Once Again: The Current "Super Freeze" Doesn't Mean Global Warming Is A Hoax

Once again, almost like clock work, the  "dummy brigade"  has emerged (mainly on FOX, Limbaugh) to dismiss the bitter sub-zero temperatures sending the mid-western U.S. into a deep freeze  as  part of a "natural cycle".  Thereby arguing there's really no global warming, no climate change and hey,just bundle up more for the polar vortex.  It's all a "hoax"according to these nitwits.  

A recent example of the latter was a  letter in the local press (COS Indy, Jan. 2-8, p. 4 ) by a  Mark Rozman who claimed:

“Climate change is a natural, ongoing process as evidenced by tree ring data”   etc.

But there is more than tree ring data to be factored in here.   While tree ring data is a useful proxy indicator, it still doesn’t come close to ice core analysis in ascertaining the increasing concentration of CO2 and its effect on climate. In ice core analysis the air trapped in  cylindrical ice cores (extracted from deep within the Earth)  is chemically assayed .  The gases are analyzed to quantify the  CO2  concentration, then related to the climate at the time.

One of the most prolific ice core researchers - who originally discovered (ca. 1986) that the Arctic was warming much more than the continental U.S.  -  was Prof. Gunther Weller of the Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska- Fairbanks :

Prof.  Gunther Weller (1987)

 His work and that of others has disclosed that over the past 800,000 years the CO2 concentration of  300 ppm was never crossed until after the advent of the Industrial Revolution and the burning of fossil fuels.  Further, it has been found that no Ice ages have occurred whenever the CO2 concentration exceeded 200 ppm.  This means that climate change cannot be a “natural ongoing process.´ How can it when the greatest spike in CO2 concentration (now approaching 410 ppm) occurred after the human-instigated Industrial Revolution? 

In terms of tree rings, the relevant indicator is the ratio of the C14 isotope to the C12 isotope, as disclosed by solar physicist John Eddy.    

Eddy showed (‘The New Solar Physics’; p. 17, 1978) that an anthropogenic effect could be deduced from a graph of C14:C 12 deviations over a long enough period, i.e. 2,000 years.  

Specifically, “the sharp upward spike at the modern end of the curve is  attributed to anthropogenic causes and is the mark of increased population and the industrial age.” (Op. cit.)

Eddy’s work  in concert with many others, shows clearly humans are the primary agents driving climate change. Remove the human influence from the past 250 years or so and we are not approaching 410 ppm of CO2 concentration. Not even close!

Now what about the polar vortex? What is its role in climate change- global warming?

This Arctic heat emphasis, for example,  was exposed in the January , 2016 zonal temperature map :

Data from NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration showed that January was, for the entire  globe, was an extraordinary month. In particular the data showed the Arctic took the brunt of heating (see graphic) with a temperature increase more than 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit higher than the 1951 to 1980 average in this region. (This data constitutes a "zonal mean" temperature map, which shows how the temperature departures from average change based on one's latitude location on Earth.)

The finding dovetailed  with Prof. Gunther Weller's predictions (from the mid -1980s) - based on his ice core analyses- that future warming would be greatest in the Arctic.  This is  a phenomenon known as "Arctic amplification".  In papers and seminars delivered at the GI over 1985-1990 he pointed out that a much warmer Arctic also means a much more unstable polar region with more frequent intrusions ("waves")  of the polar vortex,  leading to frigid temperatures in parts of the U.S. such as we've seen the past few years.  In one seminar he described it "almost like moving the Arctic to the continental U.S."

Unpacking it further: there is generally an immense cold mass of air that sits over the Arctic.  Because of global warming, climate change the Arctic has experienced diminished sea ice, E.G.


As the sea ice mass melts there is less reflection of radiation into space and hence more rapid warming of the surface.  This diminished sea ice then results in more heat dispatched into the atmosphere. This in turn destabilizes the polar vortex - a low pressure area normally residing over the north pole. This instability then allows polar air to plunge southward into the continental U.S. .

The details leading to what we've seen the past several days (with temperatures in some locations even rivaling those in Antarctica) occurred on January 2nd.  NOAA monitors showed that part of the stratosphere had a rapid rise of 50 degrees F in just a few days.    The event split the unstable polar vortex, so that part broke off. Afterward, pockets of Arctic air migrated south causing the current deep freeze.

