that cosmic rays, energetic particles from space, are important in the formation of clouds. Since then, experiments in Copenhagen and elsewhere have demonstrated that cosmic rays actually help small clusters of molecules to form. But the cosmic-ray/cloud hypothesis seemed to run into a problem when numerical simulations of the prevailing chemical theory pointed to a failure of growth.
Fortunately the chemical theory could also be tested experimentally, as was done with SKY2, the chamber of which holds 8 cubic metres of air and traces of other gases. One series of experiments confirmed the unfavourable prediction that the new clusters would fail to grow sufficiently to be influential for clouds. But another series of experiments, using ionizing rays, gave a very different result, as can be seen in the accompanying figure.
The reactions going on in the air over our heads mostly involve commonplace molecules. During daylight hours, ultraviolet rays from the Sun encourage sulphur dioxide to react with ozone and water vapour to make sulphuric acid. The clusters of interest for cloud formation consist mainly of sulphuric acid and water molecules clumped together in very large numbers and they grow with the aid of other molecules.
Atmospheric chemists have assumed that when the clusters have gathered up the day's yield, they stop growing, and only a small fraction can become large enough to be meteorologically relevant. Yet in the SKY2 experiment, with natural cosmic rays and gamma-rays keeping the air in the chamber ionized, no such interruption occurs. This result suggests that another chemical process seems to be supplying the extra molecules needed to keep the clusters growing.
"The result boosts our theory that cosmic rays coming from the Galaxy are directly involved in the Earth's weather and climate", says Henrik Svensmark, lead author of the new report. "In experiments over many years, we have shown that ionizing rays help to form small molecular clusters. Critics have argued that the clusters cannot grow large enough to affect cloud formation significantly. But our current research, of which the reported SKY2 experiment forms just one part, contradicts their conventional view. Now we want to close in on the details of the unexpected chemistry occurring in the air, at the end of the long journey that brought the cosmic rays here from exploded stars."
Simulating what could happen in the atmosphere, the DTU's SKY2 experiment shows molecular clusters (red dots) failing to grow enough to provide significant numbers of "cloud condensation nuclei" (CCN) of more than 50 nanometres in diameter. This is what existing theories predict. But when the air in the chamber is exposed to ionizing rays that simulate the effect of cosmic rays, the clusters (blue dots) grow much more vigorously to the sizes suitable for helping water droplets to form and make clouds. (A nanometre is a millionth of a millimetre)
Prof. Svensmark and his team are in the Center for Sun-Climate Research at the Danish National Space Institute, DTU Space. His co-authors are Martin B. Enghoff and Jens Olaf Pepke Pedersen. In their paper they acknowledge important theoretical contributions to this line of research, notably from Nicolai Bork of the University of Helsinki.
The full reference to the new paper is "Response of cloud condensation nuclei (>50 nm) to changes in ion-nucleation", H. Svensmark, Martin B. Enghoff, Jens Olaf Pepke Pedersen, Physics Letters A 377 (2013) 2343-2347. [.pdf from Response of cloud condensation nuclei (>50 nm) to changes in ion-nucleation (DTU)]
From Danish experiment suggests unexpected magic by cosmic rays in cloud formation Technical University of Denmark, Wednesday 04 Sep '13
See also Svensmark's Theory (Video 05:48 ClimateClips.com)
and The Cloud Mystery (Documentary. Duration: 52 minutes, Language: English. January 2008 © Lars Oxfeldt Mortensen, Producer & director)
The 'Variable Sun':
For some years now, an unorthodox idea has been gaining favor among astronomers. It contradicts old teachings and unsettles thoughtful observers, especially climatologists.
"The Sun", explains Lika Guhathakurta of NASA headquarters in Washington DC, "is a variable star".
"It's not even 11 years", says Guhathakurtha. "The cycle ranges in length from 9 to 12 years. Some cycles are intense, with many sunspots and solar flares; others are mild, with relatively little solar activity. In the 17th century, during a period called the 'Maunder Minimum', the cycle appeared to stop altogether for about 70 years and no one knows why."
There is no need to go so far back in time, however, to find an example of the cycle's unpredictability. Right now the sun is climbing out of a century-class solar minimum that almost no one anticipated.
"The depth of the solar minimum in 2008-2009 really took us by surprise", says sunspot expert David Hathaway of the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama. "It highlights how far we still have to go to successfully forecast solar activity."
Astronomers were once so convinced of the Sun's constancy, they called the irradiance of the sun "the solar constant", and they set out to measure it as they would any constant of Nature. By definition, the solar constant is the amount of solar energy deposited at the top of Earth's atmosphere in units of watts per meter-squared. All wavelengths of radiation are included - radio, infrared, visible light, ultraviolet, x-rays and so on. The approximate value of the solar constant is 1,361 W/m2.
"The 'Solar constant' is an oxymoron", says Judith Lean of the Naval Research Lab. "Satellite data show that the Sun's total irradiance rises and falls with the sunspot cycle by a significant amount."
At solar maximum, the sun is about 0.1% brighter than it is at solar minimum. That may not sound like much, but consider the following: A 0.1% change in 1,361 W/m2 equals 1.4 Watts/m2. Averaging this number over the spherical Earth and correcting for Earth's reflectivity yields 0.24 Watts for every square meter of our planet.
"Add it all up and you get a lot of energy", says Lean. "How this might affect weather and climate is a matter of - at times passionate - debate."
From Solar Dynamics Observatory: The 'Variable Sun' Mission [NASA Science. February 5, 2010]
See Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO) [Launched on January 2010. NASA Goddard Space Flight Center]
See SDO Mission 2009's Channel [YouTube]
Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) Monitoring:
"The Earth's weather and climate regime is determined by the total solar irradiance (TSI) and its interactions with the Earth's atmosphere, oceans and landmasses. Evidence from both 33 years of direct satellite monitoring and historical proxy data leaves no doubt that solar luminosity in general, and TSI in particular, are intrinsically variable phenomena. Subtle variations of TSI resulting from periodic changes in the Earth's orbit (Milankovitch cycles: ~20, 40 and 100 Kyrs) cause climate change ranging from major ice ages to the present inter-glacial, clearly demonstrating the dominance of TSI in climate change on long timescales. TSI monitoring, cosmogenic isotope analyses and correlative climate data indicate that variations of the TSI have been a significant climate forcing during the current inter-glacial period (the last ~10 Kyrs). Phenomenological analyses of satellite TSI monitoring results, TSI proxies during the past 400 years and the records of surface temperature show that TSI variation has been the dominant forcing for climate change during the industrial era. The periodic character of the TSI record indicates that solar forcing of climate change will likely be the dominant variable contributor to climate change in the future."
"Monitoring TSI variability is clearly an important component of climate change research, particularly in the context of understanding the relative forcings of natural and anthropogenic processes. The requirements for a long-term, climate TSI database can be inferred from a recent National Research Council study which concluded that gradual variations in solar luminosity of as little as 0.25% was the likely forcing for the 'little ice age' that persisted in varying degree from the late 14th to the mid 19th centuries. A centuries-long TSI database will have to be calibrated by either precision or accuracy to a small fraction of this value to be of any use in assessing the magnitude of solar forcing."
From Active Cavity Radiometer Irradiance Monitor (ACRIM) Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) Monitoring
See also Ice Ages (Illinois State Museum)
The Sun Defines the Climate:
Habibullo Abdussamatov, Dr. Sc.
Head of Space Research Laboratory of the Pulkovo Observatory,
Head of the Russian/Ukrainian Joint Project Astrometria
Experts of the United Nations in regular reports publish data said to show that the Earth is approaching a catastrophic global warming, caused by increasing emissions of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. However, observations of the Sun show that as for the increase in temperature, carbon dioxide is "not guilty" and as for what lies ahead in the upcoming decades, it is not catastrophic warming, but a global, and very prolonged, temperature drop.
Life on earth completely depends on Solar radiation, the ultimate source of energy for natural processes. For a long time it was thought that the luminosity of the Sun never changes, and for this reason the quantity of Solar energy received per second over one square meter above the atmosphere at the distance of the Earth from the Sun (149,597,892 km), was named the Solar Constant.
Until 1978, precise measurements of the value of the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) were not available. But according to indirect data, namely the established major climate variations of the Earth in recent millennia, one must doubt the invariance of its value.
In the middle of the nineteenth century, German and Swiss astronomers Heinrich Schwabe and Rudolf Wolf established that the number of spots on the surface of the Sun periodically changes, diminishing from a maximum to a minimum, and then growing again, over a time frame on the order of 11 years. Wolf introduced an index ("W") of the relative number of sunspots, computed as the sum of 10 times number of sunspot groups plus the total number of spots in all groups. This number has been regularly measured since 1849. Drawing on the work of professional astronomers and the observations of amateurs (which are of uncertain reliability) Wolf worked out a reconstruction of monthly values from 1749 as well as annual values from 1700. Today, the reconstruction of this time series stretches back to 1611. It has an eleven-year cycle of recurrence as well as other cycles related to onset and development of individual sunspot groups: changes in the fraction of the solar surface occupied by faculae, the frequency of prominences, and other phenomena in the solar chromosphere and corona.
Analyzing data on solar activity, the American astrophysicist John Eddy in 1976 noted a correlation between periods of significant change in the number of spots in the past millennium and large changes in the climate of the Earth, changes that have profoundly influenced the life of peoples and states, initiating economic and demographic crises. Later, St. Petersburg geophysicist Eugene Borisenkov showed (1988) that in each of 18 deep minima of solar activity of the Maunder Minimum type, minima which have occurred about every 200 years for the last 7,500 years, there have been periods of deep temperature decline, while in the periods of high sunspot maxima, there have been periods of global warming. Such changes in the climate of the Earth could be caused only by lasting and significant changes in the Sun, because there was absolutely no industrial effect on nature in those times. This supports the idea that in the bicentennial periods of maximum levels of solar activity, the TSI has always substantially increased, and it has noticeably decreased in periods of minima.
Thus, not 11-year, but bicentennial cycles of solar variation are the dominant factor in climate variations that last for decades: temperatures in the ocean-atmosphere system, the physical parameters of the Earth's surface and its albedo, concentrations of greenhouse gases (primarily water vapor and carbon dioxide) in the atmosphere. Also, a quite important influence on climate is exerted by the world ocean, which possesses large thermal inertia and serves as the principal receiver and storage of solar energy.
A global increase in temperature has also occurred on Mars. NASA researchers, after tracing changes on its surface from 1999 until 2005, discovered melting ice at Mars' South Pole and warming of the Martian climate, a natural event that occurred without any contribution by Martians or greenhouse effect driven by Martians. Analogous processes have also been observed on Jupiter, Neptune, Triton, Pluto and other planets of the solar system. These can only be the direct consequences of the action of one and the same factor - the prolonged and extraordinarily high level of the energy radiated by the Sun.
Warming on Mars did not occur as a result of change in the shape of its orbit and inclination of its axis of rotation, as is frequently asserted: these processes occur on time frames of tens of thousands of years, and therefore in this negligible time frame (six years!) in no way could they affect the climate.
Published in the Russian journal "Nauka i Zhizn" ("Science and Life"), 2009, N1, pp. 34-42.
See The Sun Defines the Climate (Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov, 2009. Translated from Russian by Lucy Hancock, .pdf)
See also SL-200 Solar Limbograph (permanently mounted onboard the International Space Station)
See also Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says (Kate Ravilious, National Geographic News, February 28, 2007)
Bicentennial Decrease of the Total Solar Irradiance Leads to Unbalanced Thermal Budget of the Earth and the Little Ice Age:
Habibullo Abdussamatov, Dr. Sc.
Head of Space Research Laboratory of the Pulkovo Observatory,
Head of the Russian/Ukrainian Joint Project Astrometria
Temporal changes in the power of the longwave radiation of the system Earth-atmosphere emitted to space
always lag behind changes in the power of absorbed solar radiation due to slow change of its enthalpy.
That is why the debit and credit parts of the average annual energy budget of the terrestrial globe with its air and water envelope are practically always in an unbalanced state.
Average annual balance of the thermal budget of the system Earth-atmosphere during long time period will reliably determine the course and value of both an energy excess accumulated by the Earth or the energy deficit in the thermal budget which, with account for data of the TSI forecast, can define and predict well in advance the direction and amplitude of the forthcoming climate changes.
From early 90s we observe bicentennial decrease in both the TSI and the portion of its energy absorbed by the Earth.
The Earth as a planet will henceforward have negative balance in the energy budget which will result in the temperature drop in approximately 2014.
Due to increase of albedo and decrease of the greenhouse gases atmospheric concentration the absorbed portion of solar energy and the influence of the greenhouse effect will additionally decline.
The influence of the consecutive chain of feedback effects which can lead to additional drop of temperature will surpass the influence of the TSI decrease.
The onset of the deep bicentennial minimum of TSI is expected in 2042±11, that of the 19th Little Ice Age in the past 7500 years - in 2055±11.
From early 1990s the values of both eleven-year and bicentennial components of TSI variations are decreasing at accelerating (at present) rate (Fig. 2), and hence a fraction of TSI absorbed by the Earth is declining at practically the same rate.
Pulkovo Observatory of the RAS
Pulkovskoye shosse 65, St. Petersburg, 196140, Russia
Published in the journal Applied Physics Research.
Received: September 22, 2011 Accepted: October 9, 2011 Published: February 1, 2012
doi:10.5539/apr.v4n1p178 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/apr.v4n1p178
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
Applied Physics Research, ISSN 1916-9639 (Print), ISSN 1916-9647 (Online)
Copyright © Canadian Center of Science and Education
See Bicentennial Decrease of the Total Solar Irradiance Leads to Unbalanced Thermal Budget of the Earth and the Little Ice Age (Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov, 2012, Applied Physics Research)
Also see the International Space Station's Russian-Ukrainian "ASTROMETRIA" project (Measurement of temporary variations of the shape and diameter of the Sun and the total solar irradiance. Pulkovo Observatory)
Grand Minimum of the Total Solar Irradiance Leads to the Little Ice Age
Habibullo Abdussamatov. November 25, 2013
Significant climate variations during the past 7.5 millennia indicate that bicentennial quasi-periodic TSI variations define a corresponding cyclic mechanism of climatic changes from global warmings to Little Ice Ages and set the timescales of practically all physical processes taking place in the Sun-Earth system. Quasi-bicentennial cyclic variations of the TSI entering the Earth's upper atmosphere are the main fundamental cause of corresponding alternations of climate variations. At the same time, more long-term variations of the annual average of the TSI due to changes in the shape of the Earth's orbit, inclination of the Earth's axis relative to its orbital plane, and precession, known as the astronomical Milankovitch cycles, together with the subsequent feedback effects, lead to the Big Glacial Periods (with the period of about 100,000 years).
Thus quasi-bicentennial variation of the TSI always leads to the unbalance of the annual average energy budget of the Earth-atmosphere system, while upcoming Grand minimum of the TSI leads to deficit of the annual average energy budget of the Earth and the Little Ice Age.
Since the early 1990s one has observed a decrease in both the TSI and hence the portion of energy absorbed by the Earth (Figure 1). Since the Sun is in the phase of decline of the quasi-bicentennial variation, an average annual decrease of the smoothed absolute value of TSI from the 22nd cycle to the 23rd and 24th cycles is increasing.
Figure 1. Variations of both the TSI and solar activity in 1978-2013 and prognoses of these variations to cycles 24-27 until 2045.
The arrow indicates the beginning of the new Little Ice Age epoch after the maximum of cycle 24.
The observed trend of the increasing rate of an average annual decline in the absolute value of TSI
allows us to suggest that this decline as a whole will correspond to the analogous TSI decline in the period of Maunder minimum
according to its most reliable reconstruction. (Shapiro A.I. et al., 2011)
Let us note that the level of maximum of the 11-year component of TSI has decreased within five years of the 24th cycle by ~0.7 Wm-2 with respect to the maximum level of the 23rd cycle. The Earth as a planet will have also a negative balance in the energy budget in the future, because the Sun has entered the decline phase of the quasibicentennial cycle of the TSI variations. This will lead to a drop in the temperature and to the beginning of the epoch of the Little Ice Age approximately after the maximum of solar cycle 24 since the year 2014.
Thus, the quasi-bicentennial variations of the TSI
(allowing for their direct and secondary impacts, with the latter being due to the secondary feedback effects)
are the major and essential cause of climate changes.
The Sun is the main factor controlling the climatic system
and even non-significant long-term TSI variations may have serious consequences for the climate of the Earth and other planets of the Solar system.
Quasi-bicentennial solar cycles are the key to understanding cyclic changes in both the nature and the society. The sign and value of the energy imbalance in the Earth-atmosphere system over a long time span (excess of incoming TSI accumulated by the Ocean, or its deficiency) determine a corresponding change of the energy state of the system and, hence, a forthcoming climate variation and its amplitude. That is why the Earth's climate will change every 200±70 years; and it is the result of bicentennial cyclic TSI variation.
See Grand Minimum of the Total Solar Irradiance Leads to the Little Ice Age (.pdf, Science and Public Policy Institute - SPPI, Habibullo Abdussamatov. November 25, 2013)
Also see the International Space Station's Russian-Ukrainian "ASTROMETRIA" project (Measurement of temporary variations of the shape and diameter of the Sun and the total solar irradiance. Pulkovo Observatory)
The Croll-Milankovitch Cycles:
"The Earth's orbit around the Sun is not quite circular, which means that the Earth is slightly closer to the Sun at some times of the year than others.
The closest approach of the Earth to the Sun is called perihelion, and it now occurs in January, making northern hemisphere winters slightly milder.
This change in timing of perihelion is known as the precession of the equinoxes, and occurs on a period of 22,000 years.
11,000 years ago, perihelion occurred in July, making the seasons more severe than today.
The "roundness", or eccentricity, of the Earth's orbit varies on cycles of 100,000 and 400,000 years, and this affects how important the timing of perihelion is to the strength of the seasons. The combination of the 41,000 year tilt cycle and the 22,000 year precession cycles, plus the smaller eccentricity signal, affect the relative severity of summer and winter, and are thought to control the growth and retreat of ice sheets. Cool summers in the northern hemisphere, where most of the earth's land mass is located, appear to allow snow and ice to persist to the next winter, allowing the development of large ice sheets over hundreds to thousands of years. Conversely, warmer summers shrink ice sheets by melting more ice than the amount accumulating during the winter."
From Milankovitch Theory (Astronomical Theory of Climate Change, NOAA Paleoclimatology)
"Variations in the intensity and timing of heat from the Sun are the most likely cause of glacial/interglacial cycles. This variability is partially driven by changes in the Sun's output, but is affected more strongly by variations in Earth's orbit."
"There are three major components of Earth's orbit about the Sun that contribute to changes in our climate.
These are, the Precession of the Equinoxes, and changes in Axial Obliquity and Orbital Eccentricity.
The full cycle of equinox precession takes 25,800 years to complete.
Presently, Earth is closest to the Sun [perihelion] in January and farther away in July [aphelion].
Presently Earth's tilt is 23.5°, but the 41,000 year cycle varies from 22.1° to 24.5°.
Earth's orbit goes from measurably elliptical to nearly circular in a cycle that takes around 100,000 years."
"Individually, each of the three cycles affect insolation patterns. When taken together, they can partially cancel or reinforce each other in complicated ways."
From The Resilient Earth (Book. Doug L. Hoffman & Allen Simmons, 2008). Chapter 9, Variations In Earth's Orbit.
"The Serbian astrophysicist Milutin Milankovitch (1879-1958) is best known for developing one of the most significant theories relating Earth motions and long-term climate change."
"Changes in orbital eccentricity affect the Earth-Sun distance. Currently, a difference of only 3 percent (5 million kilometers) exists between closest approach (perihelion), which occurs on or about January 3, and furthest departure (aphelion), which occurs on or about July 4. This difference in distance amounts to about a 6 percent increase in incoming solar radiation (insolation) from July to January. The shape of the Earth's orbit changes from being elliptical (high eccentricity) to being nearly circular (low eccentricity) in a cycle that takes between 90,000 and 100,000 years. When the orbit is highly elliptical, the amount of insolation received at perihelion would be on the order of 20 to 30 percent greater than at aphelion, resulting in a substantially different climate from what we experience today."
From Milutin Milankovitch (NASA Earth Observatory)
"Milankovitch's work was an attempt at explaining the ice ages, and it built upon previous astronomical theories of climate variation postulated by Joseph Adhemar and James Croll in the 19th century."
From The Seasons and the Earth's Orbit (The United States Naval Observatory (USNO) - Astronomical Information Center)
ITCZ, Pressure and Wind at Sea Level:
The Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ) is identified on the figures by a red line. The formation of this band of low pressure is the result of solar heating and the convergence of the trade winds. In January, the intertropical convergence zone is found south of the equator. During this time period, the Southern Hemisphere is tilted towards the Sun and receives higher inputs of shortwave radiation. Note that the line representing the intertropical convergence zone is not straight and parallel to the lines of latitude. Bends in the line occur because of the different heating characteristics of land and water. Over the continents of Africa, South America, and Australia, these bends are toward the South Pole. This phenomenon occurs because land heats up faster than ocean.
The graphics show the center of the ITCZ (red line) and the atmospheric pressure (colors), velocity and direction at sea level (black arrows), in January and July (1959-1997 average).
During July, the intertropical convergence zone (ITCZ) is generally found north of the equator. This shift in position occurs because the altitude of the Sun is now higher in the Northern Hemisphere. The greatest spatial shift in the ITCZ, from January to July, occurs in the eastern half of the image. This shift is about 40° of latitude in some places. The more intense July Sun causes land areas of Northern Africa and Asia rapidly warm creating the Asiatic Low which becomes part of the ITCZ. In the winter months, the intertropical convergence zone is pushed south by the development of an intense high pressure system over central Asia. The extreme movement of the ITCZ in this part of the world also helps to intensify the development of a regional winds system called the Asian Monsoon.
Global Scale Circulation of the Atmosphere,
Tropical Weather and Hurricanes,
Chapter 7: Introduction to the Atmosphere.
Fundamentals of Physical Geography
- Dr. Michael Pidwirny, University of British Columbia Okanagan
See Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone (NWS JetStream)
Also see earth wind map (Cameron Beccario); An animated Adobe Flash visualization of global winds conditions, forecasted by supercomputers, updated every three hours (Weather Data from National Centers for Environmental Prediction - NCEP / US National Weather Service / NOAA).
Standard Pressure/Altitude: 1000 hPa ≈ 100 m, 850 hPa ≈ 1,500 m, 700 hPa ≈ 3,500 m, 500 hPa ≈ 5,000 m, 250 hPa ≈ 10,500 m, 70 hPa ≈ 17,500 m, 10 hPa ≈ 26,500 m. 1 hectopascal (hPa) = 100 Pa = 1 mbar.
The "Surface" layer represents conditions at ground or water level, this layer follows the contours of mountains, valleys, etc.
Overlays for wind, temperature, total precipitable water, total amount of water in clouds, and air pressure reduced to sea level.
For example: earth wind map centered on Miami, FL (1000 hPa, Lat. 26° N, Long. 80° W), North Pole (10 hPa, Lat. 90° N, Long. 80° W).
[Click on map for local conditions for wind direction and speed, drag to rotate the globe, mouse wheel to zoom]
The troposphere is the lowest layer of the atmosphere, from the ground to the tropopause. It goes from some 20 Km in the equatorial regions to near 7 Km at the poles when in winter. In the temperate zones of the Earth it averages some 17 Km. In the troposphere are 80% of the mass and 99% of the water vapor and particles of the atmosphere.
Tropos means change in Greek; in the troposphere is where most of the weather occurs.
The composition of the atmosphere is very uniform but for the water, vapor and ice distribution. All this water is evaporated at the surface of continents and oceans.
The tropopause is the boundary region between the troposphere and the stratosphere. There is little mixing between these two layers.
In the troposphere layer temperature decreases with altitude (positive lapse rate, usually 6°C/Km), from an average of 15°C at sea level to about -55°C at the top of the tropopause.
In the stratosphere layer the temperature at first remains near constant, then increases with altitude (negative lapse rate), this defines the height of the tropopause.
The standard ground atmospheric pressure at the equator (1,013.25 hPa = 760 mmHg) results from the weight of the air above.
Local pressure decreases with temperature, elevation and latitude. Local pressure increases with humidity in the air above.
Low local pressures are normally associated with faster winds, clouds, precipitation and storms. High local pressures are normally associated with dry weather and mostly clear skies, with larger diurnal temperature changes and light winds.
The Madden-Julian Oscillation (MJO):
The tropical atmosphere-ocean system varies on many time scales, including:
Accurate forecasting of this variability will benefit people living in the tropical regions, and also over the rest of the Earth due to remote 'teleconnections' between the weather in the tropics and the weather elsewhere around the globe. Here, we focus on variability on the intraseasonal time scale, which is dominated by the Madden-Julian oscillation (MJO). This was discovered by Madden and Julian (1971, 1972) who called it the '40-50-day oscillation' because of its preferred time scale. Since then it has been called the '30-60-day oscillation' and the 'intraseasonal oscillation', but the term 'MJO' has now emerged as a favorite.
The MJO is characterized by an eastward propagation of rainfall over the 'warm pool' region from the Indian Ocean to the western Pacific.
In addition to strongly modulating the rainfall in the tropics, the MJO has a signal in other meteorological variables. For example, a clear MJO cycle in sea level pressure can also be seen.
The negative pressure anomalies appear to emanate out of the region of enhanced rainfall. One signal propagates eastward along the equator. This is an equatorial Kelvin wave. When it reaches the Andes mountain range along the eastern coast of the Pacific it is momentarily blocked, before continuing on eastward across the Atlantic, completing a circuit of the equator in one MJO cycle, about 48 days.
An equatorial Rossby wave signal is also forced by the MJO rainfall anomalies. This can be seen as a pair of negative sea level pressure anomalies, one either side of the equator, that lie slightly to the west of the enhanced rainfall.
In the 'other half' of the MJO cycle, the reduced rainfall triggers equatorial Kelvin and Rossby waves of the opposite sign (positive sea level pressure anomalies).
The MJO also affects other meteorological systems in the tropics:
From Introduction to the Madden-Julian oscillation (MJO) (Dr. Adrian Matthews. University of East Anglia, UK)
The Madden-Julian Oscillation (MJO) is a tropical weather system that lasts about 1 to 2 months. It is one of the few aspects of the weather that can be skilfully predicted beyond about 2 weeks into the future.
From Current MJO forecast (Dr. Adrian Matthews. University of East Anglia, UK)
The Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO):
The Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO) is a mode of natural variability occurring in the North Atlantic Ocean and which has its principle expression in the sea surface temperature (SST) field. The AMO is identified as a coherent pattern of variability in basin-wide North Atlantic SSTs with a period of 60-80 years.
From Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO) (University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) - National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) Climate Indices)
For an updated plot of the AMO index, see
AMO from NOAA/ESRL PSD
(Since 1850, averaged Jan. to Dec.)
From Analyze & Plot Long Range Climate Timeseries (NOAA/ESRL PSD GCOS WGSP)
Is the AMO a natural phenomenon, or is it related to global warming?
Instruments have observed AMO cycles only for the last 150 years, not long enough to conclusively answer this question. However, studies of paleoclimate proxies, such as tree rings and ice cores, have shown that oscillations similar to those observed instrumentally have been occurring for at least the last millennium. This is clearly longer than modern man has been affecting climate, so the AMO is probably a natural climate oscillation. In the 20th century, the climate swings of the AMO have alternately camouflaged and exaggerated the effects of global warming, and made attribution of global warming more difficult to ascertain.
From Physical Oceanography Division - Frequently Asked Questions - Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (Atlantic Oceanographic & Meteorological Laboratory of NOAA)
The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation is a recently discovered mode of Sea Surface Temperature variability for a significant portion of the global oceans. Climate studies provide different causes for the additional strength of the changes in North Atlantic SST anomalies: some blame the Atlantic branch of Thermohaline Circulation, while another discusses the multiple interactions between Saharan dust, Sahel precipitation, solar radiation, and Atlantic Sea Surface Temperature.
While cause may be debatable, its impact on Northern Hemisphere sea surface and land surface temperature is clear.
Foltz and McPhaden (2008) write in their Abstract, "Trends in tropical Atlantic sea surface temperature (SST), Sahel rainfall, and Saharan dust are investigated during 1980-2006. This period is characterized by a significant increase in tropical North Atlantic SST and the transition from a negative to a positive phase of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). It is found that dust concentrations over western Africa and the tropical North Atlantic Ocean decreased significantly between 1980 and 2006 in association with an increase in Sahel rainfall. The decrease in dust in the tropical North Atlantic tended to increase the surface radiative heat flux by 0.7 W/m^2 which, if unbalanced, would lead to an increase in SST of 3 deg C. Coupled models significantly underestimate the amplitude of the AMO in the tropical North Atlantic possibly because they do not account for changes in Saharan dust concentration."
From An Introduction To ENSO, AMO, and PDO - Part 2 (Bob Tisdale, Climate Observations. August 16, 2010)
El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO):
El Niño and La Niña are natural oscillations of the ocean-atmosphere system in the tropical Pacific that have important consequences for weather around the globe. Current science can detect them, but not predict them in the long term.
They are part of a phenomenon known as El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO), a continual but irregular cycle (of about 3 to 7 years) of shifts in ocean and atmospheric conditions that affect the global climate.
El Niño is characterized by unusually warm ocean temperatures in the Equatorial Pacific, as opposed to La Niña, which is characterized by unusually cold ocean temperatures in the Equatorial Pacific.
Among these consequences is increased rainfall across the southern tier of the US and in Peru, which has caused destructive flooding, and drought in the West Pacific, sometimes associated with devastating brush fires in Australia.
El Niño events tend to suppress Atlantic hurricane activity, while La Niña events tend to enhance it.
In July 2009 the Journal of Geophysical Research published our paper titled "The Influence of the Southern Oscillation on Tropospheric Temperature". We showed that the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI, calculated according to the Troup method, was a good indicator of global average lower tropospheric temperature 7 months later except when volcanic eruptions around the Pacific Ocean caused cooling.
See Our ENSO - temperature paper of 2009 and the aftermath (Dr. John McLean, 2 Feb. 2011)
See also Tracking El Niño (PBS - NOVA Online)
The recent change from stronger El Nino to stronger La Nina conditions is revealed in monthly Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI) data since 1950 ... which is also related to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), some researchers consider the PDO to be a low-frequency modulation of El Nino and La Nina activity.
Of significance to the current 'global warming hiatus' issue is the observation that we might have now entered into a new La Niña-dominant phase. ... such a scenario could well lead to a 25- or 30-year period of no warming - or even cooling - just as was experienced up until the 1970s.
From On Changing ENSO Conditions: The View from SSM/I (September 24th, 2013 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.)
Who Turned on the Heat? - "The Unsuspected Global Warming Culprit, El Niño-Southern Oscillation"
Bob Tisdale, August 2012
"The Southern Oscillation was discovered decades before it was found to be related to El Niño and La Niña events, which are not repetitive in time, so they are not parts of a true oscillation. While there are portions of El Niño and La Niña processes that behave as cycles, those cycles break down, and an El Niño or a La Niña can evolve as an independent event. Further, El Niño and La Niña are not opposites. That's also very obvious in the sea surface temperature records. La Niña is an exaggeration of the normal state of the tropical Pacific, while an El Niño is the anomalous phase. That's why many researchers believe there are only two states of the tropical Pacific: El Niño and 'other'. Also, over the last 30 years it's rare when a La Niña has been as strong as the El Niño that preceded it. How then could a La Niña counteract an El Niño? Of course, the temperature records also show a multidecadal period when La Niña were as strong as El Niño, and it's no coincidence that global surface temperature did not warm during it."