Let's also process that the warming onslaught is exacerbated by the rapid melting of permafrost. Vast expanses of former  Arctic permafrost have been reduced to mud, and also in the process of warming released methane - perhaps the Greenhouse gas which is most potent.  See e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2017/03/more-rapid-permafrost-melting-triggers.html
As reported by the University of Alaska -Fairbanks Arctic Research site:
In 2016, the latest year of complete records, the majority of Arctic observation sites reported the highest permafrost temperatures on record.

The takeaway is that these sub-zero super freezes we're seeing with polar vortex intrusions are likely to become more frequent in the future, not less. The deniers and climate dummies would do well to learn more about this phenomenon and why they should be fearful, not wise ass snarky, to play into the agnotology narrative.  See e.g.

Brane Space: The Pseudo-Science Agnotologists Strike Again!

brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/01/as-i-noted-in-earlier-blog-httpbrane.html

Americans Are As Clueless As Ever On NASA's Purpose (As Revealed In New Bloomberg Poll)

The Space Shuttle - one of the achievements of NASA in its heyday. The disasters that occurred (Challenger, Columbia)  were largely owing to spreading resources too thin and unreasonable demands

A recent, wide ranging Bloomberg poll on Americans' views of  space showed once again why we shouldn't take a survey's responses seriously unless the respondents have  a proper educational background. That includes - or should have,  in the Bloomberg case - at least one semester of Earth or Space Science  and a year of general physics. Otherwise what you get is "garbage in, garbage out."

In this case, "the poll was conducted for Bloomberg Business Week  by research firm Morning Consult which surveyed 2,202 U.S. adults in July." 

Fair enough, so what did this illustrious poll find?

The poll, predicated on querying the ignorant, delivered the following dubious insights in regard to NASA's primary reason(s) for being:

.-  "Observing the climate" should be the top priority according to 43 percent

-  25 percent insisted the agency should "monitor asteroids and other space objects"

-  8 percent indicated that sending humans to Mars or other planets should be the agency's main goal

-  Only 3 percent said that sending astronauts to the Moon ought to be a main priority

According to a Bloomberg  news report by Riley Griffin and Justin Bachman:

"The findings point to a stark contrast with NASA's current focus on human spaceflight and deep space exploration as the agency works on a lunar orbital platform for the early 2020s and a mission to Mars n the 2030s. "

Adding to this insight compliments of Casey Dreier, director of Space Policy at the Planetary Society:

"Most people view space issues through a prism of relevance to one's daily life. What's relevant to people? Well, climate change. Going to the Moon and Mars, presented without context, probably doesn't sound very important to people."

And he has a point - again - because too few are exposed to Space Science and its relevance, e.g. such as the recent launch of the Parker probe to the Sun - which will inform us much better on how our star really works, and be especially relevant to the theme of space weather. As I wrote in a post on the probe from last June,

"Space weather phenomena include: solar flares and especially coronal mass ejections, e.g.
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2016/12/coronal-mass-ejections-successfully.html

As we know these violent events can affect everything from electrical grids and GPS systems to the navigation controls of aircraft.  If a monster flare triggered a "central meridian"  CME we could expect adverse effects on all GPS positioning satellites. Bear in mind that GPS, besides providing directions for road users, allows synchronized cell phone conversations, as well as orchestrates air traffic not to mention 'date stamping' most financial transactions and guiding the dynamic positioning of the majority of deep sea oil drilling and gas operations. "

I don't see how any normal person, with even an average IQ and a modicum of insight, could fail to be impressed at the relevance. But let's go back to the survey results and try to ferret out some of the fundamental misconceptions reflected.

In the case of the 43 percent who insist "observing climate" ought to be NASA's main priority there ae some huge issues. First, one does not "observe climate" - one observes sequences of climate manifestations occurring at different times (e.g. extraordinary 'thousand year' floods, monster hurricanes,  hail storms etc.), in addition to geophysical records  - e.g. ice cores - to piece together a climate picture.  I still recall the words of Prof. Gunter Weller, e.g.

who I first met at the Geophysical Institute in Fairbanks, AK in 1985, who said: "We never observe climate as a static phenomenon  as if frozen in a photo- but we instead  piece together climatic events over geological time to obtain a dynamical insight into the operational climate factors and their impacts"

Perhaps  no where has this been more clearly demonstrated than in the excess of radiocarbon C14 over C12 over a 2,000 year period, e.g.