"A very strong El Niño like the one in 1997/98 is capable of temporarily raising global surface temperatures more than 0.4 deg C (about 0.7 deg F) over a 12-month period, and for some reason, many climate scientists claim such an event has no long-term aftereffects. This means those scientists have failed to account for the warm water that is redistributed after a strong El Niño and for the effects those leftover warm waters have on global climate."
"An El Niño and his sibling La Niña can cause flooding in some parts of the world, droughts in others - blizzards in some areas, record low snowfalls elsewhere. The strong storms they produce erode coastlines. They can suppress the development of tropical cyclones (hurricanes) in some parts of the globe and enhance the conditions for their development in others. It should go without saying that they cause heat waves and cold spells depending on the season and location. These causes and effects have been known for decades. Recently, however, a few headline-seizing climate scientists, with the help of mainstream media and blogs, have now redirected the blame for those weather events to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases."
"The IPCC uses climate model simulations of global surface temperatures with and without radiative forcings from manmade greenhouse gases to show that the warming of global surface temperatures for the past three decades could only be simulated by the models that included anthropogenic greenhouse gases. For the IPCC, this provided irrefutable proof that greenhouse gases were responsible for the warming. To the general public, however, it suggested another possibility. If climate models without radiative forcings from greenhouse gas couldn't simulate the warming, then those assumption-based climate models might be seriously flawed. This book, using the outputs of the climate models used by the IPCC, confirms that they are in fact flawed. Climate models show no skill whatsoever at being able to simulate the ocean processes that produced the warming of global sea surface temperatures for the past 3 decades."
"Maybe the IPCC should examine the sea surface temperature records for the past 30 years. Why? They do not agree with the IPCC's conclusions. Satellite-based sea surface temperature records show El Niño and La Niña are responsible for most of the warming of global sea surface temperatures over the past 3 decades. That fact shows up plain as day in sea surface temperature records. It's tough to miss. It really is. Maybe the IPCC has overlooked it intentionally."
"Who Turned on the Heat? uses observations-based data, not climate models, to illustrate where and how ENSO is capable of raising global sea surface temperatures over periods of 10, 20, 30 years and more. Because land surface air temperatures are basically along for the ride, mimicking the variations in sea surface temperatures, ENSO can be said to be responsible for most of the warming of global land plus sea surface temperatures for the past three decades as well."
"El Niño and La Niña events are often described as the 'unusual' warming (El Niño) and cooling (La Niña) of the surface of the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean. They happen every couple of years, so there's really nothing unusual about them. In fact, based on the NOAA's Oceanic NINO Index (ONI), official El Niño and La Niña months occurred about 55% of the time since 1950. Also, scientists who study historical changes in climate (paleoclimatologists) have presented evidence that El Niño and La Niña events were occurring 3 to 5 million years ago. In other words, not only do El Niño and La Niña events occur often, they've been around a long, long time."
"El Niño and La Niña are siblings, Mother Natures' mischievous but mighty children. Contrary to popular beliefs, they do not counteract one another. This is also plainly evident in sea surface temperature data. Further, El Niño is usually more powerful than his sister. On the other hand, La Niña can endure for as long as three years, while the stronger El Niño normally lasts for less than one year. Look out, though, when they both decide to test themselves as strong events in sequence, wrestling with global surface temperatures as a tag team. Together they can cause global surface temperatures to shift upwards for a decade, until they act together again as a team and cause another persistent change in surface temperatures around the globe. This happens because of some not-so-subtle differences between La Niña and El Niño phases, a fact that is very apparent once you understand those phases."
"The IPCC's climate models are allegedly used to determine the causes of the past warming and cooling of global surface temperatures, and they are employed to project global surface temperatures into the future based on a number of assumptions. Here's a simple but realistic way to look at the climate models: Climate models show how surface temperatures would warm IF they were warmed by manmade greenhouse gases. The truth is, the Earth's oceans do not respond to manmade greenhouse gases as the modelers have assumed. The sea surface temperature records show the global oceans could care less about a little back radiation from anthropogenic greenhouse gases. While global sea surface temperatures have definitely warmed over the past 3 decades, there is no indication that additional infrared radiation from increased concentrations of carbon dioxide caused the warming."
"Examples of climate model problems: Most of the climate models used by the IPCC in their 2007 4th Assessment Report (AR4), in addition to the failings already discussed, have multiple flaws with how they simulate the natural processes taking place in the tropical Pacific. They have difficulties simulating precipitation, cloud cover, downward shortwave radiation, trade wind speeds and location, etc., which are all interrelated and associated with El Niño-Southern Oscillation. Climate models tend to make La Niña events as strong as El Niño events, while in the real world, starting in the late 1970s, El Niño events have tended to be stronger than La Niña events. Recently, though, they've been working their way back to a regime when El Niño and La Niña are more equally weighted. It is well known that El Niño and La Niña events are tied to the seasonal cycle with both phases peaking around December, but this is not the case in all climate models."
"The sea surface temperature and ocean heat content data for the past 30 years show the global oceans have warmed. There is no evidence, however, that the warming was caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases in part or in whole; that is, the warming can be explained by natural ocean-atmosphere processes, primarily ENSO."
From Who Turned on the Heat? - "The Unsuspected Global Warming Culprit, El Niño-Southern Oscillation" (Bob Tisdale, August 2012).
A preview of the book is available at Preview of Who Turned on the Heat? (v2) - 1 (.pdf, 1,772 KB).
Book Review By Donald Rapp Of "Who Turned on the Heat?" (Roger Pielke Sr., Climate Science, Sep. 12, 2012).
See also The Warming of the Global Oceans - Are Manmade Greenhouse Gases Important or Impotent? (Bob Tisdale, September 16, 2012).
See also An Illustrated Introduction to the Basic Processes that Drive El Niño and La Niña Events (Bob Tisdale, January 10, 2014).
Bob Tisdale - The Manmade Global Warming Challenge:
I've published an illustrated essay titled "The Manmade Global Warming Challenge". My message: ocean heat content data since 1955 and satellite-era sea surface temperature data indicate the oceans have warmed naturally.
From The Manmade Global Warming Challenge (Bob Tisdale, January 1, 2013).
The Manmade Global Warming Challenge - Introduction,
and The Manmade Global Warming Challenge (Bob Tisdale, .pdf, January 2013).
Bob Tisdale - New Book "Climate Models Fail":
The Free Preview of Climate Models Fail [.pdf]
includes the Introduction, Table of Contents, and the Closing.
As you'll note from the Table of Contents, the book includes many of the model-data comparisons I published as blog posts over the past year. The text accompanying them has been rewritten, expanded and edited for readability in this book. And you'll note there are brand new presentations.
Climate Models Fail exposes the disturbing fact that climate models being used by the IPCC for their 5th Assessment Report have very little practical value because they cannot simulate critical variables of interest to the public and policymakers. Using easy-to-read graphs, this book compares data (surface temperature, precipitation, and sea ice area) with the computer model simulations. It is very easy to see that the model outputs bear little relationship to the data. In other words, climate models create imaginary climates in virtual worlds that exhibit no similarities to the climate of the world in which we live.
This book was prepared for readers without scientific backgrounds. The terms used by scientists are explained and non-technical "translations" are provided. Introductory sections present basics. There are also numerous hyperlinks to additional background information. The book is well illustrated, with more than 250 color-coded graphs and maps. It is an excellent introduction to global warming and climate change for people who are not well-versed yet want to learn more.
From New Book: "Climate Models Fail" (Bob Tisdale, September 24, 2013).
See also It Isn't How Climate Scientists Communicated their Message; It's the Message (Bob Tisdale, March 6, 2014).
Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO):
The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) is a natural long-term temperature fluctuation of the Pacific Ocean. The PDO waxes and wanes approximately every 20 to 30 years, has a dominant impact on hurricane variability in the Pacific and is probably influenced by the ENSO.
The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) is a long-lived El Niño-like pattern of Pacific climate variability. While the two climate oscillations have similar spatial climate fingerprints, they have very different behavior in time.
From Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) (NOAA - National Climatic Data Center - June Global release: 21 July 2014)
Two main characteristics distinguish PDO from El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO): first, 20th century PDO "events" persisted for 20-to-30 years, while typical ENSO events persisted for 6 to 18 months; second, the climatic fingerprints of the PDO are most visible in the North Pacific/North American sector, while secondary signatures exist in the tropics - the opposite is true for ENSO.
Several independent studies find evidence for just two full PDO cycles in the past century: "cool" PDO regimes prevailed from 1890-1924 and again from 1947-1976, while "warm" PDO regimes dominated from 1925-1946 and from 1977 through (at least) the mid-1990's. A "cool" PDO regime has prevailed after 1998.
Causes for the PDO are not currently known. Likewise, the potential predictability for this climate oscillation is not known.
See What is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation?
(NOAA - NWS Western Region Headquarters).
See The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) (Nathan Mantua, University of Washington).
See The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), The El Nino / Southern Oscillation (ENSO) (Global Warming Science).
See Revisiting "Misunderstandings About The PDO - Revised" (Bob Tisdale, May 25, 2009).
"A simple climate model forced by satellite-observed changes in the Earth's radiative budget associated with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation is shown to mimic the major features of global average temperature change during the 20th Century - including three-quarters of the warming trend. A mostly-natural source of global warming is also consistent with mounting observational evidence that the climate system is much less sensitive to carbon dioxide emissions than the IPCC's climate models simulate."
Global Warming as a Natural Response to Cloud Changes Associated with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO),
(Roy Spencer, Ph. D., Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville - UAH. December 29, 2008).
The Relationship Between the PDO and ENSO:
"The PDO index represents the spatial pattern of the sea surface temperature anomalies in the extratropical North Pacific (20° N - 65° N)
... not the sea surface temperature anomalies themselves.
A strong positive PDO index value indicates the sea surface temperature anomalies of the eastern extratropical North Pacific
are warmer than the western and central portions, which is a spatial pattern created by El Niño events.
On the other hand,
a strong negative PDO index value indicates the sea surface temperature anomalies of the western and central portions
of the extratropical North Pacific are warmer than the eastern portion, and that's a spatial pattern created by La Niña events."
[See Figure 1]
"A cooling of the sea surface temperature anomalies of the western-central portion of the North Pacific can cause the PDO index to increase, and a warming of the sea surface temperatures of the eastern North Pacific can also cause the PDO index to increase."
"A La Niña event in the tropical Pacific typically creates a spatial pattern in the extratropical North Pacific
where it's cooler in the eastern portion than it is in the western and central portions."
"An El Niño event creates the opposite spatial pattern, where it's warmer in the eastern extratropical North Pacific and cooler in the western and central portions, and that also relates to a "warm" PDO spatial pattern."
[See Figure 2]
"It is often said that the PDO pattern is the dominant spatial pattern in the extratropical North Pacific, and that makes sense because the PDO pattern represents the El Niño- and La Niña-like pattern in the extratropical North Pacific ... and ... El Niños and La Niñas are the dominant mode of natural variability for the global oceans."
"The PDO data are not sea surface temperature data of the North Pacific. The PDO data, on the other hand, are determined from the sea surface temperature data there, using a statistical analysis called Principal Component Analysis. Note the distinction."
"It may be easiest to think of the PDO data in another way -
as representing how closely the spatial pattern in the North Pacific at any point in time
matches the spatial pattern created by La Niña and El Niño events.
If the spatial pattern closely matches the La Niña pattern in Figure 2, then the PDO index value would be negative.
The closer the match in the spatial pattern to one created by La Niña events, the greater the negative value.
And the opposite holds true for the El Niño-related spatial pattern.
The closer the resemblance to the El Niño pattern, the greater the positive PDO index value."
"The map on the right in Figure 2 presents a classic cool PDO pattern, which would be represented by a negative PDO index value."
From The 2014/15 El Niño - Part 5 - The Relationship Between the PDO and ENSO (Bob Tisdale, April 20, 2014).
Even more irregular is the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) a large-scale mode of natural climate variability having large impacts on weather and climate in the North Atlantic region and surrounding continents.
Then there are the Madden-Julian Oscillation (MJO), the Arctic Oscillation (AO), the Pacific North American Pattern (PNA), and the Antarctic Oscillation (AAO), all contributing to natural global climate variability.
Also see Patterns in Arctic Weather and Climate (National Snow and Ice Data Center - NSIDC)
North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO):
The North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) Index is based on the surface sea-level pressure difference between the Subtropical (Azores) High and the Subpolar Low. The positive phase of the NAO reflects below-normal heights and pressure across the high latitudes of the North Atlantic and above-normal heights and pressure over the central North Atlantic, the eastern United States and western Europe. The negative phase reflects an opposite pattern of height and pressure anomalies over these regions. Both phases of the NAO are associated with basin-wide changes in the intensity and location of the North Atlantic jet stream and storm track, and in large-scale modulations of the normal patterns of zonal and meridional heat and moisture transport, which in turn results in changes in temperature and precipitation patterns often extending from eastern North America to western and central Europe.
Strong positive phases of the NAO tend to be associated with above-normal temperatures in the eastern United States and across northern Europe and below-normal temperatures in Greenland and oftentimes across southern Europe and the Middle East. They are also associated with above-normal precipitation over northern Europe and Scandinavia and below-normal precipitation over southern and central Europe. Opposite patterns of temperature and precipitation anomalies are typically observed during strong negative phases of the NAO. During particularly prolonged periods dominated by one particular phase of the NAO, abnormal height and temperature patterns are also often seen extending well into central Russia and north-central Siberia. The NAO exhibits considerable interseasonal and interannual variability, and prolonged periods (several months) of both positive and negative phases of the pattern are common.
From North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) (NOAA - National Climatic Data Center - June Global release: 21 July 2014)
See: North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) (NOAA - NWS - Climate Prediction Center - Teleconnections: North Atlantic Oscillation),
North Atlantic Oscillation (AGU Chapman conference on the NAO, November 28 - December 1, 2000. University of Vigo (Orense campus), Orense, Galicia, Spain)
For an updated plot of the NAO index (from CRU), see
NAO from NOAA/ESRL PSD
(Since 1850, averaged Jan. to Dec.)
From Analyze & Plot Long Range Climate Timeseries (NOAA/ESRL PSD GCOS WGSP)
El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) Patterns:
"Near the end of each calendar year ocean surface temperatures warm along the coasts of Ecuador and northern Peru. Local residents referred to this seasonal warming as "El Niño", meaning The Child, due to its appearance around the Christmas season. Every two to seven years a much stronger warming appears, which is often accompanied by beneficial rainfall in the arid coastal regions of these two countries. Over time the term "El Niño" began to be used in reference to these major warm episodes."
"Wetter than normal conditions during warm episodes are observed along the west coast of tropical South America, and at subtropical latitudes of North America (Gulf Coast) and South America (southern Brazil to central Argentina)."
"At times ocean surface temperatures in the equatorial Pacific are colder than normal. These cold episodes, sometimes referred to as "La Niña" episodes, are characterized by lower than normal pressure over Indonesia and northern Australia and higher than normal pressure over the eastern tropical Pacific. This pressure pattern is associated with enhanced near-surface equatorial easterly winds over the central and eastern equatorial Pacific."
"Drier than normal conditions during cold episodes, are observed along the west coast of tropical South America, and at subtropical latitudes of North America (Gulf Coast) and South America (southern Brazil to central Argentina) during their respective winter seasons."
From Warm (El Niño) and Cold (La Niña) Episodes in the Tropical Pacific (NOAA Climate Prediction Center)
ENSO Related Rainfall Patterns:
"During La Niña, rainfall and thunderstorm activity diminishes over the central equatorial Pacific, and becomes confined to Indonesia and the western Pacific. The area experiencing a reduction in rainfall generally coincides quite well with the area of abnormally cold ocean surface temperatures. This overall pattern of rainfall departures spans nearly one-half the way around the globe, and is responsible for many of the global weather impacts caused by La Niña."
"In the left-hand panel you can see the seasonal rainfall totals over the Pacific Ocean, the United States, and South America during January-March 1989 when strong La Niña conditions were present. The heaviest rainfall is shown by the darker green and blue colors, and lowest rainfall is shown by the lighter green colors. The rainfall totals are shown in units of millimeters (mm). Since 25.4 mm is equal to 1 inch of rain, we see that the rainfall totals are more than 800 mm over the western tropical Pacific and Indonesia, which is more than 31½ inches of rain."
"In the right-hand panel you can see the January-March 1989 seasonal rainfall departures from average for strong La Niña conditions. The areas where the rainfall is well above average are shown by darker green colors, and the areas where the rainfall is most below average are shown by the darker brown and yellow colors. These rainfall departures are shown in units of 100 millimeters. We see that rainfall totals were more than 200-400 mm above normal over the western tropical Pacific and Indonesia during the season, which is roughly 8-16 inches above normal! We also see well below-average rainfall across the central tropical Pacific, where totals in some areas were more than 400 mm (15¾ inches) below normal."
"In the left-hand panel the seasonal rainfall totals during the strong El Niño conditions of January-March 1998 are shown for over the Pacific Ocean, the United States, and South America. The heaviest rainfall [in units of millimeters (mm)] is shown by the darker green and blue colors, and lowest rainfall is shown by the lighter green colors. Since 25.4 mm is equal to one inch of rain, we see that the rainfall totals are more than 800 mm just south of the equator along the International Date Line (indicated by the 180 label), which is more than 31½ inches of rain. And nearly double the normal amount."
"In the right-hand panel the January-March 1998 seasonal rainfall departures from average are shown. The areas with well above average rainfall are shown by darker green colors, and the areas with well below-average rainfall are shown by the darker brown and yellow colors. The rainfall departures are shown in units of 100 millimeters. We see that the seasonal rainfall totals were more than 400 mm above normal just south of the equator along the International Date Line (indicated by the 180 label), which is more than 15¾ inches above normal. Considerable rainfall also occurred farther north (near 40°N) over the central and eastern North Pacific, and across the western and southeastern United States. These areas lie along the main wintertime storm track, which brings above-average rainfall to the western and southeastern United States."
"During El Niño, rainfall and thunderstorm activity diminishes over the western equatorial Pacific, and increases over the eastern half of the tropical Pacific. This area of increased rainfall occurs where the exceptionally warm ocean waters have reached about 28°C or 82°F. This overall pattern of rainfall departures spans nearly one-half the distance around the globe, and is responsible for many of the global weather impacts caused by El Niño."
From La Niña Releated Rainfall Patterns, El Niño Releated Rainfall Patterns (Climate Prediction Center - CPC, NOAA-NWS).
See also Weather Impacts of ENSO (NWS JetStream).
See also ENSO impacts (Met Office).
See also Effects of El Niño on the world weather (Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute - KNMI).
Long-Term Effects of Strong El Niño Events on Global Surface Temperatures:
"El Niño events cause massive changes in "normal" weather patterns around the globe and El Niño events can cause long-term changes in global surface temperatures."
"El Niño events are by far the largest of any weather-related phenomenon taking place on the planet, and they impact weather around the globe."
"Dr. Trenberth failed to discuss the causes of the "big jumps" in his RMS article. In the blog post Open Letter to the Royal Meteorological Society Regarding Dr. Trenberth's Article "Has Global Warming Stalled?", however, I illustrated and discussed the reasons for them. They were the Pacific Climate Shift of 1976, the 1986/87/88 El Niño and the 1997/98 El Niño."
"The upward steps are precisely what we would expect of ENSO if it is viewed, not as noise in the surface temperature record, but as a chaotic, sunlight-fueled, recharge-discharge oscillator."
From The 2014/15 El Niño - Part 9 - Kevin Trenberth is Looking Forward to Another "Big Jump" (Bob Tisdale, May 20, 2014).
See also The Great Pacific Climate Shift II? (Dr. Joseph D'Aleo, CCM. November 16, 2007)
For ENSO Current Conditions, see Climate Weather Linkage: El Niño Southern Oscillation (Climate Prediction Center - CPC, NOAA-NWS).
For the Current Conditions of the Global Ocean, see NCEP Global Ocean Data Assimilation System (GODAS) (Climate Prediction Center - CPC, NOAA-NWS).
Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI):
Negative values of the Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI) represent the cold ENSO phase; La Niña, while positive values of the MEI represent the warm phase; El Niño. See ESRL-PSD: Multivariate ENSO Index (July 8 '14, Klaus Wolter, NOAA).
"El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is the most important coupled ocean-atmosphere phenomenon to cause global climate variability on interannual time scales. Here we attempt to monitor ENSO by basing the Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI) on the six main observed variables over the tropical Pacific. These six variables are: sea-level pressure, zonal and meridional components of the surface wind, sea surface temperature, surface air temperature, and total cloudiness fraction of the sky."
For MEI values before 1950 see ESRL-PSD: Extended Multivariate ENSO Index, a simplified MEI.ext index that extends the MEI record back to 1871, based on Hadley Centre sea-level pressure and sea surface temperatures, but combined in a similar fashion as the current MEI.
See also PSD Map Room: Sea Surface Temperature (SST) (Earth System Research Laboratory - ESRL).
ENSO - Diagnostic Discussion: (NOAA-NWS Climate Prediction Center)
"The chance of El Niño is about 70% during the Northern Hemisphere summer and is close to 80% during the fall and early winter."
"During June 2014, above-average sea surface temperatures (SST) were most prominent in the eastern equatorial Pacific, with weakening evident near the International Date Line (Fig. 1), This weakening was reflected in a decrease to +0.3°C in the Niño-4 index (Fig. 2)."
See ENSO Diagnostic Discussion - 10 July 2014.
"The chance of El Niño is 70% during the Northern Hemisphere summer and reaches 80% during the fall and winter."
"Above-average sea surface temperatures (SST) expanded over the equatorial Pacific Ocean during May 2014 (Fig. 1), though the collective atmospheric and oceanic state continued to reflect ENSO-neutral. All of the Niño indices increased during the month, with the latest weekly values between 0.6°C and 1.6°C (Fig. 2)."
See ENSO Diagnostic Discussion - 5 June 2014.
"Chance of El Niño increases during the remainder of the year, exceeding 65% during summer."
"ENSO-neutral continued during April 2014, but with above-average sea surface temperatures (SST) developing over much of the eastern tropical Pacific as well as persisting near the International Date Line (Fig. 1). The weekly SST indices were near to slightly above average and increasing in the Niño1+2, Niño3 and Niño3.4 regions, and above average in the Niño4 region (Fig. 2)."
See ENSO Diagnostic Discussion - 8 May 2014.
"While ENSO-neutral is favored for Northern Hemisphere spring,
the chances of El Niño increase during the remainder of the year, exceeding 50% by summer."
"ENSO-neutral continued during March 2014, but with above-average sea surface temperatures (SST) developing over much of the eastern tropical Pacific as well as near the International Date Line (Fig. 1). The weekly SSTs were below average in the Niño1+2 region, near average but rising in Niño3 and Niño3.4 regions, and above average in the Niño4 region (Fig. 2)."
See ENSO Diagnostic Discussion - 10 April 2014.
"ENSO-neutral is expected to continue through the Northern Hemisphere spring 2014,
with about a 50% chance of El Niño developing during the summer or fall."
"ENSO-neutral continued during February 2014, with below-average sea surface temperatures (SST) continuing in the eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean and above-average SSTs increasing near the International Date Line (Fig. 1). Overall, the weekly Niño indices were variable during the month, with most indices remaining less than -0.5°C (Fig. 2)."
See ENSO Diagnostic Discussion - 6 March 2014.
"ENSO-neutral is expected to continue through the Northern Hemisphere spring 2014."
"While remaining ENSO-neutral, January was characterized by the periodic emergence of below-average sea surface temperatures (SSTs) across the tropical Pacific Ocean (Fig. 1). Weekly Niño index values in Niño-3 and Niño-3.4 bounced around -0.5°C, while Niño-4 and Niño-1+2 stayed within ±0.5°C (Fig. 2)."
See ENSO Diagnostic Discussion - 6 February 2014.
"ENSO-neutral is expected to continue into the Northern Hemisphere summer 2014."
"During December, ENSO-neutral persisted, as reflected by near-average sea surface temperatures (SST) across much of the equatorial Pacific Ocean (Fig. 1). The Nino indices in all of the regions were within ±0.5°C and showed only small changes during the month (Fig. 2)."
See ENSO Diagnostic Discussion - 9 January 2014.
"ENSO-neutral is expected to continue into the Northern Hemisphere summer 2014."
"During November, ENSO-neutral persisted, as reflected by near-average sea surface temperatures (SST) across much of the equatorial Pacific Ocean (Fig. 1). SST anomalies in all of the Niño regions were small, but showed increases in the Niño-3.4 and Niño-4 regions (Fig. 2)."
See ENSO Diagnostic Discussion - 5 December 2013.
"ENSO-neutral is expected through the Northern Hemisphere spring 2014."
"During October, ENSO-neutral persisted, as reflected by near-average sea surface temperatures (SST) across much of the equatorial Pacific Ocean (Fig. 1). During the month, slightly below-average SSTs were evident in most of the Niño regions, except for Niño-4, which remained near zero (Fig. 2)."
See ENSO Diagnostic Discussion - 7 November 2013.
"ENSO-neutral is expected into the Northern Hemisphere spring 2014."
"ENSO-neutral continued during September 2013, as sea surface temperature (SST) anomalies were near-average across much of the equatorial Pacific Ocean (Fig. 1). Except for the Niño-1+2 region, all of the latest weekly Niño index values were between 0°C and -0.5°C (Fig. 2)."
See ENSO Diagnostic Discussion - 10 October 2013.
"ENSO-neutral is favored through the Northern Hemisphere winter 2013-14."
"ENSO-neutral conditions persisted during August 2013, as reflected by near-average sea surface temperatures (SSTs) across much of the equatorial Pacific, with below-average SSTs in the eastern Pacific (Fig. 1). Consistent with this pattern, weekly Niño-4 and Niño-3.4 indices were between -0.5 and 0.2°C, while Niño-3 and Niño-1+2 indices were at or cooler than -0.5° (Fig. 2)."
See ENSO Diagnostic Discussion - 5 September 2013.
"ENSO-neutral is favored into the Northern Hemisphere fall 2013."
"ENSO-neutral conditions persisted during July 2013, as reflected by near-average sea surface temperatures (SSTs) across the central and east-central equatorial Pacific and below-average SSTs in the eastern Pacific (Fig. 1). Consistent with this pattern, weekly Niño-4 and Niño-3.4 values were between -0.5° and 0°C, while Niño-3 and Niño-1+2 indices remained cooler than -0.5°C (Fig. 2)."
See ENSO Diagnostic Discussion - 8 August 2013.
"ENSO-neutral is favored into the Northern Hemisphere fall 2013."
"During June 2013, below-average sea surface temperatures (SST) prevailed in the eastern Pacific, while near-average SSTs persisted across the rest of the equatorial Pacific (Fig. 1). This ENSO-neutral pattern was also reflected in the Niño indices, which were warmer than -0.5°C in Niño-4 and Niño-3.4 and cooler than -0.5°C in Niño-3 and Niño-1+2 during the month (Fig. 2)."
See ENSO Diagnostic Discussion - 5 July 2013.
For a monthly archive since January 2001, see El Nino Southern Oscillation Diagnostic Discussion Archive (Climate Prediction Center - CPC, NOAA-NWS).
Tisdale on the importance of El Nino's little sister - recharging ocean heat content:
"El Niño events release heat from the tropical Pacific, and through ocean currents and changes in atmospheric circulation, they raise surface temperatures outside of the tropical Pacific."
"During La Niña events, the tropical Pacific releases less heat than normal, and global temperatures decline."
"La Niña events are a vital portion of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) coupled ocean-atmosphere process. La Niña events recharge the heat released from the tropical Pacific during the El Niño."
"Note that most La Niña events do not fully recharge the heat released by the El Niño events."
"During a La Niña event, tropical Pacific trade winds rise above normal levels. The increase in trade winds reduces cloud cover. Reduced cloud cover allows more Downward Shortwave Radiation (visible light) to warm the tropical Pacific."
"Contrary to the beliefs of anthropogenic warming proponents
the 1997/98 El Niño was NOT fueled by a long-term accumulation of heat from manmade greenhouse gases.
The 1997/98 El Niño was strong enough to temporarily raise Global Lower Troposphere Temperature anomalies ~0.7°C."
"The La Niña event of 1973/74/75/76 provided the tropical Pacific Ocean Heat Content necessary for the increase in strength and frequency of El Niño events from 1976 to 1995. The 1995/96 La Niña furnished the Ocean Heat Content that served as fuel for the 1997/98 El Niño. And the 1998/99/00/01 La Niña recharged the tropical Pacific Ocean Heat Content after the 1997/98 El Niño, returning it to the new higher level established by the La Niña of 1995/96."
From Tisdale on the importance of El Nino's little sister - recharging ocean heat content (Bob Tisdale, Feb. 13 '10, Watts Up With That?).
See El Niño story, El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) (NOAA)
Occasionally Asked Questions about El Niño (Billy Kessler, NOAA)
An Introduction To ENSO, AMO, and PDO - Part 1 (El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO), Bob Tisdale, August 8 '10)
An Introduction To ENSO, AMO, and PDO - Part 2 (Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), Bob Tisdale, August 16 '10)
An Introduction To ENSO, AMO, and PDO - Part 3 (The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), Bob Tisdale, September 3 '10)
El Niño: online meteorology guide (WW2010, University of Illinois)
Tropical Atmosphere Ocean (TAO) Project (Global Tropical Moored Buoy Array, NOAA)
NOAA El Niño Research, Forecasts and Observations
El Niño and La Niña: Tracing the Dance of Ocean and Atmosphere (The National Academies)
El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) (NWS JetStream)
The Definition of El Niño (.pdf, Kevin E. Trenberth, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 1 August 1997)
Tracking the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation through the last 8,000 years (Mads Faurschou Knudsen, Marit-Solveig Seidenkrantz, Bo Holm Jacobsen & Antoon Kuijpers. Nature Communications, 01 February 2011)
Integrating ENSO: Multidecadal Changes In Sea Surface Temperature
"Global SST anomalies rose and fell over the past 100 years in response to the dominant ENSO phase; that is, Global SST anomalies rose over multidecadal periods when and because El Niño events prevailed and they fell over multidecadal periods when and because La Niña events dominated."
"The oceans outside of the central and eastern tropical Pacific integrate the impacts of ENSO, and it would only require the oceans to accumulate 6% of the annual ENSO signal in order to explain most of the rise in global SST anomalies since 1910."
From Integrating ENSO: Multidecadal Changes In Sea Surface Temperature (Bob Tisdale, Nov. 19 '10, Watts Up With That?).
See also Can Most Of The Rise In The Satellite-Era Surface Temperatures Be Explained Without Anthropogenic Greenhouse Gases? (Bob Tisdale, Jan. 10 '11, Watts Up With That?).
Global Warming: Natural or Manmade?
According to Dr. Roy Spencer, "Global warming" refers to the global-average temperature increase that has been observed over the last one hundred years or more. But to many politicians and the public, the term carries the implication that mankind is responsible for that warming. This website describes evidence from my group's government-funded research that suggests global warming is mostly natural, and that the climate system is quite insensitive to humanity's greenhouse gas emissions and aerosol pollution.
How atmospheric processes like clouds and precipitation systems respond to warming is critical, as they are either amplifying the warming, or reducing it. This website currently concentrates on the response of clouds to warming, an issue which I am now convinced the scientific community has totally misinterpreted when they have measured natural, year-to-year fluctuations in the climate system. As a result of that confusion, they have the mistaken belief that climate sensitivity is high, when in fact the satellite evidence suggests climate sensitivity is low.
Global Warming: Natural or Manmade?
(Roy Spencer, Ph. D., Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville - UAH)
Global Warming as a Natural Response to Cloud Changes Associated with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO):
According to Dr. Roy Spencer, "most climate change might well be the result of .... the climate system itself!"
Because small, chaotic fluctuations in atmospheric and oceanic circulation systems can cause small changes in global average cloudiness, this is all that is necessary to cause climate change.
The less you know about how the climate system works, the more fragile the climate system looks to you.
If you simply assert that there are no natural causes of climate change, you will conclude that our climate system is precariously balanced on a knife edge.
A mostly-natural source of global warming is also consistent with mounting observational evidence that the climate system is much less sensitive to carbon dioxide emissions than the IPCC's climate models simulate.
Global Warming as a Natural Response to Cloud Changes Associated with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO)
(Roy Spencer, Ph. D., Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville - UAH, December 29, 2008)
Dr. Roy Spencer, 2008:
Roy Spencer on how Oceans are Driving CO2
"The long-term increases in carbon dioxide concentration that have been observed at Mauna Loa since 1958 could be driven more by the ocean than by mankind's burning of fossil fuels."
UPDATED: Roy Spencer on how Oceans are Driving CO2
(Watts Up With That?, January 25 2008)
See also Spencer Part2: More CO2 Peculiarities - The C13/C12 Isotope Ratio (Watts Up With That?, January 28 2008)
Dr. Roy Spencer, 2009:
Increasing Atmospheric CO2: Manmade...or Natural?
"I've usually accepted the premise that increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are due to the burning of fossil fuels by humans. After all, human emissions average around twice that which is needed to explain the observed rate of increase in the atmosphere. In other words, mankind emits more than enough CO2 to explain the observed increase in the atmosphere."
"Furthermore, the ratio of the C13 isotope of carbon to the normal C12 form in atmospheric CO2 has been observed to be decreasing at the same time CO2 has been increasing. Since CO2 produced by fossil fuel burning is depleted in C13 (so the argument goes) this also suggests a manmade source."
"But when we start examining the details, an anthropogenic explanation for increasing atmospheric CO2 becomes less obvious."
"For example, a decrease in the relative amount of C13 in the atmosphere is also consistent with other biological sources. And since most of the cycling of CO2 between the ocean, land, and atmosphere is due to biological processes, this alone does not make a decreasing C13/C12 ratio a unique marker of an anthropogenic source."
From Increasing Atmospheric CO2: Manmade...or Natural? (January 21st, 2009 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.)
Dr. Roy Spencer, 2011:
A Primer on Our Claim that Clouds Cause Temperature Change
"Are Clouds Capable of Causing Temperature Changes?
At the heart of this debate is whether cloud changes, through their ability to alter how much sunlight is allowed in to warm the Earth, can cause temperature change."
"The IPCC claim is that clouds will change in response to warming in ways which magnify that warming (positive cloud feedback), but by an unknown amount. All of the 20+ climate models tracked by the IPCC exhibit from weak to strongly positive cloud feedbacks."
"But we claim (and have demonstrated) that causation in the opposite direction [cloud change => temperature change] gives the illusion of positive cloud feedback, even if negative cloud feedback really exists. Thus, any attempt to estimate feedback in the real climate system must also address this source of "contamination" of the feedback signal."
"It would be difficult for me to overstate the importance of this issue to global warming theory. Sufficiently positive cloud feedback could cause a global warming Armageddon. Sufficiently negative cloud feedback could more than cancel out any other positive feedbacks in the climate system, and relegate manmade global warming to the realm of just an academic curiosity."
"Cloud feedback happens rapidly, in a matter of days to a few weeks at the very most, due to the rapidity with which the atmosphere adjusts to a surface temperature change. It this paper, we even showed evidence that the peak net radiative feedback (from clouds + temperature + water vapor] occurs within a couple of days of peak temperature."
"I have more extensive evidence now that the lag is closer to zero days."
"In contrast, causation in the opposite direction (clouds forcing temperature change) involves a time lag of many months, due to the time it takes for the immense thermal inertia of the ocean to allow a temperature response to a change in absorbed sunlight."
"At the end of the day, the dirty little secret is that there is still no way to test the IPCC climate models for their feedback behavior, which means there is no way to know which (if any of them) is even close to being correct in its predictions for the future."
"The disconcerting conclusion is that global warming-related policy decisions are being guided by models which still have no way to be tested in their long-term predictions."
From A Primer on Our Claim that Clouds Cause Temperature Change (September 3rd, 2011 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.)
See the complete paper at On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth's Radiant Energy Balance (Roy W. Spencer and William D. Braswell, 25 July 2011, .pdf)
Dr. Roy Spencer, 2012:
Our Chaotic Climate System
"Over the last quarter century, mainstream climate science has changed dramatically, from a paradigm where climate changes naturally to one where climate forever remains the same unless humans meddle with it."
"The reasons for this paradigm shift are clearly not based on science. Sure, you can always analyze some dataset in such a way that it gives the appearance of climate stasis (e.g. the hockey stick), but there is plenty of published research over the last 50 years supporting the view that climate changes naturally, and on all time scales... decadal, centennial, millennial, etc."
"The claim that the Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age were only regional in extent is countered with considerable published evidence to the contrary. Besides... why is it that the pundits who claim these historic events were only regional in extent are the same people who place global significance on a U.S. drought or a heat wave in France? Hmmm?
"No, the reasons for this paradigm shift are mostly political. Scientists play along for a variety of reasons which would take a series of blog posts to cover."
"Chaos theory was originally developed by Ed Lorenz during early experiments with computerized weather prediction models, the forerunners of today's climate models. Lorenz found that, for example, even tiny changes in the initial state of the atmosphere can completely change how weather patterns evolve in the coming weeks. Chaos is what limits the predictability of weather to 10 days or so."
"Chaotic behavior is a characteristic of most nonlinear dynamical systems, that is, systems which evolve over time and are governed by rather complex physical processes. We usually think of chaos in the atmosphere operating on time scales of days to weeks."
"But the ocean is also a nonlinear dynamical system. And it has time scales ranging from years up to hundreds or even thousands of years... time scales we associate with climate change."
"El Nino and La Nina can, for example, be thought of as a chaotic fluctuation in the climate system. Like the famous butterfly-shaped Lorenz Attractor, El Nino and La Nina are the two wings of the butterfly, and the climate system during Northern Hemisphere winter tends to alternate between El Nino and La Nina, sometimes getting "stuck" in a multi-year pattern of more frequent El Ninos or La Ninas."
"Now, while El Nino and La Nina are the best known (and most frequently occurring) ocean-based climate phenomenon, what other longer-term modes of climate variability might there be which are "unforced"? By unforced, I mean they are not caused by some external forcing mechanism (like the sun), but are just the natural results of how the system varies all by itself. Well, we really don't know, partly because so little research is funded to study the problem."
"It is my belief that most climate variability and even climate change could simply be the result of chaos in the climate system. By how would changing ocean and atmospheric circulation patterns cause "global warming"?"
"One potential mechanism is through the impact of those circulation changes on cloud formation."
"Clouds are the Earth's natural sunshade, and very small (but persistent) changes in cloud cover can cause either warming or cooling trends. I know that scientists like Trenberth and Dessler like to claim that "clouds don't cause climate change"... well, chaotic changes in ocean and atmospheric circulation patterns can change clouds, and so in that sense clouds act as an intermediary. Of course clouds don't change all by themselves, which is how some people disingenuously characterize my position on this."
"Unfortunately, our long-term measurements of global cloud cover are not yet good enough to determine with a high level of confidence just how much recent warming was caused by climate chaos. Our experiments with a simple 1D energy budget model suggest that more frequent El Ninos since the late 1970s caused some of the warming we have seen (a position also taken by Bob Tisdale), but just how much of the warming remains uncertain."
"Part of the El Nino warming seems to be through reduced cloud cover, which precedes peak warming by 7 to 9 months. But it is also through a decrease in the rate at which the ocean mixes heat vertically. Chaotic changes in ocean mixing alone can cause global warming or cooling, even without any cloud changes, the result of the fact that most of the depth of the ocean is very cold, and only the near-surface is relatively warm. If the ocean was vertically uniform in temperature, changes in ocean mixing would have little effect on climate."
"This issue of natural mechanisms of climate change is so important it boggles my mind that the U.S. Government has had almost zero interest in funding it. But I don't see how we will ever confidently determine just how much of recent warming is human-induced without determining how much was natural."
"If, say, 50% of the warming in the last 50 to 100 years has been natural, then this profoundly impacts our projections of human-caused warming in the future, slashing them by about 50%."
From Our Chaotic Climate System (By Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. December 14th, 2012)
Climate Science: Is It Currently Designed To Answer Questions?:
Richard S. Lindzen, 29 Nov. 2008
"We have the new paradigm where simulation and programs have replaced theory and observation." - Richard Lindzen
When an issue becomes a vital part of a political agenda, as is the case with climate, then the politically desired position becomes a goal rather than a consequence of scientific research.
Science is primarily a successful mode of inquiry rather than a source of authority.
It is my impression that by the end of the 60's scientists, themselves, came to feel that the real basis for support was not gratitude (and the associated trust that support would bring further benefit) but fear: fear of the Soviet Union, fear of cancer, etc.
However, between the perceptions of gratitude and fear as the basis for support lies a world of difference in incentive structure. If one thinks the basis is gratitude, then one obviously will respond by contributions that will elicit more gratitude. The perpetuation of fear, on the other hand, militates against solving problems.
However, the end of the cold war, by eliminating a large part of the fear-base forced a reassessment of the situation. Most thinking has been devoted to the emphasis of other sources of fear: competitiveness, health, resource depletion and the environment.
The 60's saw the first major postwar funding cuts for science in the US. The budgetary pressures of the Vietnam War may have demanded savings someplace, but the fact that science was regarded as, to some extent, dispensable, came as a shock to many scientists. So did the massive increase in management structures and bureaucracy which took control of science out of the hands of working scientists.
Fear has several advantages over gratitude. Gratitude is intrinsically limited, if only by the finite creative capacity of the scientific community. Moreover, as pointed out by a colleague at MIT, appealing to people's gratitude and trust is usually less effective than pulling a gun. In other words, fear can motivate greater generosity.
Science since the sixties has been characterized by the large programs that this generosity encourages. Moreover, the fact that fear provides little incentive for scientists to do anything more than perpetuate problems, significantly reduces the dependence of the scientific enterprise on unique skills and talents.
One result of the above appears to have been the deemphasis of theory because of its intrinsic difficulty and small scale, the encouragement of simulation instead (with its call for large capital investment in computation), and the encouragement of large programs unconstrained by specific goals.
In brief, we have the new paradigm where simulation and programs have replaced theory and observation, where government largely determines the nature of scientific activity, and where the primary role of professional societies is the lobbying of the government for special advantage.
This new paradigm for science and its dependence on fear-based support may not constitute corruption per se, but it does serve to make the system particularly vulnerable to corruption. Much of the remainder of this paper will illustrate the exploitation of this vulnerability in the area of climate research. The situation is particularly acute for a small weak field like climatology. As a field, it has traditionally been a subfield within such disciplines as meteorology, oceanography, geography, geochemistry, etc. These fields, themselves are small and immature. At the same time, these fields can be trivially associated with natural disasters. Finally, climate science has been targeted by a major political movement, environmentalism, as the focus of their efforts, wherein the natural disasters of the earth system, have come to be identified with man's activities - engendering fear as well as an agenda for societal reform and control.
The temptation to politicize science is overwhelming and longstanding. Public trust in science has always been high, and political organizations have long sought to improve their own credibility by associating their goals with 'science' - even if this involves misrepresenting the science.
Given the above, it would not be surprising if working scientists would make special efforts to support the global warming hypothesis. There is ample evidence that this is happening on a large scale.
Although the situation suggests overt dishonesty, it is entirely possible, in today's scientific environment, that many scientists feel that it is the role of science to vindicate the greenhouse paradigm for climate change as well as the credibility of models.
From Climate Science: Is It Currently Designed To Answer Questions? (Richard S. Lindzen, 29 Nov 2008, version v3)
Roger Revelle - Gore's Guru Disagreed:
In the history of the global-warming movement,
no scientist is more revered than Roger Revelle of Scripps Institution of Oceanography,
Harvard University and University of California San Diego.
He was the co-author of the seminal 1957 paper that demonstrated that fossil fuels had increased carbon-dioxide levels in the air.
Under his leadership, the President's Science Advisory Committee Panel on Environmental Pollution in 1965
published the first authoritative U.S. government report in which carbon dioxide from fossil fuels was officially recognized
as a potential global problem.
He was the author of the influential 1982 Scientific American article that elevated global warming on to the public agenda.
For being "the grandfather of the greenhouse effect", as he put it,
he was awarded the National Medal of Science by the first President Bush.
Roger Revelle's most consequential act, however, may have come in his role as a teacher, during the 1960s at Harvard. Dr. Revelle inspired a young student named Al Gore.
While Gore in the late 1980s was becoming a prominent politician, loudly warning of globalwarming dangers, Dr. Revelle was quietly warning against taking any drastic action.
In a July 14, 1988, letter to Congressman Jim Bates, he wrote that: "Most scientists familiar with the subject are not yet willing to bet that the climate this year is the result of 'greenhouse warming'. As you very well know, climate is highly variable from year to year, and the causes of these variations are not at all well understood. My own personal belief is that we should wait another 10 or 20 years to really be convinced that the greenhouse is going to be important for human beings, in both positive and negative ways". A few days later, he sent a similar letter to Senator Tim Wirth, cautioning "... we should be careful not to arouse too much alarm until the rate and amount of warming becomes clearer".
Then in 1991, Dr. Revelle wrote an article for Cosmos, a scientific journal, with two illustrious colleagues, Chauncey Starr, founding director of the Electric Power Research Institute and Fred Singer, the first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service. Entitled "What to do about greenhouse warming: Look before you leap", the article argued that decades of research could be required for the consequences of increased carbon dioxide to be understood, and laid out the harm that could come of acting recklessly: "Drastic, precipitous and, especially, unilateral steps to delay the putative greenhouse impacts can cost jobs and prosperity and increase the human costs of global poverty, without being effective. Stringent controls enacted now would be economically devastating, particularly for developing countries for whom reduced energy consumption would mean slower rates of economic growth without being able to delay greatly the growth of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Yale economist William Nordhaus, one of the few who have been trying to deal quantitatively with the economics of the greenhouse effect, has pointed out that '... those who argue for strong measures to slow greenhouse warming have reached their conclusion without any discernible analysis of the costs and benefits ...'. It would be prudent to complete the ongoing and recently expanded research so that we will know what we are doing before we act. 'Look before you leap' may still be good advice".
Three months after the Cosmos article appeared, Dr. Revelle died of a heart attack.
From Gore's Guru Disagreed (Lawrence Solomon, April 28, 2007. The Heartland Institute.)
What To Do about Greenhouse Warming: Look Before You Leap
(S. Fred Singer, Roger Revelle and Chauncey Starr. Cosmos: A Journal of Emerging Issues Vol. 5, No. 2, Summer 1992, .pdf)
See Politicizing Science: The Alchemy of Policymaking (Hoover Institution, January 1, 2003. Chapter 11: The Revelle-Gore Story: Attempted Political Suppression of Science, by Fred Singer)
Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC):
Dr. S. Fred Singer is Professor Emeritus at the University of Virginia and chairman of the Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP). His specialty is atmospheric and space physics. An expert in remote sensing and satellites, he served as the founding director of the US Weather Satellite Service and, more recently, as vice chair of the US National Advisory Committee on Oceans & Atmosphere. In 2007, he founded the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), providing an alternative scientific voice to the UN's IPCC (intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). He edited the first NIPCC report: Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate (April 2008) and co-authored the 2009 NIPCC report: Climate Change Reconsidered (2 June 2009).
The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) is what its name suggests: an international panel of nongovernment scientists and scholars who have come together to understand the causes and consequences of climate change. Because we are not predisposed to believe climate change is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, we are able to look at evidence the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) ignores. Because we do not work for any governments, we are not biased toward the assumption that greater government activity is necessary.
See the Interim Report from the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (25 August 2011)
See Booklet: NIPCC vs. IPCC (S. Fred Singer, Professor Emeritus at the University of Virginia, August 2011, .pdf)
Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science (NIPCC CCR-II, 17 September 2013) is an independent, comprehensive, and authoritative report on the current state of climate science. It is the fourth in a series of scholarly reports produced by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), an international network of climate scientists sponsored by three nonprofit organizations: the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, and The Heartland Institute.
Whereas the reports of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warn of a dangerous human effect on climate, NIPCC concludes the human effect is likely to be small relative to natural variability, and whatever small warming is likely to occur will produce benefits as well as costs.
See Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science (CCR-II) (Idso, C.D, Carter R.M., and Singer S.F. 2013. (Eds.). Chicago, IL: The Heartland Institute. 1,023 pages, or each of the 7 chapters separately.)
The NIPCC CCR-II, Summary for Policymakers (.pdf) is 24 pages long and was written in collaboration with the lead authors and approved by them. Because it is aimed at a larger popular audience than the book, it adds a discussion of the scientific method and the precautionary principle, a brief summary and critical analysis of each of the IPCC's main lines of argument, and a brief set of recommendations for policymakers. We also recommend you review the separate NIPCC CCR-II, Executive Summary. [.pdf, 5 pages]
Part two of NIPCC Climate Change Reconsidered II: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerabilities - Biological Impacts was released in March 31, 2014.
"Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts describes thousands of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles that do not support, and often flatly contradict, IPCC's pessimistic narrative of "death, injury, and disrupted livelihoods". The impact of rising temperatures and higher atmospheric CO2 levels in the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries has not been anything like what IPCC would have us believe, and its forecasts differ wildly from those sound science would suggest."
"How CO2 enrichment has affected global food production and biospheric productivity is a matter of fact, not opinion. The evidence is overwhelming that it has and will continue to help plants thrive, leading to greater biodiversity, shrinking deserts, expanded habitat for wildlife, and more food for a growing human population."
From Climate Change Reconsidered II: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerabilities - Biological Impacts (CCR-II) (Idso, Craig D. Idso, Sherwood. B. Carter Robert M., and Singer, S. Fred 2013. (Eds.). Chicago, IL: The Heartland Institute): Executive Summary [.pdf, 18 pages], Full Report [.pdf, 1,062 pages].
See also Singer's Logic (Video 05:49 ClimateClips.com)
Deserts 'greening' from rising CO2:
Increased levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) have helped boost green foliage across the world's arid regions over the past 30 years through a process called CO2 fertilisation, according to CSIRO research.
Satellite data shows the per cent amount that foliage cover has changed around the world from 1982 to 2010.
In findings based on satellite observations, CSIRO, in collaboration with the Australian National University (ANU), found that this CO2 fertilisation correlated with an 11 per cent increase in foliage cover from 1982-2010 across parts of the arid areas studied in Australia, North America, the Middle East and Africa, according to CSIRO research scientist, Dr. Randall Donohue.
The fertilisation effect occurs where elevated CO2 enables a leaf during photosynthesis, the process by which green plants convert sunlight into sugar, to extract more carbon from the air or lose less water to the air, or both.
If elevated CO2 causes the water use of individual leaves to drop, plants in arid environments will respond by increasing their total numbers of leaves. These changes in leaf cover can be detected by satellite, particularly in deserts and savannas where the cover is less complete than in wet locations, according to Dr Donohue.
From Deserts 'greening' from rising CO2 (CSIRO, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. Australia's national science agency. 3 July 2013)
Syun-Ichi Akasofu - Two Natural Components of the Recent Climate Change:
(1) The Recovery from the Little Ice Age (A Possible Cause of Global Warming)
(2) The Multi-decadal Oscillation (The Recent Halting of the Warming)
Two natural components of the currently progressing climate change are identified. The first one is an almost linear global temperature increase of about 0.5°C/100 years, which seems to have started in 1800-1850, at least one hundred years before 1946 when manmade CO2 in the atmosphere began to increase rapidly. This 150~200-year-long linear warming trend is likely to be a natural change. One possible cause of this linear increase may be the earth's continuing recovery from the Little Ice Age (1400~1800); the recovery began in 1800~1850. This trend (0.5°C/100 years) should be subtracted from the temperature data during the last 100 years when estimating the manmade contribution to the present global warming trend. As a result, there is a possibility that only a small fraction of the present warming trend is attributable to the greenhouse effect resulting from human activities.
It is also shown that various cryosphere phenomena, including glaciers in many places in the world and sea ice in the Arctic Ocean that had developed during the Little Ice Age, began to recede after 1800 and are still receding; their recession is thus not a recent phenomenon.
The second one is oscillatory (positive/negative) changes, which are superposed on the linear change. One of them is the multi-decadal oscillation, which is a natural change. This particular natural change had a positive rate of change of about 0.15°C/10 years from about 1975 (positive from 1910 to 1940, negative from 1940 to 1975), and is thought by the IPCC to be a sure sign of the greenhouse effect of CO2. However, the positive trend from 1975 has stopped after 2000. One possibility of the halting is that after reaching a peak in 2000, the multi-decadal oscillation has begun to overwhelm the linear increase, causing the IPCC prediction to fail as early as the first decade of the 21st century.
There is an urgent need to correctly identify natural changes and remove them from the present global warming/cooling trend, in order to accurately and correctly identify the contribution of the manmade greenhouse effect. Only then can the effects of CO2 be studied quantitatively. Arctic research should be able to contribute greatly to this endeavor.
From Syun-Ichi Akasofu - Two Natural Components of the Recent Climate Change (April 30, 2009. International Arctic Research Center, University of Alaska, Fairbanks)
Syun-Ichi Akasofu - On the recovery from the Little Ice Age:
A number of published papers and openly available data on sea level changes, glacier retreat, freezing/break-up dates of rivers,
sea ice retreat, tree-ring observations, ice cores and changes of the cosmic-ray intensity, from the year 1000 to the present,
are studied to examine how the Earth has recovered from the Little Ice Age (LIA).
We learn that the recovery from the LIA has proceeded continuously, roughly in a linear manner, from 1800-1850 to the present. The rate of the recovery in terms of temperature is about 0.5°C/100 years and thus it has important implications for understanding the present global warming.
It is suggested on the basis of a much longer period covering that the Earth is still in the process of recovery from the LIA; there is no sign to indicate the end of the recovery before 1900.
Cosmic-ray intensity data show that solar activity was related to both the LIA and its recovery.
The multi-decadal oscillation of a period of 50 to 60 years was superposed on the linear change; it peaked in 1940 and 2000, causing the halting of warming temporarily after 2000.
These changes are natural changes, and in order to determine the contribution of the manmade greenhouse effect, there is an urgent need to identify them correctly and accurately and remove them.
From Syun-Ichi Akasofu - On the recovery from the Little Ice Age (Natural Science, Vol.2 No.11, November 2010)
Syun-Ichi Akasofu - On the Present Halting of Global Warming:
The rise in global average temperature over the last century has halted since roughly the year 2000, despite the fact that the release of CO2 into the atmosphere is still increasing. It is suggested here that this interruption has been caused by the suspension of the near linear (+0.5°C/100 years or 0.05°C/10 years) temperature increase over the last two centuries, due to recovery from the Little Ice Age, and by a superposed multi-decadal oscillation of a 0.2°C amplitude and a 50~60 year period, which reached its positive peak in about the year 2000 - a halting similar to those that occurred around 1880 and 1940. Because both the near linear change and the multi-decadal oscillation are likely to be natural changes (the recovery from the Little Ice Age (LIA) and an oscillation related to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), respectively), they must be carefully subtracted from temperature data before estimating the effects of CO2.
Figure 5 shows the above findings in graphic form and represents an improved version of Figure 9 of Akasofu (2010). The large rectangular box shaded in yellow shows temperature changes from 1860 to 2010 (standard data), together with a straight black line showing the 0.5°C/100 year rate of increase and the multi-decadal oscillation shown in red and blue, above and below the line, respectively. The dotted line before 1860 indicates that the linear line may be extended back to about 1800, assuming that the LIA indeed began to recover from about 1800.
An insert above the yellow box is a detailed version of data shown in yellow.
The HadCRUT4 data are discussed by Morice et al (2012).
It is clear from the above data set that the warming trend is halted and that there is an indication of even a slight cooling after 2000.
Figure 5. An interpretation of changes in global average temperature from 1800 to 2012.
The temperature in the vertical axis is for reference scale; for detail, see the text.
Figure 5 also shows a detailed version of data shown in the yellow box.
From Syun-Ichi Akasofu - On the Present Halting of Global Warming (Climate, 3 May 2013)
Planetary temperature controls CO2 levels - not humans:
"Professor Murry Salby is Chair of Climate Science at Macquarie University. He's been on visiting professorships at Paris, Stockholm, Jerusalem, and Kyoto, and he's spent time at the Bureau of Meteorology in Australia."
"Over the last two years he has been looking at C12 and C13 ratios and CO2 levels around the world, and has come to the conclusion that man-made emissions have only a small effect on global CO2 levels. It's not just that man-made emissions don't control the climate, they don't even control global CO2 levels."
From Blockbuster: Planetary temperature controls CO2 levels - not humans (Jo Nova, August 5, 2011)
Professor Murry Salby
Chair of Climate, Macquarie University (Australia)
Atmospheric Science, Climate Change and Carbon - Some Facts
Global Emission of Carbon Dioxide: The Contribution from Natural Sources
"Carbon dioxide is emitted by human activities as well as a host of natural processes. The satellite record, in concert with instrumental observations, is now long enough to have collected a population of climate perturbations, wherein the Earth-atmosphere system was disturbed from equilibrium. Introduced naturally, those perturbations reveal that net global emission of CO2 (combined from all sources, human and natural) is controlled by properties of the general circulation - properties internal to the climate system that regulate emission from natural sources. The strong dependence on internal properties indicates that emission of CO2 from natural sources, which accounts for 96 per cent of its overall emission, plays a major role in observed changes of CO2. Independent of human emission, this contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide is only marginally predictable and not controllable."
Salby's talk was given in August 2 '11 at the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics meeting in Melbourne Australia. He indicates that a journal paper is in press, with an expectation of publication a few months out.
From The Emily Litella moment for climate science and CO2? (Watts Up With That?, August 5, 2011)
Murry Salby was sacked from Macquarie University, and Macquarie struggled to explain why, among other things, it was necessary to abandon, and strand him in Paris and hold a "misconduct" meeting in his absence.
From Murry Salby responds to the attacks on his record (Jo Nova, August 11, 2013)
Climate: the Counter Consensus
"Professor Robert (Bob) M. Carter is an adjunct Research Fellow at James Cook University (Queensland). He is a palaeontologist, stratigrapher, marine geologist and environmental scientist with more than 40 years professional experience, and holds degrees from the University of Otago (New Zealand) and the University of Cambridge (England). He has held tenured academic staff positions at the University of Otago (Dunedin) and James Cook University (Townsville), where he was Professor and Head of School of Earth Sciences between 1981 and 1999."
"Climate change knows three realities.
Science reality, which is what working scientists deal with on a daily basis.
Virtual reality, which is the wholly imaginary world inside computer climate models.
And public reality, which is the socio-political system within which politicians, business people and the general citizenry work.
The science reality is that climate is a complex, dynamic, natural system that no one wholly comprehends, though many scientists understand different small parts. So far, and despite the very strong public concern, science provides no unambiguous evidence that dangerous or even measurable human-caused global warming is occurring. Second, the virtual reality is that computer models predict future climate according to the assumptions that are programmed into them. There is no established Theory of Climate, and therefore the potential output of all realistic computer general circulation models (GCMs) encompasses a range of both future warmings and coolings, the outcome depending upon the way in which a particular model run is constructed. Different results can be produced at will simply by adjusting such poorly known parameters as the effects of cloud cover. Third, public reality is that, driven by strong environmental lobby groups and evangelistic scientists and journalists, to whom politicians in turn respond, there was a widespread but erroneous belief in our society in 2009 that dangerous global warming is occurring and that it has human causation."
"The current public 'debate' on climate is not so much a debate as it is an incessant and shrill campaign to scare the global citizenry into accepting dramatic changes in their way of life in pursuit of the false god of preventing dangerous global warming."
From Prof. Carter's book Climate: the Counter Consensus (2010). Stacey International.
Professor Robert (Bob) M. Carter Biography
See also Ten Facts about Climate Change They Don't Want You to Know
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC):
"IPCC predicts rapid, exponential CO2 growth that is not occurring."
"The IPCC assume CO2 concentration will rise exponentially from today's 385 parts per million to reach 730 to 1,020 ppm, central estimate 836 ppm, by 2100." "However, for seven years, CO2 concentration has been rising in a straight line towards just 570 ppm by 2100."
"Since 1980 global temperature has risen at only 2.7°F (1.5°C)/century, not 6°F (3.4°C) as IPCC predicts."
"Sea level rose just 8 inches (20 cm) in the 20th century, and has been rising since 1993 at a very modest 1 ft/century (30.5 cm/century)."
From SPPI Monthly CO2 Report: June 2010 (Science and Public Policy Institute)
See Trends in Carbon Dioxide - Mauna Loa: Recent Global CO2 (NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory - ESRL)
Why Hasn't Earth Warmed as Much as Expected?
"The observed increase in global mean surface temperature over the industrial era is less than 40% of that expected from observed increases in long-lived greenhouse gases together with the best-estimate equilibrium climate sensitivity given by the 2007 Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."
From Why Hasn't Earth Warmed as Much as Expected? (Stephen E. Schwartz et al. AMS Online Journals. Dec. 17, '09)
IPCC - First Assessment Report (FAR), 1990:
"Based on current model results, we predict:
An average rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century of about 0.3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2-0.5°C per decade) assuming the IPCC Scenario A (Business-as-Usual) emissions of greenhouse gases."
From IPCC 1990 FAR Summary (IPCC, FAR, 1990. 1. Science, 1.0.3, .pdf)
The IPCC 1990 FAR predictions were wrong:
"They predicted that if our emissions stayed the same, temperatures would rise by 0.3°C per decade, and would be at the very least 0.2, and the most 0.5. Even by the most generous rehash of the data, the highest rate they can find is 0.18°C per decade which is likely an overestimate, and in any case, is below the very least estimate, despite the world's emissions of CO2 continuing ever higher."
From The IPCC 1990 FAR predictions were wrong (Jo Nova, May 3rd, 2012)
Natural Variability To Dominate Weather Events Over Coming 20-30 Years:
IPCC 2012, Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX). Summary for Policymakers. (drafted 18 November 2011, published 29 March 2012)
Part D. Future Climate Extremes, Impacts, and Disaster Losses
"Projected changes in climate extremes under different emissions scenarios generally do not strongly diverge in the coming two to three decades, but these signals are relatively small compared to natural climate variability over this time frame. Even the sign of projected changes in some climate extremes over this time frame is uncertain."