2000-year record of C14:C12 deviations has been compiled by P.E. Damon ('The Solar Output and Its Variations')

As pointed out by solar physicist John Eddy (in his monograph, 'The New Solar Physics'):

"The sharp upward spike at the modern end of the curve, representing a marked drop in relative radiocarbon, is generally attributed to anthropogenic causes—the mark of increased population and the Industrial Age. The burning of low radiocarbon fossil fuels- coal and oil- and the systematic burning off of the world’s forests for agriculture can be expected to dilute the natural C14/C12 ratio in the troposphere to produce an effect like the one shown..."


Meticulously obtained evidence such as this, expose the caterwauling of lamo WSJ letter writers, i.e. of one "Rob Shipley" three weeks go,

"Are we certain our planet wasn't warmer a thousand years ago?"

As simply recycled, misdirected  codswallop, given the  differential D C  or excess was much less 1,000 years (.eg. 1,000 A.D.)  relative to the current spike upwards.

These 43 percent of respondents also seem not to know that climate monitoring is the task of a network of facilities, e.g. Scripps  Oceanographic Institution, Geophysical Institute etc. -  many based at universities. The general oversight for the U.S. lies with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).  Again, the ignorance of the respondents leads to their simplistic - even childish - inputs.  Thanks to these coordinated efforts we now know just how serious the current climatic manifestations are, e.g.

How climate change is supercharging a hot and dangerous summer

Excerpt:
"Gone are the days when scientists drew a bright line dividing weather and climate. Now researchers can examine a weather event and estimate how much climate change had to do with causing or exacerbating it."

Thanks to climate networks and diverse inputs from multiple disciplines (e.g. paleo-oceanography) we are now also aware of:

- the increasingly rapid release of an even more powerful greenhouse gas - methane, e.g.

More Rapid Permafrost Melting Triggers Emergency …

-  The soil itself is now releasing more carbon e.g.

Warmer soil releasing more carbon, worsening climate change

- The increasing  acidity of Earth's oceans -  the greatest not only since the dawn of the Industrial revolution, but in the past 300 million years. The particular chemical reaction is:
H2O + CO2 -> H2 CO3

The lower the pH level in the seas ('7' is neutral pH), the more acidic they are.  Much of the work on this aspect of climate change has been done at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, e.g.
Ocean Acidification | Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego

Search Results

Web res

Another deficit of respondents'  knowledge: Too few appear to know that the Moon cannot be excluded from exploration and settlement (lunar base) if we are to get to the more distant worlds, including Mars. The reason is that a lunar base can provide the initial "off ramp" to provide critical resources including fuel,  to get to the more distant places.

NASA does have a role in monitoring climate change, such as to provide ongoing satellite imagery, for example, on the receding Arctic ice, e.g.
Arctic Sea Ice Minimum - NASA Climate Change
But to halt NASA doing any space research including for manned space missions, is a fool's errand. It would render our already myopic species - in terms of the purview of its interests - even more at risk than it is, e.g. from potential small asteroid impacts such as the Chelyabinsk event, e.g.

Search Results

Web results

Brane Space: Small Asteroid Early Warning And Targeting Just Got

"Red Team" Exercise For Earth Day - But NOT Steve Koonin's Way!

Image showing rift in Pine Island Glacier Ice Shelf in West Antarctica, the second to form in past three years. A sound "red team" exercise would seek to account for such changes on the basis of I) anthropogenic warming, or ii) "natural cycles"

With Earth Day now upon us, it has been suggested  by theoretical physicist Steve Koonin (WSJ today, 'A Red Team Exercise Would Strengthen Climate Science') that  we conduct a "red team" exercise to finally banish most of the doubts concerning anthropogenic climate change.  As he puts it:

"Summaries of scientific assessments meant to inform decision makers - such as the United Nations Summary for Policy Makers - largely fail to capture the vibrant and developing science. Consensus statements necessarily conceal judgment calls and debates, so feed the 'settled', 'hoax' and 'don't know' memes that plague the political dialogue around climate change. We scientists must better portray not only our certainties but our uncertainties and even things we may never know."