From IPCC SREX Summary for Policymakers (29 March 2012, pg. 9)
See Climate Change Weather Effects Unknown: IPCC Report (18/11/11, The Global Warming Policy Foundation - GWPF)
Also see IPCC Confirms: We Do Not Know If The Climate Is Becoming More Extreme (29/03/12, The Global Warming Policy Foundation - GWPF)
What is Wrong With the IPCC? Proposals for Radical Reform:
"The IPCC plays a very influential role in the world, and it is imperative that its operations be unimpeachable. Yet the oversight mechanisms of the IPCC simply do not appear to be adequate to assure this."
"This report reviews the IPCC procedures in detail and points out a number of weaknesses. Principally, the IPCC Bureau has a great deal of arbitrary power over the content and conclusions of the assessment reports. It faces little restraint in the review process due to weaknesses in the current rules. And the government delegates who comprise the plenary Panel provide what appears to be largely passive and ineffective oversight."
Ross R. McKitrick is Professor of Economics at the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada. He is a Senior Fellow of the Fraser Institute and a member of the Academic Advisory Council of The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF).
From What is Wrong With the IPCC? Proposals for Radical Reform (GWPF, Ross McKitrick, 21 November 2011)
Does a Global Temperature Exist?
"Physical, mathematical and observational grounds are employed to show that there is no physically meaningful global temperature for the Earth in the context of the issue of global warming. While it is always possible to construct statistics for any given set of local temperature data, an infinite range of such statistics is mathematically permissible if physical principles provide no explicit basis for choosing among them. Distinct and equally valid statistical rules can and do show opposite trends when applied to the results of computations from physical models and real data in the atmosphere. A given temperature field can be interpreted as both "warming" and "cooling" simultaneously, making the concept of warming in the context of the issue of global warming physically ill-posed."
"There is no global temperature. The reasons lie in the properties of the equation of state governing local thermodynamic equilibrium, and the implications cannot be avoided by substituting statistics for physics."
From Does a Global Temperature Exist?
(.pdf, Christopher Essex, Ross McKitrick, Bjarne Andresen. June, 2006)
National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) - Global Temperature Record:
Annual Global Mean Temperature Anomalies [1880 to 2011] (°C) relative to 1901-2000.
From NCDC - Annual Global Temperature Anomalies (17-Sep-2012, NOAA, National Climatic Data Center).
The NOAA National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) Annual Global Mean Surface Temperature Anomalies over Land & Ocean database
shows a 0.6°C average increase from 1975 to 2005 and a 0.05°C cooling from 2005 to 2011, with a minimum of -0.4°C in 1910.
It also shows a cooling of 0.1°C from 1941 to 1975.
The warmest years shown are 2010 and 2005, then 1998.
Note the upward steps caused by El Niño: The Pacific Climate Shift of 1976, the 1986/87/88 El Niño and the 1997/98 El Niño. Note that global warming stopped in 2005 for this record.
The above graphic is no longer being updated by the NCDC. A copy of the original graphic is at www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/global-land-ocean-mntp-anom/201101-201112.png.
An equivalent graphic can be seen at NCDC - Annual Global Land and Ocean Temperature Anomalies [without the average line or error bars]. It shows a cooling trend of 0.02°C/Decade from 2005 to 2013.
NCDC have introduced a new method for calculating state (but not national), temperatures in the USA. The new method makes the past cooler, creating a false impression of present warming at the state level. The national figures remain unaffected. This is because they were already being calculated under the new system, creating a similar false impression.
See Divisional Data Comparison Tool (NOAA National Climatic Data Center - NCDC), and Transitioning to a Gridded Climate Divisional Dataset (03/12/2014).
From NCDC Introduce More Temperature Adjustments-And Guess Which Way They Go! (Paul Homewood. Not a Lot of People Know That, March 27, 2014).
The HadCRUT4 time series from the Met Office, the UK's National Weather Service, shows the combined global land and marine surface annual temperature record from 1850 to 2013.
It shows a slight cooling from 2003 to 2013, and also a cooling of 0.1°C from 1940 to 1975, with a minimum anomaly of some -0.5°C in 1910, after some 0.3°C of cooling from 1878.
Note the upward steps caused by El Niño: The Pacific Climate Shift of 1976, the 1986/87/88 El Niño and the 1997/98 El Niño. Note that global warming stopped in 2003 for this record.
Global surface air temperature anomalies (-0.8 to +0.8°C) from 1850 to 2013 (1961-90 mean)
It shows an increment in average temperature from 1910 to 1941 of some 0.5°C
It also shows an increment in average temperature from 1975 to 2003 of some 0.6°C
Calculating the global mean as the mean of the northern and southern hemisphere averages helps prevent the value becoming dominated by the Northern hemisphere, where there are more observations.
The red bars show the global annual average near surface temperature anomalies from 1850 to 2013. The error bars show the 95% uncertainty range on the annual averages. The thick blue line shows the annual values after smoothing with a 21 point binomial filter. The dashed portion of the smoothed line indicates where it is influenced by the treatment of the end points. The thin blue lines show the 95% uncertainty on the smoothed curve.
From HadCRUT4 Diagnostics: global average (NH+SH)/2 (Met Office - Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, UK)
See also HadCRUT3 Diagnostics: global average (NH+SH)/2 (Met Office - Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, UK)
The HadCRUT4 time series from the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia (UK) shows the combined global land and marine surface annual temperature record from 1850 to 2013.
It shows a slight cooling since 2003 after warming some 0.5°C since 1975.
Note the upward steps caused by El Niño: The Pacific Climate Shift of 1976, the 1986/87/88 El Niño and the 1997/98 El Niño. Note that global warming stopped in 2003 for this record.
Global surface air temperature anomalies (-0.6 to +0.6°C) from 1850 to 2013 (1961-90 mean)
It shows an increment in temperature from 1910 to 1941 of some 0.5°C
and an anomaly of +0.49°C in 2013 (eighth warmest on record).
It also shows a cooling of 0.1°C from 1941 to 1975.
The warmest year of the entire series was 2010, with a temperature of 0.540°C above the 1961-90 mean. The value for this year is not distinguishable from the years 1998 (0.523°C) and 2005 (0.534°C).
From CRU - Global Temperature Record (March 2013, Phil Jones, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, UK)
The GISS Surface Temperature Analysis anomaly dataset from the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies shows no temperature increase in their Global Land-Ocean Temperature Index five-year Running Mean since 2002.
The Annual Anomalies of Global Average Surface Temperature dataset from the Japan Meteorological Agency shows no temperature increase from 2002.
The warmest year in the Japan Meteorological Agency dataset is 1998 (+0.22°C), then 2010 (+0.19°C), 2005 (+0.17°C), and 2009, 2006, 2003, 2002 (+0.16°C) (above the 1981-2010 average).
The annual mean anomalies Hadley Centre Central England Temperature (HadCET) dataset shows a decline of some 0.7°C from 2003 to 2013 (red line, 10-year running mean).
2006 was the warmest year on record for the HadCET database.
The mean, minimum and maximum datasets are updated monthly.
These daily and monthly temperatures are representative of a roughly triangular area of the United Kingdom enclosed by Lancashire, London and Bristol. The monthly series, which begins in 1659, is the longest available instrumental record of temperature in the world. The daily series begins in 1772.
Don Easterbrook's AGU paper on potential global cooling:
Abstracts of American Geophysical Union annual meeting. San Francisco, Dec., 2008.
Solar Influence on Recurring Global, Decadal, Climate Cycles Recorded by Glacial Fluctuations, Ice Cores, Sea Surface Temperatures, and Historic Measurements Over the Past Millennium
"Global, cyclic, decadal, climate patterns can be traced over the past millennium in glacier fluctuations,
oxygen isotope ratios in ice cores, sea surface temperatures, and historic observations.
The recurring climate cycles clearly show that natural climatic warming and cooling have occurred many times,
long before increases in anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 levels.
The Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age are well known examples of such climate changes, but in addition, at least 23 periods of climatic warming and cooling have occurred in the past 500 years. Each period of warming or cooling lasted about 25-30 years (average 27 years). Two cycles of global warming and two of global cooling have occurred during the past century, and the global cooling that has occurred since 1998 is exactly in phase with the long term pattern. Global cooling occurred from 1880 to ~1915; global warming occurred from ~1915 to ~1945; global cooling occurred from ~1945-1977; global warming occurred from 1977 to 1998; and global cooling has occurred since 1998.
All of these global climate changes show exceptionally good correlation with solar variation since the Little Ice Age 400 years ago."
"The IPCC predicted global warming of 0.6°C (1°F) by 2011 and 1.2°C (2°F) by 2038, whereas Easterbrook (2001) predicted the beginning of global cooling by 2007 (±3-5 yrs) and cooling of about 0.3-0.5°C until ~2035. The predicted cooling seems to have already begun. Recent measurements of global temperatures suggest a gradual cooling trend since 1998 and 2007-2008 was a year of sharp global cooling. The cooling trend will likely continue as the sun enters a cycle of lower irradiance and the Pacific Ocean changed from its warm mode to its cool mode."
"The real question now is not trying to reduce atmospheric CO2 as a means of stopping global warming, but rather (1) how can we best prepare to cope with the 30 years of global cooling that is coming, (2) how cold will it get, and (3) how can we cope with the cooling during a time of exponential population increase?"
From Don Easterbrook's AGU paper on potential global cooling (Watts Up With That?, December 29 '08)
See Svensmark: "global warming stopped and a cooling is beginning" - "enjoy global warming while it lasts" (Professor Henrik Svensmark, Watts Up With That?, September 10, '09)
See also Don J. Easterbrook, PhD. Geology Professor Emeritus (Western Washington University, Global climate change research)
Global surface air temperatures have been of much interest lately, as some scientists have detected an accelerating 'global warming' trend since 1980 (near 1,5°C per century), while others have detected more recently a significant slowing since 1998, and even a reversal of this trend since 2001. This is shown below for the Climatic Research Unit and the UK Met Office Hadley Centre data (HadCRUT3).
On March 11, 2012, HadCRUT3 was truncated from 2012.08 to 2012.00 and temporarily discontinued. HadCRUT4, its succesor, was released to WoodForTrees on April 18, 2012.
Later it has been possible to see the data in HadCRUT3gl: WoodForTrees.org - HadCRUT3gl: Unadjusted global monthly mean temperature anomalies 1980-2014.09 (°C) + linear trends from 1980 & 2001 + 13 months mean.
The HadCRUT3gl trend from 2001 to 2014.09 is -0.37°C (-0.67°F) per century.
"All the files on this page, Temperature data (HadCRUT3 and CRUTEM3/4) (except Absolute) will be updated on a monthly basis to include the latest month within about four weeks of its completion."
"This [HadCRUT3] is the one of the most commonly cited sources of global temperature data, but the numbers just don't stay put. Each and every month the past monthly temperatures are revised."
See CRU Monthly Temperature is Constantly Changing (January 31st, 2011. The Inconvenient Skeptic, John Kehr)
See also An Open Letter to Dr. Phil Jones of the UEA CRU (Willis Eschenbach, Watts Up With That?, November 27 '11)
The HadCRUT4 time series from the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia (UK) contains the combined global land and marine surface temperature record from 1850 to 2013. It shows a slight cooling since 2002 after warming some 0.4°C since 1980.
HadCRUT4 was temporarily discontinued on December 2010 (2010.92), then reassumed on October 2012.
See WoodForTrees.org - Plot of HadCRUT4gl: Global monthly mean temperature anomalies 1980-2014.09 (°C) + linear trends from 1980 and 2002 + 13 months mean
The HadCRUT4gl trend from 2002 to 2014.09 is -0.34°C (-0.61°F) per century.
HadCRUT4 is a warmer temperature time series than HadCRUT3 as it includes much more northern Russian weather stations and excludes most weather stations in the southern U.S.A. It was released to WoodForTrees on April 18, 2012.
See HadCRUT4 and HadCRUT3 Global monthly mean temperature anomalies from 1850 (°C): 13 months mean (WoodForTrees - Observatorio ARVAL).
See Met Office Hadley Centre observations datasets - HadCRUT4
"HadCRUT4 has the highest short-term (1976-2010) linear trend, at a whopping 0.177 deg C/decade."
See And The Current Winner Is... (April 17, 2012. Bob Tisdale - Climate Observations)
Also see HadCRUT4: Statistics, Science and Spin (March 20, 2012. Dr. David Whitehouse, The Global Warming Policy Foundation - GWPF)
Surface Temperature Records: Policy Driven Deception
by Dr. Joseph D'Aleo and Anthony Watts
Updated, August 27, 2010
This paper is, as intended, a work in progress as a compilation of what's current and important relative to the data sets used for formulating and implementing unprecedented policy decisions seeking a radical transformation of our society and institutions.
Recent revelations from the Climategate whistleblower emails, originating from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia followed by the candid admission by Phil Jones, the director of the CRU in a BBC interview that his "surface temperature data are in such disarray they probably cannot be verified or replicated" certainly should raise questions about the quality of global data.
Just as the Medieval Warm Period was an obstacle to those trying to suggest that today's temperature is exceptional, and the UN and its supporters tried to abolish it with the "hockey-stick" graph, the warmer temperatures in the 1930s and 1940s were another inconvenient fact that needed to be "fixed".
In each of the databases, the land temperatures from that period were simply adjusted downward, making it look as though the rate of warming in the 20th century was higher than it was, and making it look as though today's temperatures were unprecedented in at least 150 years.
Climategate has sparked a flurry of examinations of the global datasets not only at CRU, NASA, and NOAA, but in various countries throughout the world. Though the Hadley Centre implied their data was in agreement with other datasets and was thus trustworthy, the truth is that other data centers and the individual countries involved were forced to work with degraded data and appear to be each involved in data manipulation.
Should you believe NOAA/NASA/HADLEY rankings for month and year? Definitively NO!
Climate change is real, there are cooling and warming periods that can be shown to correlate nicely with solar and ocean cycles. You can trust in the data that shows there has been warming from 1979 to 1998, just as there was warming around 1920 to 1940. But there has been cooling from 1940 to the late 1970s and since 2001. It is the long term trend on which this cyclical pattern is superimposed that is exaggerated.
These factors all lead to significant uncertainty and a tendency for overestimation of century-scale temperature trends. An obvious conclusion from all findings above and the case studies that follow is that the global data bases are seriously flawed and can no longer be trusted to assess climate trends. And, consequently, such surface data should not be used for decision making.
From Surface Temperature Records: Policy Driven Deception
(by Dr. Joseph D'Aleo and Anthony Watts, Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI). Updated, August 27, 2010)
U.S. Temperature trends show a spurious doubling due to NOAA station siting problems and post measurement adjustments:
An area and distance weighted analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperatures and temperature trends
"A reanalysis of U.S. surface station temperatures has been performed using the recently WMO-approved Siting Classification System devised by METEO-France's Michel Leroy. The new siting classification more accurately characterizes the quality of the location in terms of monitoring long-term spatially representative surface temperature trends. The new analysis demonstrates that reported 1979-2008 U.S. temperature trends are spuriously doubled, with 92% of that over-estimation resulting from erroneous NOAA adjustments of well-sited stations upward."
"The new improved assessment, for the years 1979 to 2008,
yields a trend of +0.155°C per decade from the high quality sites,
a +0.248°C per decade trend for poorly sited locations,
and a trend of +0.309°C per decade after NOAA adjusts the data."
"This issue of station siting quality is expected to be an issue with respect to the monitoring of land surface temperature throughout the Global Historical Climate Network and in the BEST network."
"The new rating method employed finds that station siting does indeed have a significant effect on temperature trends."
Comparison - All Rated Stations in the Continental U.S.
What the compliant thermometers (Class 1&2) say: +.155°C/decade
What the non-compliant thermometers (Class 3,4,5) say: +.248°C/decade
What the NOAA final adjusted data says: +.309°C/decade
See Press Release: U.S. Temperature trends show a spurious doubling due to NOAA station siting problems and post measurement adjustments (Anthony Watts, Watts Up With That?, July 29, 2012)
An area and distance weighted analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperatures and temperature trends (Pre-release, Watts et al, 2012)
(Anthony Watts of California, Evan Jones of New York, Stephen McIntyre of Toronto, Canada, and Dr. John R. Christy from the Department of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama, Huntsville)
University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) - Satellite-Based Global Temperature Record:
UAH - Lower Troposphere Global Temperature Report: June 2014
Monthly Anomaly in Degrees Celsius (relative to 1981 thru 2010)
Broken lines outline areas that were cooler than seasonal norms; solid lines outline areas that were warmer.
Each contour represents one degree Celsius, starting at -0.5 and +0.5 degrees C.
See Global Temperature Reports:
June 2014 (large map)
See also 2013 Lower Troposphere Anomaly Map, 2012 Lower Troposphere Anomaly Map (large maps)
(Dr. John Christy, Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientists at the University of Alabama in Huntsville - UAH)
See also Media Alarmism (John R. Christy. Video 04:32 ClimateClips.com)
"Since 1979, NOAA satellites have been carrying instruments which measure the natural microwave thermal emissions from oxygen in the atmosphere. The signals that these microwave radiometers measure at different microwave frequencies are directly proportional to the temperature of different, deep layers of the atmosphere."
"As of early 2011, our most stable instrument for this monitoring was the Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit (AMSU-A) flying on NASA's Aqua satellite and providing data since late 2002."
"As of June 2013, the Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit (AMSU-A) flying on NASA's Aqua satellite has been removed from the processing due to spurious warming and replaced by the average of the NOAA-15, NOAA-18, NOAA-19, and Metop-A AMSUs."
"The graphic shown below represents the latest update; updates are usually made within the first week of every month."
UAH - Global lower tropospheric temperature anomalies, 1979 thru June 2014, relative to 1981 thru 2010
Roy Spencer, Ph. D., Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville - UAH
[The red curve is the running, centered 13-month average]
Note the upward steps caused by the 1986/87/88 El Niño and the 1997/98 El Niño.
Note that global warming stopped in 2002 for this record:
The temperature trend for UAH NSSTC lower tropospheric global mean from 1979 to 2002 was 1.04°C per century.
The temperature trend for UAH NSSTC lower tropospheric global mean from 2002 to 2014.34 was 0.07°C per century.
See WoodForTrees.org: Temperature trends for UAH NSSTC lower trop. global mean from 1979 to 2002 and 2002 to 2014.34
"The Version 5.6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for June, 2014 is +0.30 deg. C, down slightly from May."
See UAH Global Temperature Update for June, 2014: +0.30 deg. C (July 1st, 2014)
"The Version 5.6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for May, 2014 is +0.33 deg. C, up from April."
See UAH Global Temperature Update for May, 2014: +0.33 deg. C (June 10th, 2014)
"UAH v5.6 Global Temperature Update for April, 2014: +0.19 deg. C, up slightly from March."
See UAH Global Temperature Update for April, 2014: +0.19 deg. C (May 6th, 2014)
"UAH v5.6 Global Temperature Update for March, 2014: +0.17 deg. C, unchanged from February."
See UAH Global Temperature Update for March 2014: +0.17 deg. C (again) (April 7th, 2014)
"UAH v5.6 Global Temperature Update for February 2014: +0.17 deg. C, down 0.12 deg C from January."
See UAH Global Temperature Update for February 2014: +0.17 deg. C (March 5th, 2014)
"UAH v5.6 Global Temperature Update for January 2014: +0.29 deg. C, little changed from December."
See UAH Global Temperature Update for January, 2014: +0.29 deg. C (February 5th, 2014)
"UAH v5.6 Global Temperature Update for December 2013: +0.27 deg. C, up from +0.19 deg. C in November."
See UAH Global Temperature Update for December, 2013: +0.27 deg. C (January 3th, 2014)
"UAH v5.6 Global Temperature Update for November 2013: +0.19 deg. C, down from +0.29 deg. C in October."
See UAH Global Temperature Update for December, 2013: +0.27 deg. C (December 3th, 2013)
"UAH v5.6 Global Temperature Update for October, 2013: +0.29 deg. C."
See UAH Global Temperature Update for October, 2013: +0.29 deg. C (November 12th, 2013)
"UAH v5.6 Global Temperature Update for September, 2013: +0.37 deg. C."
See UAH Global Temperature Update for September, 2013: +0.37 deg. C (October 3rd, 2013)
"UAH v5.6 Global Temperature Update for August, 2013: +0.16 deg. C."
See UAH Global Temperature Update for August, 2013: +0.16 deg. C (September 10th, 2013)
"UAH v5.6 Global Temperature Update for July, 2013: +0.17 deg. C."
See UAH Global Temperature Update for July, 2013: +0.17 deg. C (August 2nd, 2013)
"UAH v5.6 Global Temperature Update for June, 2013: +0.30 deg. C."
See UAH Global Temperature Update for June, 2013: +0.30 deg. C (July 9th, 2013)
"UAH v5.5 Global Temp. Update for September 2012: +0.34 deg. C."
"As discussed in my post from yesterday, the spurious warming in Aqua AMSU channel 5 has resulted in the need for revisions to the UAH global lower tropospheric temperature (LT) product."
"Rather than issuing an early release of Version 6, which has been in the works for about a year now, we decided to do something simpler: remove Aqua AMSU after a certain date, and replace it with the average of NOAA-15 and NOAA-18 AMSU data. Even though the two NOAA satellites have experienced diurnal drifts in their orbits, we have found that those drifts are in opposite directions and approximately cancel. (The drifts will be corrected for in Version 6.0)."
"The new interim dataset, Version 5.5, has a September, 2012 global lower tropospheric temperature anomaly of +0.34 deg. C."
See UAH V5.5 Global Temp. Update for September, 2012: +0.34 deg. C (October 5th, 2012)
(Roy Spencer, Ph. D., Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville - UAH)
For those tracking our daily updates of global temperatures at the Discover website, remember that only 2 "channels" can be trusted for comparing different years to each other, both being the only ones posted there from NASA's AQUA satellite:
1) only ch05 [14,000 ft/4.4 Km/600 mb] data should be used for tracking tropospheric temperatures,
2) the global-average "sea surface" temperatures are from AMSR-E on AQUA, and should be accurate.
["Channels" 5 and 9 allow comparing against the 1979-1998 average]
"Over the last ten years or so there has been a growing inconsistency between the UAH and Remote Sensing Systems versions of the global average lower tropospheric temperature anomalies."
On the Divergence Between the UAH and RSS Global Temperature Records
(July 7th, 2011, Roy Spencer, Ph. D., Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville - UAH)
More on the Divergence Between the UAH and RSS Global Temperature Records
(July 8th, 2011, Roy Spencer, Ph. D., Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville - UAH)
Differences with RSS over the Last 2 Years:
Many people don't realize that the LT product produced by Carl Mears and Frank Wentz at Remote Sensing Systems has anomalies computed from a different base period for the average annual cycle (1978-1998) than we use (1981-2010). They should not be compared unless they are computed about the same annual cycle.
If the anomalies for both datasets are computed using the same base period (1981-2010), the comparison between UAH and RSS over the last couple of years looks like this:
Note that the UAH anomalies have been running, on average, a little warmer than the RSS anomalies for the last couple of years.
UAH v5.5 Global Temp Update for October 2012 +0.33 deg. C
(Differences with RSS over the Last 2 Years)
(November 6th, 2012, Roy Spencer, Ph. D., Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville - UAH)
The temperature trend for RSS MSU lower tropospheric global mean from 1979 to 2002 was 1.46°C per century.
The temperature trend for RSS MSU lower tropospheric global mean from 2002 to 2014.34 was -0.76°C per century.
See WoodForTrees.org: Temperature trends for RSS MSU lower trop. global mean from 1979 to 2002 and 2002 to 2014.34
Remote Sensing Systems (REMSS) - MSU lower troposphere global mean temperaure anomaly (K)
[°C = K - 272.15, but the anomaly is the same in °C and K]
New Report: Global Temperature Standstill Is Real
Date: 15/03/13, The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)
London, 15 March: A new report written by Dr. David Whitehouse and published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation concludes that there has been no statistically significant increase in annual global temperatures since 1997.
After reviewing the scientific literature the report concludes that the standstill is an empirical fact and a reality that challenges current climate models. During the time that the Earth's global temperature has remained static the atmospheric composition of carbon dioxide has increased from 370 to 390 ppm.
"The standstill is a reality and is not the result of cherry-picking start and end points. Its commencement can be seen clearly in the data, and it continues to this day", said Dr. David Whitehouse, the author of the new report.
The report shows that the temperature standstill has been a much discussed topic in peer-reviewed scientific literature for years, but that this scientific debate has neither been followed by most of the media, nor acknowledged by climate campaigners, scientific societies and prominent scientists.
The report also surveys how those few journalists who have looked at the issue have been reporting the standstill, with many far too ready to dismiss it or lacking a sense of journalistic inquiry, preferring to report squabbles rather than the science.
"If the standstill continues for a few more years it will mean that no one who has just reached adulthood, or younger, will have witnessed the Earth get warmer during their lifetime", said the report's author, Dr. David Whitehouse.
In his foreword, Lord Turnbull, former Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Home Civil Service, commented:
"Dr. Whitehouse is a man who deserves to be listened to. He has consistently followed an approach of examining observations rather than projections of large scale computer models, which are too often cited as 'evidence'. He looks dispassionately at the data, trying to establish what message it tells us, rather than using it to confirm a pre-held view."
From New Report: Global Temperature Standstill Is Real (Dr. David Whitehouse, The Observatory, 15 March 2013)
Predictions Of Global Mean Temperatures & IPCC Projections: (Dr. Girma Orssengo, April 27 '10)
"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims that human emission of CO2 causes catastrophic global warming."
"In this article, a mathematical model was developed that agrees with observed Global Mean Temperature Anomaly (GMTA), and its prediction shows global cooling by about 0.42 deg C until 2030. Also, comparison of observed increase in human emission of CO2 with increase in GMTA during the 20th century shows no relationship between the two. As a result, the claim by the IPCC of climate catastrophe is not supported by the data."
"As a result, as year 2000 with GMTA of 0.48 deg C was the end of a global warming phase, it is also the start of a global cooling phase of 0.42 deg C in 30 years. As a result, the next GMTA turning point will be near 2000+30=2030 with GMTA of 0.48-0.42=0.06 deg C."
Figure 3. Comparison of observed Global Yearly Mean Temperature Anomaly (GMTA) with models.
Linear anomaly in deg C = 0.0059*(Year-1880) - 0.52 [Equation 1]
"Note that the increase in GMTA of 0.35 deg C from 1880 to 1940 (or from 1940 to 2000) in a 60 year period has a warming rate of 0.35/60=0.0058 deg per year, which is the slope of the linear anomaly given by Equation 1. As a result, the linear anomaly is not affected by CO2 emission. Obviously, as the oscillating anomaly is cyclic, it is not related to the 5-fold increase in human emission of CO2."
"One of the most important variables that affect global mean surface temperature is ocean current cycles. The rising of cold water from the bottom of the sea to its surface results in colder global mean surface temperature; weakening of this movement results in warmer global mean surface temperature. Various ocean cycles have been identified. The most relevant to global mean temperature turning points is the 20 to 30 years long ocean cycle called Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO):
Several independent studies find evidence for just two full PDO cycles in the past century: "cool" PDO regimes prevailed from 1890-1924 and again from 1947-1976, while "warm" PDO regimes dominated from 1925-1946 and from 1977 through (at least) the mid-1990's (Mantua et al. 1997, Minobe 1997).
These cool and warm PDO regimes correlate well with the cooling and warming phases of GMTA shown in Figure 3.
The model in Figure 3 predicts global cooling until 2030. This result is also supported by shifts in PDO that occurred at the end of the last century, which is expected to result in global cooling until about 2030."
See Predictions Of Global Mean Temperatures & IPCC Projections (Girma Orssengo, B. Tech, MASc, PhD. Watts Up With That?, April 27 '10)
See also A primer for disproving IPCC's theory of man made global warming using observed temperature data (Girma Orssengo, B. Tech, MASc, PhD. Watts Up With That?, August 1 '10)
See also Interpretation of the Global Mean Temperature Data as a Pendulum (Girma Orssengo, B. Tech, MASc, PhD. Watts Up With That?, August 19 '11)
The term 'global' should mean that every region shows the same trend.
The term 'global temperature' should be well defined and the relevant data made public.
Much attention has been given to the possible effect of the increase of 'heat retention gases' in our atmosphere; the atmospheric 'greenhouse effect', and its possible cause. There are a number of geologists and other Earth-science researchers that have concluded that the atmospheric 'greenhouse effect' is real and its increase has to be man-made; by CO2 in particular, product of the recent industrial proliferation and its fossil-fuel energy demands.
But carbon dioxide is plant food, they use it to produce their energy and store it in their bodies. All animals produce it when they breathe, it is present in the interior of the Earth and surfaces during volcanic eruptions. The main store of available CO2 is in the oceans, which give it off into the atmosphere when their temperatures rise.
Other Earth-scientists have concluded that because, long before today's industrial age,
there have been elevated levels of temperatures and 'heat retention gases' in our atmosphere repeating in a cyclical fashion,
the Earth must now be doing what it always has done; warming and then cooling,
the polar ice caps advancing and then retreating cyclically under the influence of the Sun, Earth's orbit and the ocean currents.
They point out to the most recent global warming period around the middle ages when the climate warmed to include northern Europe
having mild winters and very warm summers: the "Medieval Warm Period", from approximately A.D. 1000 to A.D. 1350.
Then the Earth's climate was in a cool period from A.D. 1400 to about A.D. 1860, named the "Little Ice Age".
The "Holocene Maximum" was the warmest period in human history, from some 7,500 to some 4,000 years ago. Then the Earth cooled again till around year 1000.
Beginning about 18,000 years ago the Earth started warming up. Some 8,000 years ago the bridge between Asia and North America was submerged. During the past 750,000 years of Earth's history, Ice Ages have occurred at regular intervals, of approximately 100,000 years each.
See Global warming is all in the timescales
(Thomas Fuller, former San Francisco Environmental Policy Examiner, July 22 '09)
See Shellfish could supplant tree-ring climate data (Richard A. Lovett, Nature News, March 8 '10)
See When the IPCC 'disappeared' the Medieval Warm Period (Frank Lansner, Watts Up With That?, March 10 '10)
The Earth seems to be always oscillating between a cooling period and a warming period. This would indicate that the climate could be an oscillator regulated by both negative and positive feedbacks, cycling between two states.
There is some man-made effect taking part in the whole CO2 abundance (Mauna Loa: 316 ppm in 1960, 325 ppm in 1970, 338 ppm in 1980, 354 ppm in 1990, 370 ppm in 2000, 390 ppm in 2010). But, according to the IPCC, CO2 would be just a part of the alleged driving force in the warming phase of the climate oscillation, most would be from H2O (clouds and water vapor). [Assuming positive net feedback]
See WoodForTrees - ESRL CO2 (Mauna Loa) interpolated mean + 13 months mean (Data from NOAA Earth Systems Research Laboratory)
In general, researchers find strong seasonal CO2 fluctuations throughout the Northern Hemisphere and weaker fluctuations near the equator and in the Southern Hemisphere.
As plants begin to photosynthesize in the spring and summer, they consume CO2 from the atmosphere and use it as a carbon source for growth and reproduction. This causes the decrease in CO2 levels that begins every year in May. Once winter arrives, plants save energy by decreasing photosynthesis. With less photosynthesis, the dominant process is the exhalation of CO2 by the total ecosystem, including bacteria, plants, and animals.
The Earth's atmosphere, in terms of mass percent abundance, is: Nitrogen (N2) 75.52%, Oxigen (O2) 23.14%, Argon (Ar) 1.28%, Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 0.03% (other even smaller components are disregarded).
The "greenhouse effect" would be crucial to the survival of life on Earth, because without it our present global average temperature of some 15°C (59°F) would be instead of some -18°C (-0.4°F).
"When global warming is discussed, the warming effect of greenhouse gases is obviously of prime interest. But it is seldom if ever mentioned that about 50% of the surface warming influence of greenhouse gases has been short-circuited by the cooling effects of weather."
Why 33 deg. C for the Earth's Greenhouse Effect is Misleading
(Sep 13 '10)
(Roy Spencer, Ph. D., Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville - UAH)
"While it seems rather obvious intuitively that a warmer world will have more atmospheric water vapor, and thus positive water vapor feedback, I've listed the first 5 reasons why this might not be the case."
Five Reasons Why Water Vapor Feedback Might Not Be Positive
(Sep 14 '10)
(Roy Spencer, Ph. D., Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville - UAH)
Earth's Greenhouse Gases Equilibrium Hypothesis:
Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi, a former contract researcher for NASA's Langley Research Center, discovered a self-regulating mechanism, or "constant", that keeps Earth's greenhouse gases in equilibrium. According to his equilibrium theory, this constant cannot be altered by increases in emissions of CO2 or other atmospheric gases such as methane.
"The only thing my theory is telling us is that the nature of the greenhouse effect is such, that under the conditions we have here on Earth, the atmosphere will maximize its cooling by keeping its infrared optical depth - or infrared absorption - at a preferred critical value."
"With relatively simple computations using NOAA's annual mean temperature, H20 and CO2 time series, I have shown that in the last 61 years, despite a 30 percent increase in the atmospheric CO2 concentration, the cumulative atmospheric absorption of all greenhouse gases has not been changed and has remained constant. There is no runaway greenhouse effect."
"The Earth's atmosphere differs in essence from that of Venus and Mars. Our atmosphere is not totally cloud-covered, as is Venus: globally, about 40% of the sky is always clear. Also we have huge ocean surfaces that serve as a practically unlimited reservoir of water vapor for the air."
"With the help of these two conditions, the Earth's atmosphere attains what the other two planets cannot: a constant, maximized, saturated greenhouse effect, so that adding more greenhouse gases to the mix will not increase the magnitude of the greenhouse effect and, therefore, will not cause any further "global warming"."
See Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary atmospheres (Ferenc Miskolczi, Idojaras, Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service, Vol. 111, No. 1, January-March 2007, pp. 1-40, .pdf)
See The Stable Stationary Value of The Earth's Global Average Atmospheric Planck-weigthed Greenhouse-gas Optical Thickness (Dr. Ferenc M. Miskolczi, Energy & Environment Special Issue: Paradigms in Climate Research, Volume 21 No. 4 2010, August, .pdf)
See CO2 Cannot Cause Any More "Global Warming" (by Miklos Zagoni, Science and Public Policy Institute, 21 December 2009, .pdf)
See The Saturated Greenhouse Effect (by Ken Gregory, Friends of Science Society, June 2008, update July 2009)
See at Landshape.org (niche modeling): Free CO2 For All, Modeling Global Warming, Miskolczi Part 1, Greenhouse Effect Physics, Models of Greenhouse Effect, Greenhouse Heat Engine
See The Work of Ferenc Miskolczi (Part 1) (by Jennifer Marohasy, May 2nd, 2009)
Hungarian Physicist Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi proves CO2 emissions irrelevant in Earth's Climate
(Dianna Cotter, Portland Civil Rights Examiner, January 12 '10)
New research into greenhouse effect challenges theory of man-made global warming (Dr. F. Miskolczi, Feb. 9 '10),
Former NASA scientist defends theory refuting global warming doctrine (Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi, February 12 '10)
(Kirk Myers, Seminole County Environmental News Examiner)
Comments on Miskolczi's (2010) Controversial Greenhouse Theory:
"If Miskolczi is correct that the amount of thermal radiation emitted by an object (or layer of the atmosphere) ALWAYS equals the amount absorbed, this necessarily implies something that no one else I know of believes: that INFRARED RADIATIVE FLOWS BETWEEN IR ABSORBERS AND EMITTERS CANNOT CHANGE THEIR TEMPERATURE."
From Comments on Miskolczi's (2010) Controversial Greenhouse Theory (August 5th, 2010, by Roy Spencer, Ph. D.)
The Thermostat Hypothesis: How clouds and thunderstorms control the Earth's temperature
The Thunderstorm Thermostat Hypothesis is that tropical clouds and thunderstorms actively regulate the temperature of the earth. This keeps the earth at an equilibrium temperature regardless of changes in the forcings.
Several kinds of evidence are presented to establish and elucidate the Thermostat Hypothesis - historical temperature stability of the Earth, theoretical considerations, satellite photos, and a description of the equilibrium mechanism.
From The Thermostat Hypothesis (Willis Eschenbach) (in ARVAL)
"In this report*, we present three global surface climate records,
created from available data by NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies [GISS], NOAA National Climatic Data Center [NCDC],
and the cooperative project of the U.K. Hadley Centre and the Climatic Research Unit [CRU] of the University of East Anglia (HadCRUT2v)."
These three analyses are led by Tom Karl (NCDC), Jim Hansen (GISS) and Phil Jones (CRU).
* Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere: Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences (US Climate Change Science Program, April 2006, page 32)
In an interview with The Guardian titled "Climate scientist at centre of leaked email row dismisses conspiracy claims" Professor Phil Jones is quoted as saying:
"... Our global temperature series tallies with those of other, completely independent, groups of scientists working for NASA and the National Climate Data Centre in the United States, among others. Even if you were to ignore our findings, theirs show the same results. The facts speak for themselves; there is no need for anyone to manipulate them."
The differences between the three global surface temperatures that occur
are a result of the analysis methodology as used by each of the three groups. They are not "completely independent".
"The data sets are distinguished from one another by differences in the details of their construction."
"Since the three chosen data sets utilize many of the same raw observations, there is a degree of interdependence."
"The best estimate that has been reported is that 90-95% of the raw data in each of the analyses is the same."
An Erroneous Statement Made By Phil Jones To The Media On The Independence Of The Global Surface Temperature Trend Analyses Of CRU, GISS And NCDC
(Roger Pielke Sr., Climate Science, Nov. 25 '09),
Climategate's Phil Jones Confesses to Climate Fraud (Marc Sheppard, American Thinker, February 14 '10)
and Erroneous Statement By Peter A. Stott And Peter W. Thorne In Nature Titled "How Best To Log Local Temperatures" (Roger Pielke Sr., Climate Science, June 14 '10)
The 1997 Conference on the World Climate Research Programme to the Third Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change concluded that the global capacity to observe the Earth's climate system is inadequate and is deteriorating worldwide: "Without action to reverse this decline and develop the Global Climate Observation System, the ability to characterize climate change and variations over the next 25 years will be even less than during the past quarter century."
See Adequacy of Climate Observing Systems (1999)
(Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate)
See surfacestations.org (Climate stations physical site survey data)
There has clearly been some warming in recent decades, most notably 1979 to 1998. However the global surface station based data is seriously compromised by major station dropout. There has been a clear bias towards removing higher elevation, higher latitude and rural stations. The data suffers contamination by urbanization and other local factors such as land-use/land-cover changes, and improper sitting. There is missing data and uncertainties in ocean temperatures. These factors all lead to overestimation of temperatures.
See A U.S. ClimateGate? (Dr. Joseph D'Aleo, Jan. 17 '10)
See Climategate: CRU Was But the Tip of the Iceberg (Marc Sheppard, American Thinker, Jan. 22 '10)
"A simple graph by Canadian statistician, Ross McKitrick puts this in picture form. His graph shows that when many stations were selectively and suddenly eliminated from world temperature records, reported global temperature immediately and instantly appeared to step up alarmingly to higher levels-in the 1990's and 2000's."
"Temperature measuring stations are placed mostly, 2/3rd, on places where effects of urban heat affects measurements, exhaust of air condition, parking lots, airports jet engines exhausts, increased traffic, concrete grounds etc. cause incorrect measurements, i.e. too high temperatures."
"Globally, 12,000 to 14,000 stations during 1970-1989 were reduced to less than 8,000 in year 1991,
further to less than 6,000 in year 2000 and to 1,500 now and mainly located at airports.
Stations were relocated from previous sites in forests and rural areas to urban sites.
Measurements in cold Siberia were eliminated after the collapse of Soviet [Union]. Weather stations were moved from north to south, from high altitudes to low altitudes, all giving higher temperatures."
"90% of stations give 1-2°C too high temperatures, i.e. more than IPCC claim for AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming).
During 1950 to 1989 with 12-14,000 stations, average temperature is around 10.0°C and 1990 to 2000 temperature is 11-12°C, average around 11.5°C thus an increase of 1.5°C.
90% of all air temperature measurements are taken over land, while land covers only 30% of the planet and the oceans cover 70%."
two dead elephants in parliament
(Malcolm Roberts, February 7, 2010)
See The Graph of Temperature vs. Number of Stations (Ross McKitrick)
Graphic showing Urban Heat Island (UHI) by county population in California.
From Goodridge 1996, published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.
Counties in California with >1 million population: +4°F
Counties in California with <1 million and >100,000 population: +1°F
Counties in California with <100,000 population: 0°F
McKitrick & Michaels Were Right: More Evidence of Spurious Warming in the IPCC Surface Temperature Dataset
March 30th, 2012 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
"The supposed gold standard in surface temperature data is that produced by Univ. of East Anglia, the so-called CRUTem3 dataset. There has always been a lingering suspicion among skeptics that some portion of this IPCC official temperature record contains some level of residual spurious warming due to the urban heat island effect. Several published papers over the years have supported that suspicion."
"The Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect is familiar to most people: towns and cities are typically warmer than surrounding rural areas due to the replacement of natural vegetation with manmade structures. If that effect increases over time at thermometer sites, there will be a spurious warming component to regional or global temperature trends computed from the data."
"Here I will show based upon unadjusted International Surface Hourly (ISH) data archived at NCDC that the warming trend over the Northern Hemisphere, where virtually all of the thermometer data exist, is a function of population density at the thermometer site."
"Depending upon how low in population density one extends the results, the level of spurious warming in the CRUTem3 dataset ranges from 14% to 30% when 3 population density classes are considered, and even 60% with 5 population classes."
"I find the above results to be quite compelling evidence for what Anthony Watts, Pat Michaels, Ross McKitrick, et al., have been emphasizing for years: that poor thermometer siting has likely led to spurious warming trends, which has then inflated the official IPCC estimates of warming. These results are roughly consistent with the McKitrick and Michaels (2007) study which suggested as much as 50% of the reported surface warming since 1980 could be spurious."
From McKitrick & Michaels Were Right: More Evidence of Spurious Warming in the IPCC Surface Temperature Dataset
(March 30th, 2012 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.)
Spencer shows compelling evidence of UHI in CRUTem3 data
(Anthony Watts, Watts Up With That?, March 30, 2012)
See also Quantifying the influence of anthropogenic surface processes and inhomogeneities on gridded global climate data (.pdf, Ross R. McKitrick and Patrick J. Michaels, 14 December 2007, Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 112, D24S09, doi:10.1029/2007JD008465)
See also Urban Heat Island Effect (Professor John Christy from the University of Alabama in Huntsville. Video 06:43 ClimateClips.com)
Surface temperature uncertainty, quantified:
Sensor measurement uncertainty has never been fully considered in prior appraisals of global average surface air temperature. The estimated average ±0.2 C station error has been incorrectly assessed as random, and the systematic error from uncontrolled variables has been invariably neglected. The systematic errors in measurements from three ideally sited and maintained temperature sensors are calculated herein. Combined with the ±0.2 C average station error, a representative lower-limit uncertainty of ±0.46 C was found for any global annual surface air temperature anomaly. This ±0.46 C reveals that the global surface air temperature anomaly trend from 1880 through 2000 is statistically indistinguishable from 0 C, and represents a lower limit of calibration uncertainty for climate models and for any prospective physically justifiable proxy reconstruction of paleo-temperature. The rate and magnitude of 20th century warming are thus unknowable, and suggestions of an unprecedented trend in 20th century global air temperature are unsustainable.
See Surface temperature uncertainty, quantified (Patrick Frank, December 2010, quoted at Watts Up With That?, January 20, 2011)
Man-made Global Warming?:
"In 1988 the scientist James Hansen of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) announced to Congress (USA) and the world, "Global warming has begun". He went on to report that, at least to his satisfaction, he had seen the "signal" in the climate noise and that the earth was destined for global warming, perhaps in the form of a runaway greenhouse effect. Hansen later revised his remarks, but his statement remained the starting point of widespread concerns over global warming. That same year the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was formed as a joint program of the United Nations Environmental Program, the World Meteorological Organization, and the International Congress of Scientific Unions. It has a mandate to prepare regular assessments of what is known and what should be done about anthropogenic climate change."
See Updating the Climate Science
(Makiko Sato & James Hansen, Columbia University)
See Climate Definition, Synonyms (Answers.com)
Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist, Dr. John S. Theon, the former supervisor of James Hansen, has now publicly declared himself a skeptic and declared that Hansen "embarrassed NASA". He violated NASA's official agency position on climate forecasting ("we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind's effect on it"). Hansen thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress. [January 15, 2009]
Theon declared: "Climate models are useless".
See James Hansen's Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic - Says Hansen 'Embarrassed NASA', 'Was Never Muzzled', & Models 'Useless' (Watts Up With That?, January 27, 2009)
Until April 2013 James Hansen was the director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) (Study of global climate change).
"More than 1,000 dissenting scientists from around the globe have now challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore."
See Special Report: More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims (CFACT, December 8, 2010)
"49 former NASA scientists and astronauts sent a letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden last week admonishing the agency for it's role in advocating a high degree of certainty that man-made CO2 is a major cause of climate change while neglecting empirical evidence that calls the theory into question."
See Astronauts and scientists send letter to NASA: Stop global warming advocacy (CFACT, April 10, 2012)
Just how good are climate models at predicting regional patterns of climate change?
I had occasion to survey this literature as part of a recently completed research project on the subject. The simple summary is that, with few exceptions, climate models not only fail to do better than random numbers, in some cases they are actually worse.
See Junk Science Week: Climate models fail reality test (Ross McKitrick, Financial Post, June 13, 2012)
Dr. Freeman J. Dyson: The Science and Politics of Climate
"The way the problem is customarily presented to the public is seriously misleading. The public is led to believe that the carbon dioxide problem has a single cause and a single consequence. The single cause is fossil fuel burning, the single consequence is global warming. In reality there are multiple causes and multiple consequences. The atmospheric carbon dioxide that drives global warming is only the tail of the dog. The dog that wags the tail is the global ecology: forests, farms and swamps, as well as power-stations, factories and automobiles. And the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has other consequences that may be at least as important as global warming - increasing crop yields and growth of forests, for example. To handle the problem intelligently, we need to understand all the causes and all the consequences."
See The Science and Politics of Climate (American Physical Society: Freeman J. Dyson, May 1999)
"The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in."
See Heretical Thoughts About Science And Society (Edge: Freeman Dyson, Aug. 8 '07)
Warming Power of CO2 and H2O: Correlations with Temperature Changes
"The dramatic and threatening environmental changes announced for the next decades are the result of models whose main drive factor of climatic changes is the increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Although taken as a premise, the hypothesis does not have verifiable consistence."
"CO2 changes are closely related to temperature. Warmer seasons or triennial phases are followed by an atmosphere that is rich in CO2, reflecting the gas solving or exsolving from water, and not photosynthesis activity."
"Monthly changes have no correspondence as would be expected if the warming was an important absorption-radiation effect of the CO2 increase. The anthropogenic wasting of fossil fuel CO2 to the atmosphere shows no relation with the temperature changes even in an annual basis. The absence of immediate relation between CO2 and temperature is evidence that rising its mix ratio in the atmosphere will not imply more absorption and time residence of energy over the Earth surface. This is explained because band absorption is nearly all done with historic CO2 values. Unlike CO2, water vapor in the atmosphere is rising in tune with temperature changes, even in a monthly scale. The rising energy absorption of vapor is reducing the outcoming long wave radiation window and amplifying warming regionally and in a different way around the globe."
"The main conclusion one arrives at the analysis is that CO2 has not a causal relation with global warming and it is not powerful enough to cause the historical changes in temperature that were observed."
See Warming Power of CO2 and H2O: Correlations with Temperature Changes (Paulo Cesar Soares, International Journal of Geosciences (IJG), Volume 01, Number 03, Nov. 2010)
For a discussion, see New paper - "absence of correlation between temperature changes ... and CO2" (Watts Up With That?, January 1, 2011)
Global Warming Natural, Says Expert
Addresses Vatican Seminar on Climate Change
Vatican City, April 27, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Scientists might not have human behavior to blame for global warming, according to the president of the World Federation of Scientists.
Antonio Zichichi, who is also a retired professor of advanced physics at the University of Bologna, made this assertion today in an address delivered to an international congress sponsored by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace.
The conference, which ends today, is examining "Climate Change and Development".
Zichichi pointed out that human activity has less than a 10% impact on the environment.
He also cited that models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are incoherent and invalid from a scientific point of view. The U.N. commission was founded in 1988 to evaluate the risk of climate change brought on by humans.
Zichichi, who is also member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, showed that the mathematical models used by the IPCC do not correspond to the criteria of the scientific method.
He said that the IPCC used "the method of 'forcing' to arrive at their conclusions that human activity produces meteorological variations".
The physicist affirmed that on the basis of actual scientific fact "it is not possible to exclude the idea that climate changes can be due to natural causes", and that it is plausible that "man is not to blame".
To that end, Zichichi explained how the motor of meteorology depends on natural phenomena. He gave as an example the "energy sent by the Sun and volcanic activity that spits out lava and enormous quantities of substances in the atmosphere".
He also reminded those present that 500,000 years ago the Earth lost the North and South Poles four times. The poles disappeared and reformed four times, he said.
Zichichi said that in the end he is not convinced that global warming is caused by the increase of emissions of "greenhouse gases" produced through human activity.
Climate changes, he said, depend in a significant way on the fluctuation of cosmic rays.
See Global Warming Natural, Says Expert (Antonino Zichichi, Zenit.org, April 2007)
Meteorology and Climate: Problems and Expectations
Problems with the Mathematical Modelling for "Climatic Changes"
In fact, the present mathematical models are far from being satisfactory. The public at large wishes to know if it is true that human activities are creating a huge perturbation of the climate characteristics of our globe.
To answer this question, the United Nations instituted a permanent committee composed of 2500 scientists from the world over, the IPCC, which has been at work for the last few years and has led the public to believe - as said before - that science has understood all about climate. If that was true, climatologically, the destiny of our planet should be free of uncertainties and under the rigorous control of science. But it's not this way.
When von Neumann, half a century ago, started it all, the mathematical models describing the climate were two-dimensional. It was the brilliant collaborator of von Neumann, the very young Tsung Dao Lee, Fermi's favourite pupil and a Nobel Laureate, who introduced the 'third dimension' in the mathematics of climate. Without this third dimension, 'turbulence', the fundamental property of all models, could not exist.
The father of 'turbulence' participated in the Erice Seminars dedicated to the mathematical models used by the ICCP and found them wanting. We're talking here of mathematical models whose results have consequences costing billions of dollars and involve the responsibility of all the governments in the world.
It is necessary to bring these basic themes back to the scientific laboratories where they belong, taking them away from the hands of those who use them to satisfy ambitions that have nothing to do with scientific truth. The public at large wishes to know what conclusions, based on scientific rigour, can result from the analysis of the measurements already taken.
See Meteorology and Climate: Problems and Expectations (Antonino Zichichi, Università di Bologna, Aug. 2007, .pdf)
Sound and Fury
The Science and Politics of Global Warming
Patrick J. Michaels, 1992
"The popular vision of an approaching apocalypse caused by global warming has no scientific foundation, says Patrick J. Michaels. Those who warn of a catastrophic greenhouse effect -- such as former Vice President Al Gore -- can justify neither their fears not their blueprints for dramatically interfering with the U.S. and world economies. Sound and Fury criticizes "science by sound and bite" and congressional show trials complete with testimony that has not been peer-reviewed according to scientific standards. Michaels shows that the slight warming over the last century has been far less than the prophets of the apocalypse would expect -- throwing the reliability of their computer climate models into doubt -- that most of it happened before industry's massive carbon dioxide emissions began, and that most of the warming is at night, when it produces benign effects such as longer growing seasons. In other words, the warming that has resulted from natural climatic processes is beneficial."
"Patrick J. Michaels is Distinguished Senior Fellow in the School of Public Policy at George Mason University and senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute. He is past president of the American Association of State Climatologists, winner of the American Library Association's worldwide competition for public service writing, and an author of the 2003 climate science "Paper of the Year", awarded by the Association of American Geographers."
From Sound and Fury - The Science and Politics of Global Warming (Patrick J. Michaels, George Mason University, Cato Institute, 1992. Free .pdf book or hardcover)
Time series of Arctic and Antarctic Sea Ice Extent:
NASA's Earth Observing System (EOS) Aqua Satellite was launched on May 4, 2002.
The Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer - (AMSR-E) was one of the six sensors aboard Aqua.
AMSR-E was developed by the National Space Agency of Japan (JAXA).
On October 4, 2011, AMSR-E ended 9+ Years of global observations due to mechanical failure.
See AMSR-E Ends 9+ Years of Global Observations (Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D., Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville - UAH). See AMSR-E problems; maps not updated since Oct. 4 '11.
See IPCC and Antarctica (Professor John R. Christy, The University of Alabama in Hunstville. Video 03:49 ClimateClips.com)
Daily AMSR2 sea ice maps:
The new satellite "Shizuku" (GCOM-W1) that carries AMSR2 (the successor of AMSR-E) has been launched successfully on May 18, 2012. It has been delivering data since August 2012. On Januray 25, 2013, the calibrated brightness temperature data have been released to the public. Starting on 26 January 2013, we produce daily sea ice concentration maps from these data.
Note that thorough calibration of the AMSR2/ARTIST Sea Ice (ASI) data has not been finished yet.
|Arctic. Click on the image to enlarge.||Antarctic. Click on the image to enlarge.|
From Daily AMSR2 sea ice maps: Arctic, Antarctic (University of Bremen, Germany).
Note that the maximum extent of
sea ice was reached in 1979 and for the
Antarctic in 2013.
The minimum extent of sea ice for the Arctic was in 2007 and in the Antarctic was in 1993.
Daily updated sea ice extents from the Special Sensor Microwave Imager/Sounder (SSMIS) on the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) showing averages for 1981-2010 (solid grey line) and ±2 standard deviations (light gray area):
Total area, in millions of square kilometers, of at least 15% floating ice concentration:
|Arctic. Click on the image to enlarge.||Antarctic. Click on the image to enlarge.|
From Sea Ice Index: Arctic, Antarctic (National Snow and Ice Data Center - NSIDC).
Monthly Sea Ice Extent Anomaly Graphs, since 1979 [when the maximum extent of Arctic sea ice was reached]:
|Arctic. Click on the image to enlarge.||Antarctic. Click on the image to enlarge.|
From Sea Ice Index: Arctic, Antarctic (National Snow and Ice Data Center - NSIDC).
Arctic Sea Ice is 14.8 million Km2 (1981-2010 mean), decreasing at 2.4±0.6% per decade.
Antarctic Sea Ice is 7.4 million Km2 (1981-2010 mean), increasing at 3.4±2.6% per decade.
Sea ice is formed when ocean water freezes. Because the oceans are salty, this occurs at about -1.8ºC (28.76ºF).
In the winter the Arctic sea ice more than doubles in size. Arctic sea ice extent is directly dependent on winds and currents, not just on temperatures.
Also see JASMES Climate - Sea Ice Trends (Arctic/Antarctic, JAXA)
Also see National Ice Center - IMS Products (IMS Arctic Ice Extent Charts)
For more graphic information see Global Sea Ice Reference Page (Anthony Watts, Watts Up With That?).
In the winter Antarctica more than doubles in size due to the sea ice that forms around the coasts.
During the winter months it becomes so cold that the sea surrounding Antarctica freezes for hundreds of km off-shore. This ice breaks up to form pack-ice which, under the action of winds and currents, is constantly changing form and distribution.
About 98% of Antarctica is permanently covered by the Antarctic ice sheet, the largest single mass of ice on Earth, a sheet of ice averaging at least 1.6 km (1.0 mi) thick. It covers an area of about 14.6 million km2 and contains 25-30 million km3 of ice. The continent has about 90% of the world's ice (and thereby about 70% of the world's fresh water).
In some places the ice is over 4 km deep. The ice flows continuously from the high elevations to the sea, breaking off to form massive icebergs. The amount of precipitation in Antarctica is so small that it is classed as a desert region (polar desert).
For more information see Fact Files: Geography (Australian Antarctic Division).
Sea level trends: Southern Ocean versus global ocean
Sea level trends of the world's oceans are shown in figure a.
The two curves represent the overall sea level variations averaged within the Southern Ocean south of 40° S and global ocean, respectively. The most remarkable feature is a large regional difference in sea level trend. The North Pacific and equatorial Pacific exhibit the most spectacular east-west seesaw pattern, with strong positive trends in the western side and strong negative trends in the eastern side. The Atlantic Ocean shows the most homogeneous field and is associated with weak positive trends in general, while in the Indian Ocean negative trends are dominant, except for positive trends in the Indonesian throughflow region and west of Australia.
The Southern Ocean south of 40° S shows noticeable positive trends in most places, with one notable exception in the Pacific Antarctic Basin, where there is a broad region of strong negative trends.
The Southern Ocean experienced a sharp rise in sea level during the 1997-1998 ENSO period (see figure b).
A similar sea level rise is also observed for the global ocean, although the amplitude there is only half that of the Southern Ocean.
Over the 1993-2000 period, the mean sea level trend of the Southern Ocean is estimated at 2.34 ± 0.34 mm/yr, compared to 1.21 ± 0.15 mm/yr for the global ocean. The latter value is close to the lower bound of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) global trend range over the last century (1-2 mm/yr) and is also not significantly different from the estimate of Cazenave et al.  over the period 1993-mid 1997 (1.3 ± 0.15 mm/yr).
Globally, no dramatic sea level rising trend resembling the exponential concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is observed during the past century.
From Interannual sea level variability in the Southern Ocean within the context of global climate change (NASA-JPL, TOPEX/Poseidon and Jason) [page deleted]
(a) Map showing sea level trends (mm/yr) calculated at each T/P crossover point over the period 1993-2000.
Before the trend calculation, mean seasonal variations were eliminated from the monthly time series at each data point
and then low-pass filtered using a Gaussian filter with a cut-off at six months.
(b) Mean sea level variations (mm) averaged for the whole Southern Ocean south of 40° S (green) and for the entire global ocean (red). Area-dependent weights were applied during the averaging process.
From Interannual sea level variability in the Southern Ocean within the context of global climate change (Figure 2) (NASA-JPL, TOPEX/Poseidon and Jason) [page deleted]
This negates a positive CO2 feedback effect on the sea level trends, justifying skepticism.
"Long-term mean sea level change is a variable of considerable interest in the studies of global climate change."
"Since August 1992 the satellite altimeters have been measuring sea level on a global basis with unprecedented accuracy. The TOPEX/POSEIDON (T/P) satellite mission provided observations of sea level change from 1992 until 2005. Jason-1, launched in late 2001 as the successor to T/P, continues this record by providing an estimate of global mean sea level every 10 days with an uncertainty of 3-4 mm."
Since 1993, measurements from the TOPEX and Jason series of satellite radar altimeters have allowed estimates of global mean sea level.
These measurements are continuously calibrated against a network of tide gauges.
When seasonal and other variations are subtracted, they allow estimation of the global mean sea level rate.
According to the Sea Level Research Group, University of Colorado, the mean rate of global sea level rise is 3.2 ± 0.4 mm/yr. [Includes a "global mean glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA)" correction of 0.3 mm/yr. The GIA uncertainty is at least 50 percent.]
See Global Mean Sea Level Time Series (seasonal signals removed) (Sea Level Research Group, University of Colorado. 2014_rel3, 2014-04-24)
See also Mean Sea Level (Aviso)
"Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) admits that satellite measurement of the Earth has issues because a stable Terrestrial Reference Frame was never established for any of the satellite programs."
"The lack of a stable Terrestrial Reference Frame puts all of the space based geodetic data into question".
From Why ice loss and sea level measurements via satellite and the new Shepherd et al paper are highly uncertain at the moment (Anthony Watts, Dec. 3 '12, Watts Up With That?)
What is happening to sea levels?
Hollywood and the media have helped create a popular perception that humans are causing dramatic sea level rises by man-made global warming. This perception comes from an exaggeration of more modest, though still dramatic, computer model predictions of 1-2 metre rises by the end of the 21st century. However, the actual experimental data shows, at most, a slow and modest increase in sea levels, which seems completely unrelated to CO2 concentrations.
The main estimates of long-term sea level changes are based on data from various tidal gauges located across the globe. These estimates apparently suggest a sea level rise of about 1 to 3mm a year since records began. This works out at about 10-30cm (4-12 inch) per century, or about a 1 foot rise every 100-300 years, hardly the scary rates implied by science fiction films like The Day After Tomorrow (2004) or Waterworld (1995).
Importantly, the rate still seems to be about the same as it was at the end of the 19th century, even though carbon dioxide emissions are much higher now than they were during the 19th century.
Moreover, there are a number of problems in using the tidal gauge data which have not been resolved yet. So, despite claims to the contrary, it is still unclear if there has actually been any long term trend! In this essay, we will summarise what is actually known about current sea level trends.
From What is happening to sea levels? (Dr. Ronan Connolly. Global Warming Solved, November 21, 2013)
There Is No Alarming Sea Level Rise!
by Nils-Axel Mörner
21st Century Science & Technology, Winter 2010/2011.
Clear observational measurements in the field indicate that sea level is not rising in the Maldives,
Bangladesh, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, and French Guyana.
From the coasts of French Guyana and Surinam there is a very excellent sea level record covering multiple 18.6-year tidal cycles. It exhibits variations around a stable zero level over the last 50 years. For the same area, satellite altimetry gives a sea level rise of 3.0 mm/year.
The tide-gauge at Korsør in the Great Belt (the strait between the main Danish islands of Zealand and Funen), for example, is located at the hinge between uplift and subsidence for the last 8,000 years. This tide-gauge shows no sea level rise in the last 50-60 years.
The spectrum of proposed rates of present-day sea level changes ranges from 0.0 mm/year, according to observational facts from a number of key sites all over the world, to 3.2 mm/year, according to calibrated satellite altimetry.
Tide-gauges were installed at harbor constructions to measure the changes in tidal level and long-term sea level changes.
Most tide-gauges are installed on unstable harbor constructions or landing piers.
Therefore, tide-gauge records are bound to exaggerate sea level rise.