He then goes on to describe the template for his version of the red team exercise:

"The focus would be a published scientific report meant to inform policy such as the UN's summary, or the U.S. Government's National Climate Assessment. A Red Team of scientists would write a critique of that document and a Blue Team would rebut that critique. Further exchanges of documents would ensure to the point of diminishing returns."

While this sounds like a rational and scientific approach, the problem is all such reports have been -pre-massaged to a) make them more understandable to policy makers, and b) often leave out the most direct evidence.  (Such as the increasing second rift forming now on the Pine Island Glacier Ice Shelf in West Antarctica.)

First, let's reference that Koonin himself is not an honest broker for the "true representation" of climate science. As per a Wikipedia entry on him we read:

"In Climate Science Is Not Settled a 2014 essay published in the Wall Street Journal, Koonin wrote that "We are very far from the knowledge needed to make good climate policy," and that "The impact today of human activity [on climate] appears to be comparable to the intrinsic, natural variability of the climate system itself." Koonin criticized the use of results from climate modelling to support the "scientific consensus" (quotes in original) about climate change, noting that, among other problems, "The models differ in their descriptions of the past century's global average surface temperature by more than three times the entire warming recorded during that time." Regarding climate sensitivity, Koonin wrote that "Today's best estimate of the sensitivity (between 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit and 8.1 degrees Fahrenheit) is no different, and no more certain, than it was 30 years ago. And this is despite an heroic research effort costing billions of dollars."

Ten days after Koonin wrote this, Jeffrey Kluger in Time called Koonin's piece disingenuous if not dishonest. Koonin simply used the old debating trick of setting up a strawman to knock down by misconstruing what climate scientists mean when they say the climate debate is "settled." "...they mean that the fake debate over whether climate change is a vast hoax is finished," writes Kluger. He goes on to state that every point Koonin made is and has for years been widely acknowledged by climate scientists, very few of whom utilize the kind of overzealous language their critics commonly use."

IN other words, Koonin's "red team" proposal as given is merely another strawman tactic.  I propose instead a red team exercise that puts the skeptics on the defensive. Let them defend  THEIR models and "theories". For example, we demand from the skeptic side an alternative model or full explanation for each of the following:

i)                    The correlation of higher CO2 concentrations in ice cores with warmer temperatures through geological time. (Hint: Volcanoes do not explain it given the ACM or anthropogenic carbon multiplier shows human CO2 concentrations are much more significant)

 ii)The increasing C14: C12 ratio from the time of the Industrial Revolution as indicated in the diagram below:

According to solar physicist John Eddy (‘The New Solar Physics’, p. 17):

“The sharp upward spike at the modern end of the curve, representing a marked drop in relative radiocarbon, is generally attributed to anthropogenic causes—the mark of increased population and the Industrial Age”

iii)                    The increasing acidity (lower pH)  of the oceans, as a result of CO2 absorbed and then the formation of carbonic acid, e.g.  H2O + CO2 ->  H2 CO3

vi)                   The presence of  jokulhlaups in Greenland’s ice sheet. The paper ‘Jokulhlaup Observed in Greenland ice sheet’, appearing in Eos: Transactions of the American Geophysical Union (Vol. 89, No. 35, 26 Aug. 2008, p. 221). specifically noted an increased frequency in occurrence of “jokulhlaups”or sudden glacial bursts of melting runoff from glaciers. It is this phenomena that has also played a role in the “unusual cracks" that set off the separation of a “chunk of ice the size of Manhattan” (19 sq. miles)from Ellesmere Island in Canada’s northern Arctic

v) An alternative explanation for the rifts forming on the Pine Island Glacier Ice Shelf in West Antarctica.

vi) An alternative explanation or model for the increasing release of methane from melting permafrost - plus an explanation for the more rapid melting of the permafrost.

Let's have a red team exercise all right, but one based on examining the actual direct

evidence as it manifests on our planet - as opposed to some bland, second or third hand policy report - which can be manipulated via subjectivity.

Lastly, the serious science oriented person must admit that the best red team exercise in the world will not convince true believers in "natural cycles" or other balderdash to come around to accept anthropogenic warming science.