The IPCC authors take the liberty to select what they call "representative" records for their reconstruction of the centennial sea level trend. This, of course, implies that their personal view - that is, the IPCC scenario laid down from the beginning of the project - is imposed in the selection and identification of their "representative" records. We start to smell another "sea-level-gate".
The mean of all the 159 NOAA sites gives a rate of 0.5 mm/year to 0.6 mm/year. A better approach, however, is to exclude those sites that represent uplifted and subsided areas. This leaves 68 sites of reasonable stability (still with the possibility of an exaggeration of the rate of change, as discussed above). These sites give a present rate of sea level rise in the order of 1.0 (± 1.0) mm/year. This is far below the rates given by satellite altimetry, and the smell of a "sea-levelgate" gets stronger.
Renowned oceanographic expert Nils-Axel Mörner has studied sea level and its effects on coastal areas for some 45 years. Recently retired as director of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, Mörner is past president (1999-2003) of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, and leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project.
See The Great Sealevel Humbug: There Is No Alarming Sea Level Rise! (by Nils-Axel Mörner, 21st Century Science & Technology, Winter 2010/2011, Science and Public Policy Institute Reprint, 27 May 2011)
See Maldives Will Avoid Extinction (Nils-Axel Mörner, Video 06:20 ClimateClips.com)
NOAA report: The Budget of Recent Global Sea Level Rise 2005-2012
For decadal and longer time scales,
global mean sea level change results from two major processes that alter the total volume of the ocean.
Changes in the total heat content and salinity produce density (steric) changes.
The exchange of water between the oceans and other reservoirs (glaciers, ice caps, and ice sheets, and other land water reservoirs) results in mass variations.
With sufficient observations of sea level, ocean temperatures and salinity, and either land reservoirs or ocean mass, the total budget of global mean sea level can in principle be closed.
Expressed in terms of globally-averaged height, contributions to the total budget of global mean sea level are
SLtotal = SLsteric + SLmass
where SLtotal is total sea level, SLsteric is the steric component of sea level, and SLmass is the ocean mass component.
In this analysis, the global sea level rise budget for 2005-2012 is closed when the Paulson GIA correction is applied. The sum of steric sea level rise and the ocean mass component has a trend of 1.1 ± 0.8 mm/a over the period when the Paulson GIA mass correction is applied, well overlapping total sea level rise observed by Jason-1 and Jason-2 (1.3 ± 0.9 mm/a) within a 95% confidence interval.
From The Budget of Recent Global Sea Level Rise 2005-2012 (.pdf, NOAA report, June 2012. Revised January 2013)
See also NOAA Tides & Currents (Operational Oceanographic Data)
- Sea Level Trends (World Map)
Global Tropical Cyclone Activity - Dr. Ryan N. Maue
PhD Meteorology, Florida State University, Tallahassee
Last 4-decades of Global and Northern Hemisphere Accumulated Cyclone Energy: 24 month running sums.
Note that the year indicated represents the value of ACE through the previous 24-months for the Northern Hemisphere (bottom line/gray boxes) and the entire global ACE (top line/blue boxes). The area in between represents the Southern Hemisphere total ACE. [The graphic above is from June 30, 2014]
From Global Tropical Cyclone Activity - Dr. Ryan N. Maue (weatherbell.com).
On June 2011: "Since 2006, Northern Hemisphere and global tropical cyclone ACE [Accumulated Cyclon Energy] has decreased dramatically to the lowest levels since the late 1970s."
"During the past 6-years since Hurricane Katrina, global tropical cyclone frequency and energy have decreased dramatically, and are currently at near-historical record lows."
On August 27, 2011: "The population of "major" global hurricanes has not increased since 1979."
See Observatorio ARVAL - Meteorology for South Florida and the Caribbean (Dr. Ryan N. Maue's Seasonal Tropical Cyclone Activity Update)
Climatologists are no Einsteins, says his successor
"I think any good scientist ought to be a skeptic.", Freeman Dyson said.
"I just think they don't understand the climate," he said of climatologists. "Their computer models are full of fudge factors."
"The models are extremely oversimplified," he said. "They don't represent the clouds in detail at all. They simply use a fudge factor to represent the clouds."
"It's certainly true that carbon dioxide is good for vegetation," Dyson said. "About 15 percent of agricultural yields are due to CO2 we put in the atmosphere. From that point of view, it's a real plus to burn coal and oil."
From Climatologists are no Einsteins, says his successor (Paul Mulshine/The Star Ledger, April 03, 2013)
Climate Change: Incorrect information on pre-industrial CO2
Statement of Prof. Zbigniew Jaworowski
Chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection. Warsaw, Poland
for the Hearing before the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
March 19, 2004
"Determinations of CO2 in polar ice cores are commonly used for estimations of the pre-industrial CO2 atmospheric levels. Perusal of these determinations convinced me that glaciological studies are not able to provide a reliable reconstruction of CO2 concentrations in the ancient atmosphere. This is because the ice cores do not fulfill the essential closed system criteria. One of them is a lack of liquid water in ice, which could dramatically change the chemical composition the air bubbles trapped between the ice crystals. This criterion, is not met, as even the coldest Antarctic ice (down to -73°C) contains liquid water. More than 20 physico-chemical processes, mostly related to the presence of liquid water, contribute to the alteration of the original chemical composition of the air inclusions in polar ice."
"The basis of most of the IPCC conclusions on anthropogenic causes and on projections of climatic change is the assumption of low level of CO2 in the pre-industrial atmosphere. This assumption, based on glaciological studies, is false. Therefore IPCC projections should not be used for national and global economic planning. The climatically inefficient and economically disastrous Kyoto Protocol, based on IPCC projections, was correctly defined by President George W. Bush as "fatally flawed". This criticism was recently followed by the President of Russia Vladimir V. Putin. I hope that their rational views might save the world from enormous damage that could be induced by implementing recommendations based on distorted science."
From CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time (Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski, March 2007)
See also Atmospheric CO2 and global warming: A crititical review (Jaworowski, Segalstad. EIKE, 02.08.2009)
The Myth of Dangerous Human-Caused Climate Change:
"Though not a pollutant, it is nonetheless the case that carbon dioxide absorbs space-bound infrared radiation, thereby increasing the energy available at Earth's surface for warming or increased evaporation (eg de Freitas, 2002). Radiation theory thus accepted, there remain four problems with turning an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide into global warming alarmism. First, the relationship between increasing carbon dioxide and increasing temperature is logarithmic, which lessens the forcing effect of each successive increment of carbon dioxide. Second, in increasing from perhaps 280 ppm in pre-industrial times to 380 ppm now, carbon dioxide should already have produced 75 per cent of the theoretical warming of ~1°C that would be caused by a doubling to 560 ppm (Lindzen, 2006); as we move from 380 to 560 ppm, at most a trivial few tenths of a degree of warming remain in the system. Claims of greater warming, such as those of the IPCC (2001), are based upon arbitrary adjustments to the lambda value in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, and untested assumptions about positive feedbacks from water vapour. Third, the ice core data show conclusively that, during natural climate cycling, changes in temperature precede changes in carbon dioxide by an average 800 years or so (Fischer et al, 1999; Indermuhle et al, 2000; Mudelsee, 2001; Caillon et al, 2003); similarly, temperature change precedes carbon dioxide change, in this case by five months, during annual seasonal cycling (Kuo, Lindberg and Thomson, 1990). And, fourth, Boucot, Xu and Scotese (2004) have shown that over the Phanerozoic little relationship exists between the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide and necessary warming, including that extensive glaciation occurred between 444 and 353 million years ago when atmospheric carbon dioxide was up to 17 times higher than today (Chumakov, 2004)."
From The Myth of Dangerous Human-Caused Climate Change (Professor Robert M. Carter, May 2007, pg. 64, .pdf)
Global Warming: Anthropogenic or Not?
"The current scientific reality is that the IPCC's hypothesis of dangerous global warming has been repeatedly tested, and fails. Despite the expenditure of large sums of money over the last 25 years (more than $100 billion), and great research effort by IPCC-related and other (independent) scientists, to date no scientific study has established a certain link between changes in any significant environmental parameter and human-caused carbon dioxide emissions."
"In contrast, the null hypothesis that the global climatic changes that we have observed over the last 150 years (and continue to observe today) are natural in origin has yet to be disproven. As summarized in the reports of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), literally thousands of papers published in refereed journals contain facts or writings consistent with the null hypothesis, and plausible natural explanations exist for all the post-1850 global climatic changes that have been described so far."
From Global Warming: Anthropogenic or Not? (Professor Robert M. Carter, AITSE, January 2013)
Michael Mann says hockey stick should not have become 'climate change icon'
The scientist behind the controversial 'hockey stick' graph has said it was 'somewhat misplaced' to make his work an 'icon of the climate change debate'.
From Mann says hockey stick "icon" is "misplaced", Anthony Watts, Watts Up With That?, June 29 2010.
Professor Michael Mann plotted a graph in the late 1990s  that showed global temperatures for the last 1,000 years. It showed a sharp rise in temperature over the last 100 years as man made CO2 emissions also increased, creating the shape of a hockey stick and blurring the Medieval Warm Period.
The graph was used by Al Gore in his film 'An Inconvenient Truth'  and was prominently cited in 2001 by the United Nations body the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as evidence of the link between fossil fuel use and global warming.
But the graph was questioned by sceptics who pointed out that is it impossible to know for certain the global temperature going back beyond modern times because there were no accurate readings.
The issue became a central argument in the climate change debate and was dragged into the 'climategate' scandal, as the sceptics accused Prof Mann and his supporters of exaggerating the extent of global warming.
However, speaking to the BBC recently, Prof Mann, a climatologist at Pennsylvania State University, said he had always made clear there were "uncertainties" in his work.
"I always thought it was somewhat misplaced to make it a central icon of the climate change debate", he said.
Michael Mann says hockey stick should not have become 'climate change icon'
Louise Gray, Telegraph.co.uk, June 28 2010.
See BBC - The Editors: What's up with the weather? Panorama, Mike Rudin, 24 June 2010.
See also The "Wegman Report", Ad Hoc Commitee Report on The 'Hockey Stick' Global Climate Reconstruction (Edward J. Wegman, David W. Scott, Yasmin H. Said. 14 July, 2006, .pdf)
"Shortly after its publication, the hockey stick and its main author, Michael Mann, came under attack from Steve McIntyre, a retired statistician from Canada. In a series of scientific papers and later on his blog, Climate Audit, McIntyre took issue with the novel statistical procedures used by the hockey stick's authors. He was able to demonstrate that the way they had extracted the temperature signal from the tree ring records was biased so as to choose hockey-stick shaped graphs in preference to other shapes, and criticised Mann for not publishing the cross validation R2, a statistical measure of how well the temperature reconstruction correlated with actual temperature records. He also showed that the appearance of the graph was due solely to the use of an estimate of historic temperatures based on tree rings from bristlecone pines, a species that was known to be problematic for this kind of reconstruction."
From Caspar and the Jesus Paper by A.W. Montford, Bishop Hill blog, Aug. 11, 2008.
See The Hockey Stick Illusion by A.W. Montford, Bishop Hill blog, Nov. 21, 2009.
See The M&M Project: Replication Analysis of the Mann et al. Hockey Stick by Steven McIntyre y Ross McKitrick.
A detailed review of Mann's book: The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars as it relates to the Wegman report to Congress By Brandon Shollenberger, Watts Up With That? March 7, 2012.
Shollenberger's Technical Review of Mann's recent book By Brandon Shollenberger, Watts Up With That? March 11, 2012.
Climategate Heads to Court By S. Fred Singer, American Thinker. April 5, 2012.
"There is a new and important study on temperature proxy reconstructions, A Statistical Analysis of Multiple Temperature Proxies: Are Reconstructions of Surface Temperatures Over the Last 1000 Years Reliable? (McShane and Wyner, 2010) submitted into the Annals of Applied Statistics and was published in Volume 5, Number 1 (2011). According to Steve McIntyre (Climate Audit), this is one of the "top statistical journals". This paper is a direct and serious rebuttal to the proxy reconstructions of Mann. It seems watertight on the surface, because instead of trying to attack the proxy data quality issues, they assumed the proxy data was accurate for their purpose, then created a bayesian backcast method. Then, using the proxy data, they demonstrate it fails to reproduce the sharp 20th century uptick."
"We find that the proxies do not predict temperature significantly better than random series generated independently of temperature. Furthermore, various model specifications that perform similarly at predicting temperature produce extremely different historical backcasts."
"In sum, these results suggest that the ninety-three sequences that comprise the 1,000 year old proxy record simply lack power to detect a sharp increase in temperature."
New paper makes a hockey sticky wicket of Mann et al 98/99/08
Anthony Watts, Watts Up With That?, August 30, 2010
600 Million Years of Temperature and Carbon Dioxide:
600 Million Years of Temperature and Carbon Dioxide
A slide from a presentation by Dr. David Archibald in Melbourne on February 5th 2011
Left vertical axis: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration in parts per million in volume
Right vertical axis: Global Temperature Anomaly in °C
Over the last 150 million years, geological processes have taken 90% of the carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.
Is carbon dioxide linked to global warming?
While the carbon dioxide heating effect is real and related to warming, it is minuscule and logarithmic.
The logical reason for temperature increase is the Sun. Predicted solar activity can be used to predict the climate, and the current prediction is for a 24-year cold period similar to that experienced at the beginning of the 19th century.
From David Archibald on Climate and Energy Security Watts Up With That?, February 12, 2011
See David Archibald.info
See also Australian scientist lectures on climate and energy security (The Institute of World Politics, February 27, 2011).
The Ice Cores Data:
"Generally quoted uncertainty figures from studies going back to the start of the Holocene
have temperature uncertainties in the range of ±3.0°C.
Even in more recent time frames, data quoted by the IPCC show temperature uncertainties that exceed the measured temperature increases for the last century.
In fact, the IPCC's projected increase falls within the uncertainty range of the data they based their predictions on."
"From studies of Antarctic ice cores going back half a million years, the average CO2 to temperature lag is 1,300 years ±1,000 years. Samples taken from around the end of the last glacial period indicate that the CO2 levels did not begin to rise until after the warming began."
"In results published in Science, a high-resolution deuterium profile is now available for the entire EPICA Dome C ice core. This profile allowed the construction of a climate record that extends back to 800,000 years before the present. The ice core has provided temperature data covering 11 glacial, and corresponding interglacial, periods. The authors used an atmospheric global climate model (GCM) to calculate an improved temperature record for the entire interval, finding temperatures during warm intervals as much as 8°F (4.5°C) warmer, and, during cold intervals, as much as 18°F (10°C) lower, than preanthropogenic Holocene values."
From The Resilient Earth (Book. Doug L. Hoffman & Allen Simmons, 2008). Chapter 13, Experimental Data and Error
The Vostok Ice Core Data:
Carbon dioxide cycles with temperature spikes as evidenced by the graph below. A temperature spike is followed by a CO2 increase as ocean temperatures rise and the solubility of CO2 decreases.
Vostok Ice Core Data
Petit, J.R., et al, "Climate and Atmospheric History of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok Ice Core, Antarctica", Nature 399: 429-436, June 3, 1999.
Note that the Earth is currently (on the right in the graphic) at an Interglacial period that started more than 10,000 years ago; The next step, on a geological scale, is one of cooling. This will mean an augmented need for food, energy and economic resources, especially for countries at medium to high latitudes, both North and South of the Equator. Countries at tropical latitudes will have to depend on their own food resources, grown locally, to survive.
In January 1998, the collaborative ice-drilling project between Russia, the United States, and France at the Russian Vostok station in East Antarctica yielded the deepest ice core ever recovered, reaching a depth of 3,623 m. Preliminary data indicate the Vostok ice-core record extends through four climate cycles, with ice slightly older than 400 kyr.
Isotopes of Hydrogen and Oxygen have been used to develop Earth temperature histories extending over 400,000 years. Trapped gas bubbles record the history of atmospheric CO2 concentrations for over 400,000 years.
From Vostok Ice Core (NOAA Paleoclimatology, with a link to the Vostok data)
By careful analysis of this historic ice core, they reconstructed trends of many climatic and environmental parameters, including temperature and CO2 concentration, over a period of 420,000 years.
Over four glacial-interglacial cycles, the succession of changes through each cycle of glacial growth and termination was similar, with atmospheric and climatic properties oscillating between fairly stable lower and upper bounds. Surface temperature, for example, varied over a range of approximately 12°C, while atmospheric CO2 concentration ranged from a low of 180 ppm to a high of 290 ppm.
The authors note that "the new data confirm that the warmest temperature at stage 7.5 [238,000 years ago] was slightly warmer than the Holocene [the current interglacial]." They also note that the interglacials preceding and following the one at 238,000 years ago were warmer still. In fact, from the graphs they present, it can be seen that all of the four interglacials that preceded the Holocene were warmer than the current one, and by an average temperature in excess of 2°C.
"The Holocene, which has already lasted 11,000 years, is, by far, the longest stable warm period recorded in Antarctica during the past 420,000 years".
From Nearly Half a Million Years of Climate and CO2 (co2science.org, 15 June 1999)
Also see Does The Effect From The Cause Affect The Cause? (Willis Eschenbach, Watts Up With That?, January 3, 2013)
Temperature fluctuations over the past 17,000 years:
Temperature fluctuations over the past 17,000 years showing the abrupt cooling during the Younger Dryas.
The late Pleistocene cold glacial climate that built immense ice sheets terminated suddenly about 14,500 years ago [12,500 BC], causing glaciers to melt dramatically.
About 12,800 years ago [10,800 BC], after about 2,000 years of fluctuating climate, temperatures plunged suddenly and remained cool for 1,300 years.
About 11,500 years ago [9,500 BC], the climate again warmed suddenly and the Younger Dryas ended.
Also showing the Holocene Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period compared to today's small rise in average temperature. Graphic by Don J. Easterbrook.
Graphic from Conference Reignites Climate Change Debate (Philip Foster, PressDispensary, March 19, 2011)
See Geologic Evidence of Recurring Climate Cycles and Their Implications for the Cause of Global Climate Changes Don J. Easterbrook (2011). Department of Geology, Western Washington University, .pdf
See also The Intriguing Problem Of The Younger Dryas - What Does It Mean And What Caused It (Don J. Easterbrook, Watts Up With That?, June 19, 2012)
See also Don J. Easterbrook, PhD. Geology Professor Emeritus (Western Washington University, Global climate change research)
2,000 Years of Global Temperature Anomalies:
2,000 Years of Global Temperature Anomalies (°C)
This graph shows the average of 18 non-tree ring proxies of temperature from 12 locations around the Northern Hemisphere, published by Craig Loehle in 2007, and later revised in 2008. It clearly shows that natural climate variability happens, and these proxies coincide with known events in human history.
[It shows the Medieval Warm Period, the arrival and the end of the Viking colonization in Greenland, and the Little Ice Age]
2,000 Years of Global Temperatures
(Roy Spencer, Ph. D., Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville - UAH. December 22, 2008)
Historic reconstruction of the Earth's temperature and geography:
From Paleomap Project - Climate History (Dr. Christopher R. Scotese)
The Earth consolidated some 4,500 million years ago. About 1,100 million years ago, the supercontinent of Rodinia was assembled. Rodinia split into 2 halves approximately 750 million years ago. The global climate was cold during the Late Precambrian, some 650 million years ago. The most popular hypothesis suggests that the Earth was completely frozen - oceans and all - like a giant snowball.
During the last 2 billion years the Earth's climate has alternated between a frigid "Ice House", like today's world, and a steaming "Hot House", like the world of the dinosaurs.
Paleoclimate studies indicate that in the past billion years the Earth's absolute global mean surface temperature has not varied by more than 3% (~8 K = ~8°C) either side of the 750-million-year mean (291 K = 18°C).
See also Paleomap Project - Earth History (Dr. Christopher R. Scotese).
The Earth has been in an Ice House Climate for the last 30 million years.
When the Earth is in its "Ice House" climate mode, there is ice at the poles. The polar ice sheet expands and contracts because of variations in the Earth's orbit (Milankovitch cycles). The last expansion of the polar ice sheets took place about 18,000 years ago.
For the last 5 million years the Earth has been in a major Ice Age. There have been only a few times in Earth's history when it has been as cold as it has been during the last 5 million years.
See Paleomap Project - Last Ice Age (Dr. Christopher R. Scotese).
The climate during the Miocene was similar to today's climate, but warmer. Well-defined climatic belts stretched from Pole to Equator, however, there were palm trees and alligators in England and Northern Europe. Australia was less arid than it is now.
See Paleomap Project - Miocene Climate (Dr. Christopher R. Scotese).
For the dates of the geologic periods, see Stratigraphic Information Chart (Geologic TimeScale Foundation).
See also We Are Living In Cold Times (Dr. Jørgen Peder Steffensen. Centre for Ice and Climate, University of Copenhagen. Video 04:10 ClimateClips.com).
Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth:
"The global atmospheric temperature anomalies of Earth reached a maximum in 1998 which has not been exceeded during the subsequent 10 years. The global anomalies are calculated from the average of climate effects occurring in the tropical and the extratropical latitude bands. El Niño/La Niña effects in the tropical band are shown to explain the 1998 maximum while variations in the background of the global anomalies largely come from climate effects in the northern extratropics. These effects do not have the signature associated with CO2 climate forcing. However, the data show a small underlying positive trend that is consistent with CO2 climate forcing with no-feedback."
Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth
.pdf, David H. Douglass and John R. Christy, 2009.
A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions:
"We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 'Climate of the 20th Century' model simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era). Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs. These conclusions contrast strongly with those of recent publications based on essentially the same data."
A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions
.pdf, Dr. John R. Christy et al, 2007
Global Warming Advocacy Science: A Cross Examination
Dr. Jason Scott Johnston, Professor of Law and Coordinator, University of Pennsylvania Law School
"Legal scholarship has come to accept as true the various pronouncements of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other scientists who have been active in the movement for greenhouse gas (ghg) emission reductions to combat global warming. The only criticism that legal scholars have had of the story told by this group of activist scientists - what may be called the climate establishment - is that it is too conservative in not paying enough attention to possible catastrophic harm from potentially very high temperature increases."
"This paper departs from such faith in the climate establishment by comparing the picture of climate science presented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other global warming scientist advocates with the peer-edited scientific literature on climate change. A review of the peer-edited literature reveals a systematic tendency of the climate establishment to engage in a variety of stylized rhetorical techniques that seem to oversell what is actually known about climate change while concealing fundamental uncertainties and open questions regarding many of the key processes involved in climate change. Fundamental open questions include not only the size but the direction of feedback effects that are responsible for the bulk of the temperature increase predicted to result from atmospheric greenhouse gas increases: while climate models all presume that such feedback effects are on balance strongly positive, more and more peer-edited scientific papers seem to suggest that feedback effects may be small or even negative. The cross-examination conducted in this paper reveals many additional areas where the peer-edited literature seems to conflict with the picture painted by establishment climate science, ranging from the magnitude of 20th century surface temperature increases and their relation to past temperatures; the possibility that inherent variability in the earth's non-linear climate system, and not increases in CO2, may explain observed late 20th century warming; the ability of climate models to actually explain past temperatures; and, finally, substantial doubt about the methodological validity of models used to make highly publicized predictions of global warming impacts such as species loss."
"Insofar as establishment climate science has glossed over and minimized such fundamental questions and uncertainties in climate science, it has created widespread misimpressions that have serious consequences for optimal policy design. Such misimpressions uniformly tend to support the case for rapid and costly decarbonization of the American economy, yet they characterize the work of even the most rigorous legal scholars. A more balanced and nuanced view of the existing state of climate science supports much more gradual and easily reversible policies regarding greenhouse gas emission reduction, and also urges a redirection in public funding of climate science away from the continued subsidization of refinements of computer models and toward increased spending on the development of standardized observational datasets against which existing climate models can be tested."
See Global Warming Advocacy Science: A Cross Examination
(Dr. Jason Scott Johnston, Professor of Law and Coordinator, Program on Law and the Environment, University of Pennsylvania - Law School. Institute for Law and Economic Research, Paper No. 10-08, May 1 '10)
Donna Laframboise, September 1, 2010
This moment is a turning point in the climate change debate. Not because the report released Monday addresses every concern raised by critics of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), but because it knocks the IPCC off its pedestal.
Those who challenge the IPCC's authority are often ignored. Numerous science academies have blessed its efforts, so who are we to question? This week those academies began to act like grownups in relation to this wayward child. The report, authored by a committee assembled by the InterAcademy Council (a collection of science bodies from around the world), blows smoking holes through just about everything the IPCC's chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, has been telling us. [123-page report PDF, updated Feb. 2, 2011]
He boasts that his organization carries out its work with "complete transparency". But this report says transparency is in short supply. Some stages of the IPCC process, it finds, "are poorly understood, even to many scientists and government representatives who participate in the process".
The report says the IPCC has never established any formal criteria for selecting its most senior personnel, its lead authors, or other key participants. Nor are there any guidelines about what scientific and technical information the IPCC should consider when it carries out its literature review. How these decisions have been made for the past two decades is, therefore, anyone's guess - a situation rather opposite to complete transparency.
The report says a preliminary outline is drawn up by a select group of individuals at the beginning of the IPCC process, but how this happens - and who participates - is a mystery to those who aren't invited. Nor does anything in the following sentence provide comfort to IPCC partisans:
The absence of a transparent author selection process or well-defined criteria for author selection can raise questions of bias and undermine the confidence of scientists and others in the credibility of the assessment...
In February 2008 Pachauri declared to a committee of the North Carolina legislature (as he has in many other contexts before and since), that:
...we carry out an assessment of climate change based on peer-reviewed literature, so everything that we look at and take into account in our assessments has to carry [the] credibility of peer-reviewed publications, we don't settle for anything less than that. [bold added]
But the InterAcademy report matter-of-factly tells the world that an analysis of the IPCC's third assessment report found only 84% of the source material cited by Working Group 1 was peer-reviewed, only 59% cited by Working Group 2 was, and only 36% cited by Working Group 3 met this standard. (An analysis of the IPCC's fourth assessment report references, organized by yours truly, produced similar results.)
Procedures regarding the use of non-peer-reviewed literature are in place, but the report says "it is clear that these procedures are not always followed". The rules say non-peer-reviewed sources are supposed to be identified as such when listed among the IPCC's references. Yet the InterAcademy report says it "found few instances of information flagged" in this manner. As in almost none. According to my colleague, Hilary Ostrov, only 6 of the 5,587 non-peer-reviewed references in the 2007 IPCC report were properly identified.
In a nutshell, the IPCC doesn't follow its own procedures. Or, in the more diplomatic phrasing of the report: "stronger mechanisms for enforcing [these procedures] are needed."
Pachauri also told the North Carolina lawmakers that the IPCC's "writing and review process is very robust, very vigorous". Yet the InterAcademy report confirms that, no matter how loudly the IPCC's expert reviewers and each chapter's review editors might protest, the lead authors "have the final say on the content of their chapter". In other words, the IPCC's vaunted review process amounts to window-dressing.
The InterAcademy committee observes that the IPCC's embarrassing Himalayan glacier error could have been avoided had it merely listened to its own expert reviewers. The mistake was noticed, but the IPCC "did not change the text".
In that instance alone, the IPCC system failed in three ways. First, the IPCC authors chose to rely on an unsubstantiated claim in a non-peer-reviewed document. Then these authors failed to take seriously the feedback from the IPCC's expert reviewers - who pointed out that peer-reviewed material contained more cautious and equivocal conclusions. Finally, the review editors for that chapter failed to ensure that the expert feedback was properly addressed.
Another area of concern relates to the fact that, despite the highly contested nature of the climate debate, and that billions in expenditures around the world are profoundly influenced by the IPCC's findings, this organization has no conflict-of-interest policy.
From "The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World's Top Climate Expert" (an IPCC Exposé)
Donna Laframboise, (2011-10-09). Ivy Avenue Press. Kindle Edition.
"The IPCC was established by politicians, its experts are selected by politicians, and its conclusions are negotiated by politicians."
From Chapter 17 - Cross-Examination:
"Much to [Dr. Jason Scott] Johnston's surprise, his own research discovered that, "on virtually every major issue in climate change science", IPCC reports "systematically conceal or minimize what appear to be fundamental scientific uncertainties"."
"For example, he devotes dozens of pages to explaining the shortcomings of climate models.
According to these models, increased CO2 will cause the air near the surface of the planet to heat up.
This effect is supposed to be especially pronounced in the atmosphere nearest the equator.
Johnston says this second point gives us an opportunity to empirically test whether the models get it right.
Buried within the pages of the crucial attribution chapter of the 2007 Climate Bible, the IPCC acknowledges there's a problem. It admits (in none-too-clear language) that the extra heat isn't where the models say it should be. The real world isn't behaving the way the models predict it will.
Johnston observes that this leaves two possibilities: Either the real-world data is faulty "or something is wrong with the models". Guess which explanation the Climate Bible chooses? The authors of that chapter say the "probable explanation" is that real temperature data gathered in the real world is "contaminated by errors".
While the IPCC may be content with a probable explanation, the public surely deserves to be told that the climate models fail this important test. But as Johnston points out, this fact isn't even mentioned in the Summary for Policymakers document for that section of the Climate Bible."
From the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4)
Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis
18.104.22.168 Differential Temperature Trends:
"Subtracting temperature trends at the surface from those in the free atmosphere removes much of the common variability between these layers and tests whether the model-predicted trends in tropospheric lapse rate are consistent with those observed by radiosondes and satellites (Karl et al., 2006). Since 1979, globally averaged modelled trends in tropospheric lapse rates are consistent with those observed. However, this is not the case in the tropics, where most models have more warming aloft than at the surface while most observational estimates show more warming at the surface than in the troposphere (Karl et al., 2006)".
See U.N. Hires Grad Students To Author Key Climate Report (Fox News, Perry Chiaramonte, November 02, 2011)
Have Atmospheric CO2 Increases Been Responsible for the Recent Large Upswing (since 1995) in Atlantic Basin Major Hurricanes?
"The U.S. landfall of major hurricanes Dennis, Katrina, Rita and Wilma in 2005 and the four Southeast landfalling hurricanes of 2004 - Charley, Frances, Ivan and Jeanne, raised questions about the possible role that global warming played in those two unusually destructive seasons. In addition, three category 2 hurricanes (Dolly, Gustav and Ike) pummeled the Gulf Coast in 2008 causing considerable devastation. Some researchers have tried to link the rising CO2 levels with SST [Sea Surface Temperatures] increases during the late 20th century and say that this has brought on higher levels of hurricane intensity."
"These speculations that hurricane intensity has increased have been given much media attention; however, we believe that they are not valid, given current observational data."
"There has, however, been a large increase in Atlantic basin major hurricane activity since 1995 in comparison with the prior 15-year period of 1980-1994 (22 major hurricanes) and the prior quarter-century period of 1970-1994 (38 major hurricanes). It has been tempting for many who do not have a strong background in hurricane knowledge to jump on this recent 15-year increase in major hurricane activity as strong evidence of a human influence on hurricanes. It should be noted, however, that the last 15-year active major hurricane period of 1995-2009 (56 major hurricanes) has, however, not been more active than the earlier 15-year period of 1950-1964 (57 major hurricanes) when the Atlantic Ocean circulation conditions were similar to what has been observed in the last 15 years. These conditions occurred even though atmospheric CO2 amounts were lower in the earlier period."
"Although global surface temperatures increased during the late 20th century, there is no reliable data to indicate increased hurricane frequency or intensity in any of the globe's other tropical cyclone basins since 1979. Global Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) shows significant year-to-year and decadal variability over the past thirty years but no increasing trend. Similarly, Klotzbach (2006) found no significant change in global TC activity during the period from 1986-2005."
Extended Range Forecast of Atlantic Seasonal Hurricane Activity and U.S. Landfall Strike Probability for 2010
(Dr. William Gray, Dr. Phil Klotzbach, Colorado State University, part 10, June 2 '10, .pdf)
This is an open letter to the community from Chris Landsea (Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory, University of Colorado. January 17, 2005):
After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns."
"All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin."
"Moreover, the evidence is quite strong and supported by the most recent credible studies that any impact in the future from global warming upon hurricane will likely be quite small."
"It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming. Given Dr. Trenberth's role as the IPCC's Lead Author responsible for preparing the text on hurricanes, his public statements so far outside of current scientific understanding led me to concern that it would be very difficult for the IPCC process to proceed objectively with regards to the assessment on hurricane activity."
Sincerely, Chris Landsea
Severe Weather 101: Tornadoes:
"A tornado is a narrow, violently rotating column of air that extends from the base of a thunderstorm to the ground. Because wind is invisible, it is hard to see a tornado unless it forms a condensation funnel made up of water droplets, dust and debris. Tornadoes are the most violent of all atmospheric storms."
From NSSL: Severe Weather 101: Tornadoes (NOAA - National Severe Storms Laboratory)
"Because a tornado is part of a severe convective storm, and these storms occur all over the Earth, tornadoes are not limited to any specific geographic location. In fact, tornadoes have been documented in every state of the United States, and on every continent, with the exception of Antarctica (even there, a tornado occurrence is not impossible). In fact, wherever the atmospheric conditions are exactly right, the occurrence of a tornadic storm is possible."
"However, some parts of the world are much more prone to tornadoes than others. Globally, the middle latitudes, between about 30° and 50° North or South, provide the most favorable environment for tornadogenesis. This is the region where cold, polar air meets against warmer, subtropical air, often generating convective precipitation along the collision boundaries. In addition, air in the mid-latitudes often flows at different speeds and directions at different levels of the troposphere, facilitating the development of rotation within a storm cell. Interestingly, the places that receive the most frequent tornadoes are also considered the most fertile agricultural zones of the world. This is due in part to the high number of convective storms delivering needed precipitation to these areas. Simply as a result of the large number of convective storms and the favorable environment, the odds are increased that some of these storms will produce tornadoes."
"In the United States, there are two regions with a disproportionately high frequency of tornadoes. Florida is one and "Tornado Alley" in the south-central U.S. is the other. Florida has numerous tornadoes simply due to the high frequency of almost daily thunderstorms. In addition, several tropical storms or hurricanes often impact the Florida peninsula each year. When these tropical systems move ashore, the embedded convective storms in the rain bands often produce tornadoes. However, despite the violent nature of a tropical storm or hurricane, the tornadoes they spawn (some as water spouts) tend to be weaker than those produced by non-tropical thunderstorms."
"In addition, tornadoes occur throughout the year. Because a tornado may occur at any time of the day or year somewhere in the U.S., there really is no national tornado "season" (as there is with Atlantic hurricanes). Instead, each region may experience increased tornadic potential at different times of the year."
"With increased national Doppler radar coverage, increasing population, and greater attention to tornado reporting,
there has been an increase in the number of tornado reports over the past several decades.
This can create a misleading appearance of an increasing trend in tornado frequency."
"There has been little trend in the frequency of the stronger tornadoes over the past 55 years."
"Because most tornadoes are related to the strength of a thunderstorm, and thunderstorms normally gain most of their energy from solar heating and latent heat released by the condensation of water vapor, it is not surprising that most tornadoes occur in the afternoon and evening hours, with a minimum frequency around dawn."
From Tornado Climatology (NOAA-NWS Storm Prediction Center)
Annual Average Number of Tornadoes by State:
Florida: Last 30 years average: 62. Last 20 years average: 66. Last 10 years average: 52.
Warning Coordination Meteorologist (WCM)
(This page has charts of the latest preliminary severe storm reports, annual summaries,
and links to comma-separated-value (csv) data files from the NOAA-NWS Storm Prediction Center (SPC) severe weather database back to 1950).
See the United States Annual Trend of Local Storm Reports of Tornadoes (updated daily).
Also see The Online Tornado FAQ (by Roger Edwards, SPC)
Also see Tornado Reference Page (Watts Up With That?)
Also see The Tornado Project, Florida Tornadoes
Also see MORE Tornadoes from Global Warming? That's a Joke, Right? (Roy Spencer, Ph. D.)
Taking Earth's temperature (UAH):
"In early November 1978 a microwave sensor aboard the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's TIROS polar-orbiting satellite started scanning the Earth's atmosphere."
"The 1997-1998 "El Niño of the century" made 1998 the hottest calendar year during the 28+ year record, with an annual average temperature that was 0.47°C (0.85°F) warmer than normal."
"There is no scientific evidence to support the belief that Earth's climate is stable and will not change if human activity does not intervene."
"While the approximately 0.14°C per decade of global warming seen in the satellite data is minor compared to the scale of some past climate shifts, it reminds us that the natural processes of climate change have not stopped."
"Looking at the history of paleoclimate data indicates that the climate is capable of significant changes for reasons that are not understood."
"The current level of knowledge about the climate
doesn't provide the tools needed to predict when rapid natural climate changes will occur and what forms it might take.
This makes it impossible to say with high confidence how much human factors might influence climate change."
"The first thing is to do no harm. With the threat of catastrophic climate change, many proposals have been put forward to limit energy use."
"A fundamental point that needs to be understood
is that if any of these proposals (including the Kyoto protocol) are implemented,
they will have an effect on the climate so small that it cannot be detected.
None of these proposals will change what the climate is doing enough to notice."
"Those are good reasons not to artificially force energy prices up. While raising energy costs might damage the economy, it would disproportionately hurt the poor, especially those people living on the world's social and economic fringes."
"While the extent of human impacts on global climate change remains uncertain,
research by our colleagues at UAH confirms that deforestation and land conversion
are changing regional weather patterns and the local climate over some parts of the world.
We should encourage and support the scientists and engineers who will develop new sources of low-cost energy."
"Ironically, actions that artificially inflate the cost of energy might hamper those efforts, as healthy economies can better afford to find and develop alternative energy sources and cleaner energy technologies."
Published in "Taking Earth's temperature" (University of Alabama in Huntsville - UAH) [Internet Archive Wayback Machine]
Taking Greenhouse Warming Seriously
by Richard S. Lindzen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
Energy & Environment, Volume 18 No. 7+8 2007
"In science, there is an art to simplifying complex problems so that they can be meaningfully analyzed. If one oversimplifies, the analysis is meaningless. If one doesn't simplify, then one often cannot proceed with the analysis. When it comes to global warming due to the greenhouse effect, it is clear that many approaches are highly oversimplified."
"Using basic theory, modeling results and observations, we can reasonably bound the anthropogenic contributions to surface warming since 1979 to a third of the observed warming, leading to a climate sensitivity too small to offer any significant measure of alarm - assuming current observed surface and tropospheric trends and model depictions of greenhouse warming are correct."
"We next showed that the defense of the attribution of recent warming to man involves an observed warming that is smaller than expected, and where the attribution, itself, depends on relatively subjective claims concerning the ability of current models to accurately portray natural unforced climate variability. Thus, the claim that models cannot account for recent warming without external forcing is held to imply the role of human forcing. To be sure, current models can simulate the recent trend in surface temperature, but only by invoking largely unknown properties of aerosols and ocean delay in order to cancel most of the greenhouse warming. Finally, we note substantial corroborating work showing low climate sensitivity."
"Ultimately, however, one must recognize how small the difference is between the estimation that the anthropogenic contribution to recent surface warming is on the order of 1/3, and the iconic claim that it is likely that the human contribution is more that 1/2. Alarm, we see, actually demands much more that the iconic statement itself. It requires that greenhouse warming actually be larger than what has been observed, that about half of it be cancelled by essentially unknown aerosols, and that the aerosols soon disappear. Alarm does not stem directly from the iconic claim, but rather from the uncertainty in the claim, which lumps together greenhouse gas additions and the cancelling aerosol contributions (assuming that they indeed cancel warming), and suggests that the sum is responsible for more than half of the observed surface warming. What this paper attempts to do is point the way to a simple, physically sound approach to reducing uncertainty and establishing estimates of climate sensitivity that are focused and testable. Such an approach would seem to be more comfortable for science than the current emphasis on models testing models, large ranges of persistent uncertainty, and reliance on alleged consensus. Hopefully, this paper has also clarified why significant doubt persists concerning the remarkably politicized issue of global warming alarm."
From Taking Greenhouse Warming Seriously (.pdf, 968 KB) at Publications by Lindzen, Richard S. Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
See also Lindzen: Earth is never in equilibrium, Richard S. Lindzen, Watts Up With That?, April 9 2010
Man-made global warming has not been scientifically proven, while significant reasons for considering this hypothesis as incorrect have been presented:
The Polish Academy of Sciences:
"The Earth's climate has predominantly been warmer than at present. However, there has been some significant cooling that resulted in the development of extensive glaciations, in some of which ice sheets even reached the tropics. Therefore, any reliable forecasts of climate change, before discussion of prevention or neutralization, should take into account evidence from the geological past when, obviously, neither humans nor industry affected the Earth."
"During the last 400 thousand years - still without anthropogenic greenhouse influence - the content of carbon dioxide in the air, as indicated by ice cores from Antarctica, was repeatedly 4 times at similar or even slightly higher level than at present."
"In the past millennium, after warm medieval ages, by the end of the 13th century a cold period started and lasted up to the middle of the 19th century, then gave pace to another warm period in which we are living now. The phenomena observed today, specifically a temporary rise of global temperature, just reflect a natural rhythm of climate change."
"Instrumental monitoring of climate parameters has been carried out for only slightly more than 200 years and exclusively on some parts of the continents that constitute a small part of the Earth. Several older measurement stations once set up in suburbs now appear, due to progressive urbanization, in the town centers which results among other effects in increased values of the measured temperatures. Profound examination of the oceans was initiated 40 years ago. Reliable climatic models must not be based on such a short measurement data base. Therefore, considerable restraint is desirable if ascribing exclusive or predominant responsibility to man for increased emission of greenhouse gases. The reality of such arbitrary statement on human influence has not been demonstrated."
"Research experience in the Earth sciences suggests that simple explanations of natural phenomena, based on partial observations only and without consideration of numerous factors important for individual processes in a geosystem, lead generally to unreasonable simplification and misleading conclusions."
From Attitude of the Committee of Geological Sciences of the Polish Academy of Sciences to the question of impending of global warming (February 12 '09, .pdf) (Committee of Geological Sciences of the Polish Academy of Sciences).
E-mails leaked out of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) (University of East Anglia, UK)
on November 19, 2009, show scientists colluding to distort data to favor the man-made global warming hypothesis
and suppress opinion and scientific works opposing it.
Scientists from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia are leading authors and contributors of the IPCC Assessment Reports on Climate Change (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, UNEP).
These distorted data are the "physical" basis for "Global Warming" and "Climate Change".
See East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (CRU) - Emails/Documents - AKA Climategate (Searchable)
"The only reasonable explanation for the archive being in this state is that the FOI Officer at the University was practising due diligence. The UEA was collecting data that couldn't be sheltered and they created FOIA2009.zip." [FOI = Freedom Of Information]
"It is most likely that the FOI Officer at the University put it on an anonymous ftp server or that it resided on a shared folder that many people had access to and some curious individual looked at it."
"Occam's razor concludes that "the simplest explanation or strategy tends to be the best one". The simplest explanation in this case is that someone at UEA found it and released it to the wild and the release of FOIA2009.zip wasn't because of some hacker, but because of a leak from UEA by a person with scruples."
See ClimateGate: The Fix is In (By Robert Tracinski. RealClearPolitics, November 24, 2009)
See Comprehensive network analysis shows Climategate likely to be a leak (Lance Levsen, Network Analyst. Watts Up With That?, Dec. 7 '09)
See Climategate: Caught Green-Handed! (Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI), Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, December 7 '09)
See Climate Emails Stoke Debate (Keith Johnson, The Wall Street Journal, Nov. 23 '09)
See What the Global Warming Emails Reveal (Editorial, The Wall Street Journal, Nov. 24 '09)
See The Climate Science Isn't Settled (Richard S. Lindzen, The Wall Street Journal, Dec. 1 '09)
See Climategate: Follow the Money (Bret Stephens, The Wall Street Journal, Dec. 1 '09)
See How to Manufacture a Climate Consensus (Patrick J. Michaels, The Wall Street Journal, Dec. 17 '09)
See The Continuing Climate Meltdown (Editorial, The Wall Street Journal, Feb. 16 '10)
See The Climategate Whitewash Continues (Patrick J. Michaels, The Wall Street Journal, Jul. 18 '10)
"This is one of the darkest periods in the history of science. Those who love science, and all it stands for, will be pained by what they read below. However, the crisis is here, and cannot be avoided."
From The Climategate Emails (Edited and annotated by John P. Costella, Ph.D. The Lavoisier Group, March 2010, .pdf)
Is the science concerning the current concerns about climate change sound?
Many people, starting with the members of the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, had hoped this question would be answered during the inquiry process, and there is a frequent refrain in the media that the investigations affirmed the science.
But the reality is that none of the inquiries actually investigated the science.
See McKitrick: Understanding the Climategate Inquiries (Watts Up With That? September 15 '10)
See Understanding the Climategate Inquiries (Ross McKitrick, September 2010, .pdf)
The Climategate Inquiries
(A.W. Montford, GWPF Reports, 14 September 2010)
"Early this morning, history repeated itself. FOIA.org has produced an enormous zip file of 5,000 additional emails similar to those released two years ago in November 2009 and coined 'Climategate'. There are almost 1/4 million additional emails locked behind a password, which the organization does not plan on releasing at this time."
See Climategate 2.0 emails (Watts Up With That, News Staff, November 22, 2011)
See Mr. David Palmer Explains The Problem (Watts Up With That, Willis Eschenbach, November 23, 2011)
See Climategate 2.0: the not nice and clueless Phil Jones (The Telegraph, James Delingpole, November 24, 2011)
See Climategate 2.0 (The Wall Street Journal, James Delingpole, November 28, 2011)
See The Great Global Warming Fizzle (The Wall Street Journal, Bret Stephens, November 29, 2011)
"Climategate 2" | FOIA 2011 Searchable Database:
"This website is provided as a research resource for mining the recently leaked climate communications. Every effort has been made to redact personal contact information such as email addresses and telephone numbers. The redaction algorithms are currently tuned to be quite stringent, and they will inadvertently obfuscate other details as well. We will continue to tune the software to improve the quality of the results."
"This database was assembled in a very short space of time, and at present only provides the most rudimentary tools for exploring this vast trove of material. We will be improving the quality of the search tools and adding further metadata to the database over the course of the next few weeks."
See Climategate 2 | FOIA 2011 Searchable Database
Welcome to the ClimateGate FOIA Grepper !!!
"This is a searchable service of both ClimateGate I and II emails. All full emails, telephone numbers and passwords have been redacted (replaced with ???). Note: you can still search by them if you know them, they just won't show in the results."
"If you're wondering why this is on an Eco site it's because we are interested in fact led research and development that leads to a better future for all; ClimateGate is very indicative that at the very core of climate research the high standards that we all expected for such core research are not being upheld."
"Behind the scenes, I've been playing with a new neat tool for hunting hypocrisy, corruption, bias and unprofessional behaviour and I'm pleased to announce it's ready to share with the world. The kudos for this all belongs to, as usual, a skilled volunteer. Thanks to EcoGuy for turning his rapid-fire coding ability onto this."
"On the EcoWho site he has helpfully placed all of Climategate I and II together into a combined searchable database. It's fast, easy to scan, it copes with tricky search requests and provides a link to the full email from the results page of the search."
See Hot new search tool for Climategate - I and II combined (Jo Nova, November 25, 2011)
Global Warming: How to approach the science
Richard S. Lindzen
Program in Atmospheres, Oceans, and Climate
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Seminar at the House of Commons Committee Rooms
22nd February 2012
Stated briefly, I will simply try to clarify what the debate over climate change is really about. It most certainly is not about whether climate is changing: it always is. It is not about whether CO2 is increasing: it clearly is. It is not about whether the increase in CO2, by itself, will lead to some warming: it should. The debate is simply over the matter of how much warming the increase in CO2 can lead to, and the connection of such warming to the innumerable claimed catastrophes. The evidence is that the increase in CO2 will lead to very little warming, and that the connection of this minimal warming (or even significant warming) to the purported catastrophes is also minimal. The arguments on which the catastrophic claims are made are extremely weak - and commonly acknowledged as such. They are sometimes overtly dishonest.
Here are two statements that are completely agreed on by the IPCC. It is crucial to be aware of their implications.
1. A doubling of CO2, by itself, contributes only about 1°C to greenhouse warming.
All models project more warming, because, within models, there are positive feedbacks from water vapor and clouds,
and these feedbacks are considered by the IPCC to be uncertain.
2. If one assumes all warming over the past century is due to anthropogenic greenhouse forcing, then the derived sensitivity of the climate to a doubling of CO2 is less than 1°C. The higher sensitivity of existing models is made consistent with observed warming by invoking unknown additional negative forcings from aerosols and solar variability as arbitrary adjustments.
Given the above, the notion that alarming warming is 'settled science' should be offensive to any sentient individual, though to be sure, the above is hardly emphasized by the IPCC.
|Carbon Dioxide has been increasing|
|There is a greenhouse effect|
|There has been a doubling of equivalent CO2 over the past 150 years||Nothing on the left is controversial among serious climate scientists.|
|There has very probably been about 0.8°C warming in the past 150 years||Nothing on the left implies alarm. Indeed the actual warming is consistent with less than 1°C warming for a doubling.|
|Increasing CO2 alone should cause some warming (about 1°C for each doubling)|
Unfortunately, denial of the facts on the left has made the public presentation of the science by those promoting alarm much easier. They merely have to defend the trivially true points on the left; declare that it is only a matter of well-known physics; and relegate the real basis for alarm to a peripheral footnote - even as they slyly acknowledge that this basis is subject to great uncertainty.
Quite apart from the science itself, there are numerous reasons why an intelligent observer should be suspicious of the presentation of alarm.
1.The claim of 'incontrovertibility'. Science is never incontrovertible.
2. Arguing from 'authority' in lieu of scientific reasoning and data or even elementary logic.
3. Use of term 'global warming' without either definition or quantification.
4. Identification of complex phenomena with multiple causes with global warming and even as 'proof' of global warming.
5. Conflation of existence of climate change with anthropogenic climate change.
Perhaps we should stop accepting the term, 'skeptic'. Skepticism implies doubts about a plausible proposition. Current global warming alarm hardly represents a plausible proposition. Twenty years of repetition and escalation of claims does not make it more plausible. Quite the contrary, the failure to improve the case over 20 years makes the case even less plausible as does the evidence from climategate and other instances of overt cheating.
In the meantime, while I avoid making forecasts for tenths of a degree change in globally averaged temperature anomaly, I am quite willing to state that unprecedented climate catastrophes are not on the horizon though in several thousand years we may return to an ice age.
From Global Warming: How to approach the science (.pdf, Richard S. Lindzen, 22nd February 2012)
The Skeptic's Case
27 Feb. 2012, Dr. David M.W. Evans
Mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering.
Who Are You Going To Believe - The Government Climate Scientists or The Data?
We check the main predictions of the climate models against the best and latest data. Fortunately the climate models got all their major predictions wrong. Why? Every serious skeptical scientist has been consistently saying essentially the same thing for over 20 years, yet most people have never heard the message - here it is, put simply enough for any lay reader willing to pay attention.
What the Government Climate Scientists Say
If the CO2 level doubles (as it is on course to do by about 2070 to 2100), the climate models estimate the temperature increase due to that extra CO2 will be about 1.1°C × 3 = 3.3°C.
The direct effect of CO2 is well-established physics, based on laboratory results, and known for over a century.
Feedbacks are due to the ways the Earth reacts to the direct warming effect of the CO2. The threefold amplification by feedbacks is based on the assumption, or guess, made around 1980, that more warming due to CO2 will cause more evaporation from the oceans and that this extra water vapor will in turn lead to even more heat trapping because water vapor is the main greenhouse gas. And extra heat will cause even more evaporation, and so on. This amplification is built into all the climate models. The amount of amplification is estimated by assuming that nearly all the industrial-age warming is due to our CO2.
The government climate scientists and the media often tell us about the direct effect of the CO2, but rarely admit that two thirds of their projected temperature increases are due to amplification by feedbacks.
What the Skeptics Say
If the CO2 level doubles, skeptics estimates that the temperature increase due to that extra CO2 will be about 1.1°C x 0.5 = 0.6°C.
The serious skeptical scientists have always agreed with the government climate scientists about the direct effect of CO2. The argument is entirely about the feedbacks.
The feedbacks dampen or reduce the direct effect of the extra CO2, cutting it roughly in half. The main feedbacks involve evaporation, water vapor, and clouds. In particular, water vapor condenses into clouds, so extra water vapor due to the direct warming effect of extra CO2 will cause extra clouds, which reflect sunlight back out to space and cool the earth, thereby reducing the overall warming.
There are literally thousands of feedbacks, each of which either reinforces or opposes the direct warming effect of the extra CO2. Almost every long-lived system is governed by net feedback that dampens its response to a perturbation. If a system instead reacts to a perturbation by amplifying it, the system is likely to reach a tipping point and become unstable (like the electronic squeal that erupts when a microphone gets too close to its speakers). The earth's climate is long-lived and stable - it has never gone into runaway greenhouse, unlike Venus - which strongly suggests that the feedbacks dampen temperature perturbations such as that from extra CO2.
What the Data Says
The climate models have been essentially the same for 30 years now, maintaining roughly the same sensitivity to extra CO2 even while they got more detailed with more computer power.
One of the earliest and most politically important predictions was presented to the US Congress in 1988 by Dr James Hansen, the "father of global warming":
Hansen's predictions to the US Congress in 1988, compared to the subsequent temperatures as measured by NASA satellites.
Hansen's climate model clearly exaggerated future temperature rises.
In particular, his climate model predicted that if human CO2 emissions were cut back drastically starting in 1988, such that by year 2000 the CO2 level was not rising at all, we would get his scenario C. But in reality the temperature did not even rise this much, even though our CO2 emissions strongly increased - which suggests that the climate models greatly overestimate the effect of CO2 emissions.
A more considered prediction by the climate models was made in 1990 in the IPCC's First Assessment Report:
Predictions of the IPCC's First Assessment Report in 1990, compared to the subsequent temperatures as measured by NASA satellites.
It's 20 years now, and the average rate of increase in reality is below the lowest trend in the range predicted by the IPCC.
The oceans hold the vast bulk of the heat in the climate system. We've only been measuring ocean temperature properly since mid-2003, when the Argo system became operational. In Argo, a buoy duck dives down to a depth of 2,000 meters, measures temperatures as it very slowly ascends, then radios the results back to headquarters via satellite. Over three thousand Argo buoys constantly patrol all the oceans of the world.
Climate model predictions of ocean temperature, versus the measurements by Argo. The unit of the vertical axis is 1022 Joules (about 0.01°C).
The ocean temperature has been basically flat since we started measuring it properly, and not warming as quickly as the climate models predict.
The climate models predict a particular pattern of atmospheric warming during periods of global warming; the most prominent change they predict is a warming in the tropics about 10 km up, the "hotspot".
The hotspot is the sign of the amplification in their theory. The theory says the hotspot is caused by extra evaporation, and by extra water vapor pushing the warmer wetter lower troposphere up into volume previously occupied by cool dry air. The presence of a hotspot would indicate amplification is occurring, and vice versa.
We have been measuring atmospheric temperatures with weather balloons since the 1960s. Millions of weather balloons have built up a good picture of atmospheric temperatures over the last few decades, including the warming period from the late 70's to the late 90's. This important and pivotal data was not released publicly by the climate establishment until 2006, and then in an obscure place. Here it is:
On the left is the data collected by millions of weather balloons. On the right is what the climate models say was happening. The theory (as per the climate models) is incompatible with the observations. In both diagrams the horizontal axis shows latitude, and the right vertical axis shows height in kilometers.
In reality there was no hotspot, not even a small one. So in reality there is no amplification - the amplification does not exist.
The climate models predict that when the surface of the Earth warms, less heat is radiated from the Earth into space (on a weekly or monthly time scale). This is because, according to the theory, the warmer surface causes more evaporation and thus there is more heat-trapping water vapor. This is the heat-trapping mechanism that is responsible for the assumed amplification.
Satellites have been measuring the radiation emitted from the Earth for the last two decades. A major study has linked the changes in temperature on the earth's surface with the changes in the outgoing radiation. Here are the results:
Outgoing radiation from earth against sea surface temperature, as measured by the ERBE satellites and as "predicted" by 11 climate models; The slope of the graphs for the climate models are opposite to the slope of the graph for the observed data.
This shows that in reality the Earth gives off more heat when its surface is warmer. This is the opposite of what the climate models predict. This shows that the climate models trap heat too aggressively, and that their assumed amplification does not exist.
The air and ocean temperature data shows that the climate models overestimate temperature rises. The climate establishment suggest that cooling due to undetected aerosols might be responsible for the failure of the models to date, but this excuse is wearing thin - it continues not to warm as much as they said it would, or in the way they said it would. On the other hand, the rise in air temperature has been greater than the skeptics say could be due to CO2. The skeptic's excuse is that the rise is mainly due to other forces - and they point out that the world has been in a fairly steady warming trend of 0.5°C per century since 1680 (with alternating ~30 year periods of warming and mild cooling) where as the vast bulk of all human CO2 emissions have been after 1945.
The climate models get them all wrong. The missing hotspot and outgoing radiation data both, independently, prove that the amplification in the climate models is not present. Without the amplification, the climate model temperature predictions would be cut by at least two thirds, which would explain why they overestimated the recent air and ocean temperature increases. Therefore:
The skeptical view is compatible with the data.
This is an unusual political issue, because there is a right and a wrong answer and everyone will know which it is eventually. People are going ahead and emitting CO2 anyway, so we are doing the experiment: either the world heats up by several degrees by 2050, or it doesn't.
The complete article, with references, in .pdf format is at The Skeptic's Case, at Science Speak (a scientific modeling and mathematical research company, and we speak about some science and economic issues).
See The Missing Hotspot Dr. David Evans (.pdf, July 2008, March 2009, September 2010)
For discussions, see
Dr. David Evans: The Skeptic's Case
(Jo Nova, January 2012) and
The Skeptics Case (Watts Up With That?, February 26, 2012)
See also David Evans explains the skeptics case (You Tube) (Jo Nova, April 29th, 2012)
See also There is No Evidence (Dr. David Evans, SPPI, July 3, 2009)
See also Look At The Right Place (Professor John Christy from the University of Alabama in Huntsville. Video 04:06 ClimateClips.com)
The Gas of Life
By Dr. Jim Goodridge - former California State Climatologist [edited by Andrés Valencia]
Photosynthesis simply stated is 6CO2 + 6H2O + photons = C6H12O6 + 6O2.
[C6H12O6 is D-glucose, dextrose, grape sugar, blood sugar. Cells use it as the primary source of energy and as a metabolic intermediate]
It is suggested by the relative abundances of atmospheric CO2 and O2 that CO2 is a quite active material and it is always in short supply.
Plant growth is basically the chemical reaction of storing solar energy.
Chemical reactions generally double [in speed] with an increase of 10°C [18°F].
Rising temperatures cause CO2 to boil out of ocean water.
Rising temperature and CO2 concentration both stimulate plant growth.
Our atmosphere originally contained about 30 percent CO2.
The era of chlorophyll dominance is referred to as the Great Oxidation.
This happened 2.5 billion years ago.
The ocean's dissolved iron rusted out [of the solution], producing our planet's iron ore deposits and releasing oxygen.
Chlorophyll is still the mechanism controlling the CO2 and O2 abundance.
All life forms basically originated by a photosynthesis process. Chemically our hemoglobin and chlorophyll are quite similar, suggesting a common origin; this is supported by a common DNA code.
Whereas animals do not photosynthesize, their plant foods do. Beef, chicken or fish feed off photosynthetic products. It is mainly trace minerals that supplement [the] photo-source.
CO2 is literally the gas of life for all macro life forms we encounter. The existence of extremophiles suggests very early non-solar energy sources.
Demonizing CO2 started with the plan for peaceful use of atomic energy. The big dream in 1946 that was that atomic energy would be so cheap that electricity would never again need to be metered. The attribution of increased CO2 to fossil fuel burning was born then.
Atomic energy advocates wanted to save Earth from runaway Green House heating like [in] Venus.
A conservation ethic developed to conserve the finite petroleum for the future and anti-pollution and anti-growth advocates added voices to the anti-CO2 theme.
All earthly macro life forms are photo-synthetically derived from CO2, either directly or indirectly by chlorophyll that absorbs solar photons. We are here not at the whim of a deity but by evolution of CO2 derivatives.
For the original and a discussion, see The Gas of Life (Watts Up With That?, February 29, 2012)
Observed and Modeled Global Temperature Evolution, 1951-2013:
From 'Worse Than We Thought' Rears Ugly Head Again (Patrick J. Michaels, Paul C. Knappenberger. Cato @ Liberty, January 6, 2014)
Hundreds of millions of dollars that have gone into the expensive climate modelling enterprise has all but destroyed governmental funding of research into natural sources of climate change. For years the modelers have maintained that there is no such thing as natural climate change... yet they now, ironically, have to invoke natural climate forces to explain why surface warming has essentially stopped in the last 15 years!
STILL Epic Fail: 73 Climate Models vs. Measurements, Running 5-Year Means
(Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D., Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville - UAH. June 6th, 2013)
Science is not based on models but on autentic measurements. Models must be based on science, not the other way around.
On Earth's atmosphere, CO2 is some 0.06% in volume; surely not enough to cause a catastrophyc greenhouse effect.
According to some global climatologists and the IPCC climate models, there would be a strong positive feedback action amplifying the CO2 effect to be much more potent, but this theoretical effect has not been measured in practice.
Understanding that a trace amount of CO2 can not be a main cause of a catastrophyc atmospheric greenhouse effect means we are more in control of the quality of the air. We are more responsible for our planet regarding the atmospheric pollution we cause, and pollution must be minimized for the water and the ground too, and extensive deforestation must cease. CO2 is not a pollutant; It's the gas of life on Earth!
Note on the Theory of the Greenhouse
(By Professor R. W. Wood, Philosophical Magazine, 1909. Vol. 17, pp. 319-320) [in tech-archive.net]
The theory of heat radiation (Max Planck, 1913. M. Masius translation)
Cargo Cult Science (.pdf, Dr. Richard P. Feynman, 1974. Caltech)
Some Coolness Concerning Global Warming (Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 71, 288-299. Richard S. Lindzen, 1990)
Sound and Fury: The Science and Politics of Global Warming (Cato Institute. Patrick J. Michaels, May 12, 1992, .pdf)
What To Do about Greenhouse Warming: Look Before You Leap (S. Fred Singer, Roger Revelle and Chauncey Starr. Cosmos: A Journal of Emerging Issues Vol. 5, No. 2, Summer 1992, .pdf)
Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus (Cato Institute. Richard S. Lindzen, 1992)
Ice Core Data Show No Carbon Dioxide Increase (By Zbigniew Jaworowski, Ph.D., Spring 1997, .pdf)
Climate Change Challenging the Conventional Wisdom (Edited by Julian Morris, Institute of Economic Affairs, December 1997, .pdf)
Does the Earth Have an Adaptive Infrared Iris? (.pdf, Richard S. Lindzen, Ming-Dah Chou, and Arthur Y. Hou. March, 2001)
On the ENSO Mechanisms [ENSO oscillator mechanisms] (.pdf, Chunzai Wang, NOAA. March, 2001)
Are observed changes in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere really dangerous? (.pdf, C.R. de Freitas. June, 2002)
Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000 years (.pdf, Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas. 31 January, 2003)
About the long-term coordinated variations of the activity, radius, total irradiance of the Sun and the Earth's climate (.pdf, Habibullo I. Abdussamatov. 2004)
Long-Term Variations of the Integral Radiation Flux (.pdf, Kh. I. Abdussamatov. 10 October 2005)
The Time of the End of the Current Solar Cycle (.pdf, Kh. I. Abdussamatov. 18 May 2006)
Does a Global Temperature Exist? (.pdf, Christopher Essex, Ross McKitrick, Bjarne Andresen. June, 2006)
The "Wegman Report" (.pdf, Edward J. Wegman, David W. Scott, Yasmin H. Said. 14 July, 2006)
Optimal Prediction of the Peak of the Next 11-Year Activity Cycle (.pdf, Kh. I. Abdussamatov. 28 Aug. 2006)
Grand minima and maxima of solar activity: new observational constraints (I.G. Usoskin, S.K. Solanki, G.A. Kovaltsov, 24 April, 2007)
The Myth of Dangerous Human-Caused Climate Change (Professor Robert M. Carter, May 2007)
Czech Republic: President Says Freedom is Endangered, Not Climate (Dr. Václav Klaus, August 3, 2007)
Rhodes Fairbridge and the idea that the solar system regulates the Earth's climate (Richard Mackey, Canberra, ACT 2600 Australia, 2007)
El Niño Modoki and its possible teleconnection (.pdf, K. Ashok, S.K. Behera, S.A. Rao, H. Weng, T. Yamagata. JAMSTEC, Nov. 8, 2007)
Has global warming stopped? (David Whitehouse, New Statesman, December 19, 2007)
Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change (Agreed at New York, 4 March 2008)
Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions? (Richard S. Lindzen, 29 Nov 2008)
Validity of climate change forecasting for public policy decision making (.pdf, K.C. Green, J.S. Armstrong, W. Soon, International Journal of Forecasting, 2009)
Cada 'empleo verde' que promete Zapatero cuesta 571.138 euros a los españoles (Gabriel Calzada, Instituto Juan de Mariana, Marzo 30, 2009)
Green Jobs, Ole: Is the Spanish Clean-Energy Push a Cautionary Tale? (Keith Johnson, The Wall Street Journal, March 30, 2009)
The Thermostat Hypothesis (Willis Eschenbach, Watts Up With That?, June 14 '09)
Thriving with Nature and Humanity (.pdf, Malcom Roberts, 2009. New Zealand Climate Science Coalition)
Global warming: Our best guess is likely wrong (Jade Boyd, Rice University News, Jul. 14 '09)
Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature (J. D. McLean, C. R. de Freitas, and R. M. Carter, Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 114, D14104, doi:10.1029/2008JD011637, 2009, Jul. 23 '09)
What happened to global warming? (BBC NEWS | Science & Environment, Oct. 9 '09)
Not Evil Just Wrong - Blog (The true cost of global warming hysteria)
- Not Evil Just Wrong (Documentary film, Phelim McAleer and Ann McElhinney, Oct. 18 '09)
The real climate change catastrophe (Christopher Booker, Telegraph.co.uk, Oct. 25 '09)
A Climatology Conspiracy? (David H. Douglass and John R. Christy, American Thinker, December 20, 2009)
Climategate: CRU Was But the Tip of the Iceberg (Marc Sheppard, American Thinker, January 22, 2010)
Ignoring 'Climategate' (Jillian Melchior, Commentary Magazine, February 2010)
The end of the IPCC (S. Fred Singer, American Thinker, Feb. 10 '10)
'Archaic' Network Provides Data Behind Global Warming Theory, Critics Say (Joseph Abrams. Fox News, March 2, 2010)
Wind power Is No Solution To Anything (A Guest Weblog By Henk Tennekes, March 3, 2010)
ClimateGate Whitewash (S. Fred Singer, American Thinker, Apr. 14 '10)
CO2 heats the atmosphere...a counter view (Tom Vonk, Watts Up With That?, August 5 '10)
Is the Western Climate Establishment Corrupt? (Dr. David Evans, 11 Nov. 2010, 28 Feb. 2011)
Good bye, Kyoto (S. Fred Singer, American Thinker, Mar. 13 '11)
The Threats Coming from the Global Warming Doctrine: Remarks to the Presentation of the Book "Planeta Azul (No Verde)" in Argentina (Dr. Václav Klaus, 31 March 2011)
How Scientific Is Climate Science? (Douglas Keenan, The Wall Street Journal, April 5, 2011)
The Chaos theoretic argument that undermines Climate Change modelling (Andy Edmonds PhD, 13 June 2011)
Changing Tides: Research Center Under Fire for 'Adjusted' Sea-Level Data (Maxim Lott. Fox News, June 17, 2011)
Science and Smear Merchants (S. Fred Singer, American Thinker, June 21, 2011)
Unknown and uncertain sea surface temperatures (Tony Brown, Climate Etc., 27 June 2011)
The Truth About Greenhouse Gases (First Things, June/July 2011, William Happer, Princeton University)
It's Not About Feedback (Willis Eschenbach, Watts Up With That?, August 14 '11)
What is Wrong with Global Warming Anyway? (Dr. David D. Friedman, September 5, 2011)
Climate Change: The Dangerous Faith (Sydney speech) (Dr. Václav Klaus, 21 September 2011)
Why BEST Will Not Settle the Climate Debate (S. Fred Singer, American Thinker, Nov. 17, 2011)
The long, slow thaw? (Tony Brown, Climate Etc., 1 December 2011)
Climategate Bombshell: Did U.S. Gov't Help Hide Climate Data? (Maxim Lott. Fox News, December 16, 2011)
Fake! Fake! Fake! Fake! (S. Fred Singer, American Thinker, January 2, 2012)
Sixteen Concerned Scientists: No Need to Panic About Global Warming (Editorial, The Wall Street Journal, January 27, 2012)
The Anthropogenic Climate-Change Debate Continues (Letters, The Wall Street Journal, February 7, 2012)
Concerned Scientists Reply on Global Warming (Letters, The Wall Street Journal, February 21, 2012)
Hartmut Michel, Nobel Prize winning biochemist says ALL biofuels are "nonsense" (Climate Sanity, February 25, 2012)
The Skeptic's Case (Dr. David M.W. Evans, 27 February 2012)
Global Warming Models Are Wrong Again (Dr. William Happer, The Wall Street Journal, 27 March 2012)
Proof global warming isn't making weather wackier? (Maxim Lott. Fox News, April 30, 2012)
The Physical Flaws of the Global Warming Theory and Deep Ocean Circulation Changes as the Primary Climate Driver (William M. Gray Professor Emeritus, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University. May 21-23, 2012, .pdf)
Soon and Briggs: Global-warming fanatics take note (Willie Soon and William M. Briggs, The Washington Times, September 6, 2012)
Climate Realism (S. Fred Singer, American Thinker, September 26, 2012)
Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it (David Rose, The MailOnline, October 13, 2012)
Rothbard and Rucker: Environmentalist power trips harm poor countries (David Rothbard and Craig Rucker, The Washington Times, December 4, 2012)
James Lovelock Letter, December 2012 (.pdf, Bishop Hill, December 11, 2012)
Matt Ridley: Cooling Down the Fears of Climate Change (Opinion, The Wall Street Journal, December 18, 2012)
Hottest year ever? Skeptics question revisions to climate data (Maxim Lott. Fox News, January 10, 2013)
Leaked UN climate report slammed for citing WWF, Greenpeace (Maxim Lott, Charles Couger. Fox News, January 23, 2013)
Draft UN climate report shows 20 years of overestimated global warming, skeptics warn (Maxim Lott, Charles Couger. Fox News, January 28, 2013)
Emergent Climate Phenomena (Willis Eschenbach, Watts Up With That?, February 7, 2013)
Multi-periodic climate dynamics: spectral analysis of long-term instrumental and proxy temperature records (.pdf, H.-J. Lüdecke, A. Hempelmann, and C.O. Weiss. February 22, 2013)
The Anatomy of Climate Science Hype (S. Fred Singer, American Thinker, March 5, 2013)
Multi-scale dynamical analysis (MSDA) of sea level records versus PDO, AMO, and NAO indexes (.pdf, N. Scafetta, 10 April 2013)
Report: Consensus And Controversy - The Debate On Man-Made Global Warming (.pdf, Emil A. Røyrvik, SINTEF, 2013-04-12)
Lawrence Solomon: History trumps climate scientists (Financial Post, 13/04/23)
Harrison H. Schmitt and William Happer: In Defense of Carbon Dioxide (The Wall Street Journal, May 8, 2013)
Met Office admits claims of significant temperature rise untenable (Douglas Keenan, Bishop Hill blog, May 28, 2013)
Climate change: A cooling consensus (The Economist, Jun 20th 2013)
Solar and planetary oscillation control on climate change: hind-cast, forecast and a comparison with the CMIP5 GCMs (.pdf, Nicola Scafetta. Energy & Environment, July 16, 2013)
Distorted data? Feds close 600 weather stations amid criticism they're situated to report warming (Maxim Lott. Fox News, August 13, 2013)
Science in the Public Square: Global Climate Alarmism and Historical Precedents (.pdf, Richard S. Lindzen. Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Volume 18 Number 3, Fall 2013)
Climate models wildly overestimated global warming, study finds (Maxim Lott. Fox News, September 12, 2013)
Dialing Back the Alarm on Climate Change (Matt Ridley. Opinion, The Wall Street Journal, September 14, 2013)
IPCC models getting mushy (Ross McKitrick. Financial Post, September 16, 2013)
Climate change: this is not science - it's mumbo jumbo (Nigel Lawson. The Telegraph, September 28, 2013)
Statistical Analyses of Surface Temperatures in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (.pdf, Draft. Douglas J. Keenan. October 29, 2013)
IPCC's Bogus Evidence for Global Warming (S. Fred Singer. American Thinker, November 12, 2013)
Grand Minimum of the Total Solar Irradiance Leads to the Little Ice Age (.pdf, Habibullo Abdussamatov. November 25, 2013)
Bret Stephens: Climate Prophets and Profiteers (Bret Stephens. Opinion, The Wall Street Journal, February 17, 2014)
Richard McNider and John Christy: Why Kerry Is Flat Wrong on Climate Change (Richard McNider and John Christy. Opinion, The Wall Street Journal, February 19, 2014)
The Coming Paradigm Shift on Climate (S. Fred Singer. American Thinker, March 27, 2014)
Climate Forecast: Muting the Alarm (Matt Ridley. Opinion, The Wall Street Journal, March 27, 2014)
The "Pause" in Global Warming: Climate Policy Implications (Ross McKitrick. Professor of Economics, University of Guelph. May 2014, .pdf)
Australia Repeals Carbon Tax (By Rob Taylor and Rhiannon Hoyle. Asia News, The Wall Street Journal, July 17, 2014)
Active Cavity Radiometer Irradiance Monitor (ACRIM) Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) Monitoring
An Honest Climate Debate (Exposing the truth about the Man-Made Climate Change theory)
Anthropogenic Global Warming - Fact or Hoax? (A Middlebury Community Network editorial by James A. Peden)
Australian Climate Madness
Bishop Hill blog (A.W. Montford)
- The Hockey Stick Illusion (A.W. Montford, January 15, 2010)
- Las Investigaciones del Climategate (A.W. Montford, GWPF Reports, 14 de Septiembre 2010)
- Hiding the Decline (A.W. Montford, October 24, 2012)
Bob Tisdale - Climate Observations (Notes on Climate Change and Global Warming)
Bøjrn Lomborg (The Skeptical Environmentalist)
Brian Sussman (Right Thinking from the Left Coast)
Burt Rutan on Climate Change
C3 Headlines (Climate Cycle Changes)
Calder's Updates: Climate Change (Nigel Calder)
Carlin Economics and Science (Dr. Alan Carlin, Ph.D. in Economics, B.S. in Physics)
- Why a Copernican Revolution Is Needed in Climate Change Research (December 28, 2011)
Cato Institute - Global Warming
- Global Science Report (Cato@Liberty - Weekly)
- Energy and Environment (Cato@Liberty - Monthly)
Christopher Booker's comment, columns and opinion (Telegraph.co.uk)
Climate (Rick Werme)
Climate Audit (Steve McIntyre)
Climate Change (by Erl Happ and Carl Wolk)
Climate Change Dispatch (Because the debate is NOT over)
Climate Change Reconsidered (Website of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change - NIPCC)
- Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate (April 2008)
- Climate Change Reconsidered (Report, 2 June 2009)
- Interim Report from the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (25 August 2011)
- Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science (17 September 2013)
ClimateClips (Video clips with basic knowledge and news)
Climate Data Information (Ron Manley and Pat Reynolds)
Climate Dialogue (Exploring different views on climate change)
Climate Etc. (Dr. Judith Curry)
Climate4you (Ole Humlum)
Climategate (Anthropogenic Global Warming, history's biggest scam)
Climate Realists (Real explanations as to what has made our climate change)
- My Position on Climate Change, By Hendrik Tennekes (July 15 '08)
Climate Reason (The Little Ice Age Thermometers - A Study of Climatic Variability from 1660-2009)
Climate Review (Home of the movie "Church of Global Warming", James Follett, 1hr. - Free)
ClimateSanity (Tom Moriarty)
Climate Science (Roger Pielke Sr.) [Blog retired on November 13, 2012]
Climate Skeptic (Warren Meyer)
- Evidence for Negative Water Feedback (May 23, 2012)
co2 (Antón Uriarte, San Sebastián, Gipuzkoa, España)
CO2 and the 'Greenhouse Effect' Doom (by Tom V. Segalstad)
Co2 Insanity (the insanity surrounding Anthropogenic Global Warming)
CO2 Science (Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Sherwood B. Idso, President)
- Carbon Dioxide and Earth's Future: Pursuing the Prudent Path
- Carbon Dioxide and Global Warming
- Cosmic Rays vs. CO2: The Battle for Climate Change Primacy
Cold Planet (Learning about and Preparing for a Little Ice Age)
Coleman's Corner: DAILY BLOG | john coleman global warming skeptic
Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) (David Rothbard and Craig Rucker)
- Climate Depot (Marc Morano)
Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), Marlo Lewis, Jr. (Senior Fellow)
- The Environmental Source, Second Edition (2008, HTML and .pdf)
conscious (Protecting freedom by understanding climate, The UN IPCC Exposed. Malcolm Roberts, V. Gray, J. McLean)
Consulting Geologist (Timothy Casey B.Sc.)
- Most Misquoted and Most Misunderstood Science Papers in the Public Domain (Fourier, Tyndall, Burguess, Gerlach)
Curious Anomalies in Climate Science
Daniel B. Botkin (Reflections of a renegade naturalist)
DenialDepot (Blog Science for Real People)
Die Klimazwiebel (Eduardo Zorita and Hans von Storch)
Don J. Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus (Department of Geology, Western Washington University)
- Research: Global climate change, global warming/cooling
Dr. Tim Ball (A Different Perspective)
Energy Probe (Environmental Sustainability)
- Articles by Lawrence Solomon
- Global Cooling
Enthusiasm, Scepticism and Science (The origins and impacts of Global Warming Alarmism, Bernie Lewin)
Environmental Policy (Examiner.com)
- San Francisco Environmental Policy Examiner (Thomas Fuller. Blog retired on November 6, 2010)
- Seminole County Environmental News Examiner (Kirk Myers)
- New research into greenhouse effect challenges theory of man-made global warming (Dr. F. Miskolczi, Feb. 9 '10)
- Former NASA scientist defends theory refuting global warming doctrine (Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi, Feb. 12 '10)
Errors in IPCC climate science (Warwick Hughes, Douglas Hoyt)
Friends of Science (Providing Insight into Global Warming)
- Myths / Facts (Common Misconceptions About Global Warming)
George C. Marshall Institute - Climate Science
- Are Human Activities Causing Global Warming? by Dr. Sallie Baliunas, January 1, 1995
- The Truth About Greenhouse Gases by Dr. William Happer, May 23, 2011
Global Temperature Report (UAHuntsville Earth System Science Center)
Global Warming.org (May Cooler Heads Prevail)
Global Warming - Introduction (West Virginia Plant Fossils)
- Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers
- Global Warming: A Chilling Perspective
Global Warming Issues (Dr. John McLean)
- Our ENSO - temperature paper of 2009 and the aftermath (July 2009)
Global Warming Science (Applied Information Systems - AppInSys, Alan Cheetham)
- AIS Climate Data Visualizer (Global Historical Climate Network temperature data graphing - from NOAA, HadCRU)
Heretical Thoughts About Science And Society (Edge: Freeman Dyson, Aug. 8 '07)
Hide the decline (Frank Lansner and Nicolai Skjoldby)
Ice Age Now (Robert W. Felix)
Informath (Douglas J. Keenan)
Institute for Energy Research (IER)
International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project (ICECAP) (Dr. Joseph D'Aleo, Executive Director)
International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) (Tom Harris, Executive Director)
Is there global cooling? (Geoff Pohanka)
James Delingpole's comment, columns and opinion (Breitbart London)
Jennifer Marohasy / Blog (Australian Environment Foundation)
John R. Christy Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH)
JoNova - The Skeptics Handbook
- Climate Money: The Climate Industry: $79 billion so far - trillions to come (SPPI, July 21, 2009)
JunkScience.com (All the Junk That's Fit to Debunk)
- The Real Inconvenient Truth: Greenhouse, global warming and some facts
Knowledge Drift; The Science of Human Error (How bad knowledge contaminates good data, David M. Hoffer)
Landscapes and Cycles: An Environmentalist's Journey to Climate Skepticism (by Jim Steele)
landshape.org (Niche Modeling) (The Power of Numeracy)
Leif Svalgaard's Research Page (Stanford University)
MasterResource (A free-market energy blog)
Michael Crichton - The Official Site: Videos
- State of Fear - Why Politicized Science is Dangerous
Minnesotans for Global Warming (M4GW)
- Hide the Decline - Climategate (Musical Video, YouTube)
New Zealand Climate Change (Climate Change Questions)
New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (Commonsense about Climate Change)
Nicola Scafetta, PhD (Assistant Adjunct Professor, Duke University)
Nicolas Nierenberg (issues related to Dr. Naomi Oreskes and Dr. William Nierenberg)
No Cap and Trade (Facts, not Fiction on Climate Change)
- Michael Mann Controversy (Musical Videos)
NOconsensus.org (No Scientific Consensus on Global Warming. Donna Laframboise, Toronto, Canada)
- No Frakking Consensus (Climate skepticism is free speech. Alternative points-of-view deserve to be heard)
- A Book is Born: The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World's Top Climate Expert (an IPCC Exposé)
Not A Lot Of People Know That (Paul Homewood)
Number Watch (The guide to wrong numbers in science, media and politics. John Brignell)
Omnologos (The Unbearable Nakedness of Climate Change. Maurizio Morabito)
P Gosselin - NoTricksZone (Climate News from Germany in English. Pierre Gosselin)
Professor Robert (Bob) M. Carter Biography (Author of Climate: the Counter Consensus)
- Ten Facts about Climate Change They Don't Want You to Know
Quadrant Online - Doomed Planet
- The Futile Quest for Climate Control (by Prof. Robert M. Carter, November 1, 2008)
- Climate Modelling Nonsense (by Dr. John Reid, October 1, 2009)
- Global warming: 10 little facts (by Prof. Robert M. Carter, March 14, 2011)
- Refuting the myths of climate change (by Des Moore & Tom Quirk, July 25, 2013)
Real Science (Steven Goddard)
Roger Pielke Jr.'s Blog
Ross McKitrick (Annotated Index to Publications and Papers)
- Independent Summary for Policymakers of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (ISPM) (Ross McKitrick, Editor, 2007)
- Critical Topics in Global Warming (Fraser Institute, Ross McKitrick, Editor, 2009)
Roy Spencer, Ph. D. (Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville - UAH)
- Latest Global Average Tropospheric Temperatures
Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI)
- 35 Inconvenient Truths: The errors in Al Gore's movie (Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, 19 October 2007)
- Three Essays on Climate Models (Dr. Henk Tennekes, 30 January 2009)
- Three Speeches by Michael Crichton (Michael Crichton, 11 December 2009)
- Two Dead Elephants in Parliament (Malcolm Roberts, 12 March 2010)
- Response to John Abraham (Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, 12 July 2010)
- Global Cooling (Dr. Gerrit J. van der Lingen, 27 February 2014)
ScienceBits (A random walk in science. Prof. Nir J. Shaviv, Hebrew University of Jerusalem)
Science Speak (Dr. David Evans, Joanne Nova. Perth, Western Australia)
Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)
Shub Niggurath Climate
Solar Chords (Climate Change Explained, Frederick Bailey)
Solar Cycle 25 (a switch to a much cooler climate)
Solar Terrestrial Activity Report (Jan Alvestad)
Steve Goreham - Climatism (Speaker, author, environmental researcher)
Syun-Ichi Akasofu - Notes on Climate Change
Talking About the Weather (by Harold Ambler)
Tallbloke's Talkshop (Cutting edge science you can dice with)
The Air Vent (by Jeff Id. Closed on January 21, 2011)
The Blackboard (by Lucia)
The Carbon Sense Coalition
The Climate Science Coalition of America (CSCA) (Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D., Chairman)
The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) (Director: Dr Benny Peiser)
- Andrew Montford: The Climategate Inquiries (A.W. Montford, GWPF Reports, 14 September 2010)
- Andrew Montford: Las Investigaciones del Climategate (A.W. Montford, GWPF Reports, 14 de Septiembre 2010)
- Hal Lewis: My Resignation From The American Physical Society (IPPC News, 6 October 2010)
- Nicola Scafetta: The Theory Is Very Simple (The Observatory, 29 May 2012)
- New Report: Global Temperature Standstill Is Real (Dr. David Whitehouse, The Observatory, 15 March 2013)
- Scientists Turn Sceptical As Climate Predictions Are In Trouble (David Rose, Mail on Sunday, 17 March 2013)
- Consensus? What Consensus? (A.W. Montford, September 2, 2013)
The Great Global Warming Swindle (A Documentary by Martin Durkin, Produced by WAGTV)
The Heartland Institute
- Environment & Climate News
- Global Warming Facts
- climatewiki.org (Encyclopedia of climate change)
- Fakegate (Another Global Warming Scandal)
The Hockey Schtick (The Travesty of Global Cooling - 12 Years & Counting)
The Inconvenient Skeptic (John Kehr)
- The Inconvenient Skeptic: The Comprehensive Guide to the Earth's Climate (John Kehr, 2011)
The IPCC Report (Paul Matthews)
The Lavoisier Group (Australia)
The Next Grand Minimum (Russell Steele)
The Resilient Earth (Science, Global Warming and the Fate of Humanity) (Book. Doug L. Hoffman & Allen Simmons, 2008)
The Right Climate Stuff (NASA scientists review climate change data)
The View From Here (Hilary Ostrov, Vancouver, Canada)
- AccessIPCC (IPCC's 4th Assessment Report - Annotated)
The Virtual Philosophy Club (Ira Glickstein)
Topher.com.au (Topher - Actor, Writer/Director, Activist)
- 50 to 1 Video Project (It's 50 times more expensive to STOP climate change than it is to ADAPT to it)
- Is CO2 mitigation cost-effective? (.pdf. Christopher Monckton of Brenchley)
Watts Up With That? (by Anthony Watts)
- Atmosphere Reference Pages (Atmosphere current graphs and imagery)
- ENSO (El Niño/La Niña Southern Oscillation) Page (Ocean temperature and oscillation patterns)
- Global Sea Ice Reference Page (Arctic and Antarctic current graphs and imagery)
- Global Temperature Page (Global Temperature current graphs and imagery)
- Ocean Reference Page (Ocean graphs and imagery)
- Solar Images and Data Page
- surfacestations.org (Climate stations physical site survey data)
Weather Action (by Piers Corbyn, Astrophysicist, Meteorologist)
WeatherBell (Meteorological consulting, Joe Bastardi, Dr. Joseph D'Aleo, Dr. Ryan Maue)
- Weather Maps
- Global Temperature Anomalies
- Global Tropical Cyclone Activity - Dr. Ryan N. Maue
- WeatherBell Press
William M. Briggs, Statistician (Adjunct Professor of Statistical Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York)
- Unsignificant Statistics: Or Die P-Value, Die Die Die (13 June 2013)
WoodforTrees (Software tools for analysis and graphing of time series data. Paul Clark)
World Climate Report (Chief Editor: Patrick J. Michaels)
Armagh Observatory Meteorology Databank (United Kingdom)
California Regional Weather Server (CRWS) - Jet Stream Map Menu
Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies (COAPS) (Florida State University)
Centre for Ocean and Ice (COI) (Danish Meteorological Institute)
Centre for Ice and Climate (University of Copenhagen)
Climate Change (NASA)
Climate Prediction Center (CPC) (NOAA)
Climate Reanalyzer (Sean Birkel. The University of Maine.)
Climatic Research Unit (CRU) (University of East Anglia, UK)
Clouds and Earth's Radiant Energy System Information and Data (CERES) (NASA)
Cooperative Institute for Satellite Studies (CIMSS) (University of Wisconsin-Madison)
- Geostationary Image Browser (Flash/Java Animations)
Daily AMSR2 sea ice maps: Arctic, Antarctic sea ice extent (University of Bremen, Germany)
Daily Updated Time series of Arctic sea ice area and extent derived from SSMI data provided by NERSC (Arctic ROOS)
Data of Sea Ice Extent [AMSR-E in the Arctic Ocean] (IARC-JAXA)
Distributed Information Services for Climate and Ocean Products and Visualizations for Earth Research (DISCOVER)
- Daily Earth Temperatures from Satellites (AMSU-A Temperatures, University of Alabama in Huntstville - UAH)
Earth System Research Laboratory (NOAA)
- Earth System Research Laboratory Global Monitoring Division
- El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO)
- Earth System Research Laboratory: Physical Sciences Division
ECMWF | Global medium-range numerical weather prediction - Long range forecasts (Public charts):
2m temperature, Rain, Mean sea level pressure, Sea surface temperature (SST Anomaly)
El Niño: online meteorology guide (WW2010, University of Illinois)
El Niño and La Niña: Tracing the Dance of Ocean and Atmosphere (The National Academies)
El Niño Modoki (Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology - JAMSTEC)
Environment Canada (Weather and meteorological information)
ESA - CryoSat (measuring the thickness of ice sheets and floating ice, launched 8 April 2010)
Frequently Asked Questions About the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) (NOAA Physical Oceanography Division)
GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP) (NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies)
Global Warming (NASA Worldbook)
Global Warming Facts, Causes, Effects, Solutions (National Geographic)
Greenhouse gases Observing SATellite (GOSAT) Project (JAXA, NIES, MOE. Japan)
International Space Environment Service (ISES)
Introduction to Rossby waves (Dr. Paolo Cipollini. National Oceanography Centre, Southampton, UK)
Introduction to the Madden-Julian oscillation (MJO) (Dr. Adrian Matthews. University of East Anglia, UK)
IPCC Reports - Climate Change (UNEP)
- Vital Climate Graphics - Update 2005 (UNEP/GRID-Arendal)
JASMES Climate - Sea Ice Trends (JAXA)
JetStream - An Online School for Weather (National Weather Service)
Kelvin Waves (El Niño and La Niña for the U.S. Navy)
KNMI Climate Explorer (Web application for statistical analysis of climate data)
Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics (LASP) (University of Colorado at Boulder)
- LASP Interactive Solar Irradiance Data Center (LISIRD)
National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), State of the Climate, Extremes (NOAA)
National Snow Analyses NOAA-NWS National Operational Hydrologic Remote Sensing Center (NOHRSC)
National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC)
- Sea Ice Index (Artic/Antartic, Monthly/Daily)
NOAA National Weather Service Weather Prediction Center (WPC) National Weather Service (NWS) Space Weather Prediction Center (NOAA)
NOAA Optimum Interpolation Sea Surface Temperature Analysis (Reynolds OI.v2)
North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) (Ian Bell, Martin Visbeck, Columbia University)
North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) (David B. Stephenson, Exeter University)
Observing the Earth - Understanding Our Planet (European Space Agency - ESA)
Ocean Indicators (El Niño Bulletin, Mean Sea Level - AVISO)
Ocean Motion and Surface Currents (NASA)
Ocean Observations Panel for Climate (OOPC) (UNESCO)
Ocean Surface Topography from Space (NASA-JPL, TOPEX/Poseidon and Jason)
Ocean World (Texas A&M University)
Ozone Hole Watch: Latest status of Arctic & Antarctic ozone (NASA Goddard Space Flight Center)
PALEOMAP Project (Earth & Climate History, Christopher R. Scotese)
Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) (Global data bank for long term sea level change information)
Polar Science Center (Pan-Arctic Ice Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System (PIOMAS), University of Washington)
Polar Sea Ice Cap and Snow - Cryosphere Today, Global Sea Ice Area (University of Illinois)
Remote Sensing Systems (REMSS) (Research-quality geophysical data from Satellite Microwave Sensors)
Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science (RSMAS) University of Miami
- Ocean Surface Currents (CIMAS)
Rutgers University Climate Lab :: Global Snow Lab
Securing Our Environment (European Space Agency - ESA)
Solar Influences Data Analysis Center (SIDC) (Royal Observatory of Belgium)
Solar Physics (Marshall Space Flight Center)
Solar Radiation & Climate Experiment (SORCE) (Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics, University of Colorado, Boulder)
State of the ocean climate (NOAA)
The Second Law of Thermodynamics (Frank L. Lambert, Professor Emeritus, Occidental College, Los Angeles)
The Sun and the Earth's Climate (Sami K. Solanki, Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research)
The Wilcox Solar Observatory (WSO) (Stanford University / NASA)
Tropical Atmosphere Ocean (TAO) Project (Global Tropical Moored Buoy Array, NOAA)
Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) (NASA - JAXA)
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) (Independent Statistics and Analysis)
World Meteorological Organization (WMO) (United Nations)
Santana - You've got to Change Your Evil Ways (YouTube)
Observatorio ARVAL - Meteorology for South Florida and the Caribbean - Global Warming?
This page was updated in: July 19 '14
Best seen with Font Verdana
See About the Web Pages of Observatorio ARVAL
Spanish: Cambio Climático
Back: Observatorio ARVAL - Conferences