Human Influence On Climate Tracked To The 1930s

Thermal graphic with Earth's long term warming trend, showing temperature changes from 1880 to 2015 as a rolling 5-year average.  Orange regions indicate temperatures warmer than the 1951-1980 baseline average. Blue represents temperatures cooler than the baseline.

We know that in recent years, as the effects of climate change have ratcheted up, climate scientists have attempted to determine whether extreme weather events (extended heat waves, droughts, 'thousand year' floods etc.) are more likely to occur, e.g. as CO2 concentrations have increased along with global mean temperatures. Associated with this line of research, specialists have also tried to ascertain the extent to which past extreme events can be attributed to human influences on global climate.

Now, a breakthrough appears to have been made as published in Geophysical Research Letters, April 2, 2016 by Andrew King et al. See abstract at link below:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL067448/abstract

While noting "numerous extreme events" for which effects may be attributed to human-induced climate change, the researchers also note:

" it is likely that for temperature extremes occurring over previous decades a fraction of their probability was attributable to anthropogenic influences."

The question at hand, of course, becomes what fraction of their probability? If ALL the extreme events could be tied to human influence then the probability is P = 1.0. If it is 1 out of 5 extreme events, then P = 0.20. (Based on the standard frequency model for computing an empirical probability).  But technically we would expect the probabilities to vary somewhat with the category assessed, so expect to find differences in terms of heat waves, droughts etc. A more meaningful tag would therefore be "record breaking hot years".  This category would not only subsume heat waves but also the median level of high night time temperatures for regions, which most researchers regard as a key global warming parameter.

In this case, King et al - based on examining past hot years and seasons that exceeded the range of natural variability (going back to 1900) -  found that humans have likely caused the 16 most recent record- breaking hot years experienced up to 2014. This means that for this category and defined subset of data the probability for human -induced effects was 1.0.

They further found   the human influence extended back in time to at least 1937.   Their focus for the extreme heat events covered five regions, including: central England, central Europe, central U.S., east Asia and Australia.  The question that arises is: Why has it taken so long to track back the human agency in these events?

The researchers, in fact, showed that  the emergence of the human signal had been delayed in the same regions owing to a cooling period  in the 1970s that arose from presence of particulates and aerosols.  After the Clean Air Act and similar bills were passed, those particulates disappeared and the cooling was no longer as evident. Aerosols remained and gave way to the global dimming phenomenon which also concealed about a third of global warming. But when aerosols were also controlled - after similar legislation, global dimming receded and warming assumed dominance. With that change, the unmistakable human contribution became more apparent.

One of the other profound conclusions to emerge from the work is that minus human-induced climate change the recent record hot years, including 2014 and 2015 would not have occurred.

These documented changes and signals should get the attention of the climate change deniers, especially those who dispute any role for humans in global warming.  It is abundantly clear by now that humans - pumping out dozens of gigatons of carbon each year, are responsible for at least 60 percent of the  0.6W/ m²   by which the temperature of the planet is currently out of balance. (Every 2 ppm increase in CO2 concentration increases the radiative heating effect by 2 W/ m².)

See also:

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/tom-engelhardt/68960/tomgram-michael-klare-the-rise-of-the-right-and-climate-catastrophe

Warmest Xmas Ever In East: But Don't Celebrate!

Well, would you celebrate the birth of a three-headed infant? I don't think so! You'd understand instinctively it's unnatural. Humans do not have 3-headed babies, it's a simple statement of fact. Hence, something serious must be wrong with this picture. In like manner, people shouldn't be celebrating a 66F Christmas Day in New York, or a 70 F Christmas Eve. Because in meteorological terms such temperatures in December for eastern cities are just as unnatural as 3-headed babies. But to hear and see some people, it's a "gift".

Really?

In fact would you regard it as a gift when the next El Nino erupts and you have temperatures of 90- 95 F on Christmas Day? Don't believe it can happen? Think again! Also, that such high temperature conditions will one day become permanent through the entire year - not just the odd time or during a heat wave or a few summer months.

Many people - such as the guy on an NBC segment two days ago who exclaimed "This is nuts!" - want to believe this is just an aberration, an unusually warm but annoying few days in one warmish December. But I have news for them: it's just the beginning of ever escalating temperature aberrations including intense heat waves which will also see "cool" temperatures at night barely different from daytime highs. Get braced for an accelerated period of global warming! Welcome to the pre-runaway greenhouse effect phase!

Oh, for sure, the meteorologists  (like NBC's Al Roker, a global warming skeptic) will point to large high pressure domes over the nation's midsection or 'deformed' jet streams and expatiate on  how long they may last. The impression given here is of a transitory meteorological phenomenon which has little or no connection to climate science. So we just need to expect in coming years that the jet stream will float high over Canada making conditions unbearably hot by keeping the jet stream away and hot air flooding in from the south.

But these guys never touch on the whys and wherefores! Well, Geophysicist and climate scientist S. George Philander did more than 17 years ago in a small but hot-button piece in Eos: Transactions of the American Geophysical Union (March 31, 1998):‘Who is El Nino?’

Philander argued that El Nino and its sister cyclic counterpart 'La Nina' are not merely the yin and yangs of a meteorological cycle (La Nina from current forecasts is due to ramp up the end of next year) but actually offshoots of climate change in terms of their expected future behavior. Thus, as more CO2 is pumped into the atmosphere (as indicated by the Keeling curve - which shows CO2 injection has exceeded the absorption capacity of the oceans), El Nino will ramp up leading to blistering hot and dry conditions, even as La Nina continues her antics bringing cooler spells and precip. However, unmentioned is the game changer of altered albedo.

For reference, the heating effects are largely tied to increases in ocean temperatures for El Nino. For the past several months these temperatures have reached 3.6F higher than normal. In its early stages EL Nino had already spun off environmental havoc including "red tides" - from a certain species of algae, as well as rendering a species of crab inedible that usually thrives in the sea waters off southern California. This effect has been combined with unusual jet stream flows this December to effectively turn the nation schizoid - with we in the West having the usual normal cold temperature (it is 18F now as I write this) while those in the eastern U.S. bask in unusually warm temperatures with amped up warm, moist air entering from the Gulf.

To grasp this, try to think of what happens when you open the door of your fridge and allow it to defrost. Over a rather brief time interval all your ice melts (de-frosting) and the fridge (if left open)  will reach thermal equilibrium with the room temperature. At this point no ice remains at all, and meanwhile your electric bill will soar. In a similar way, the Arctic is defrosting (and to a lesser extent the Antarctic) and this is encapsulated in the lower diagram.

The defrosting of the Arctic arises from the melting of its polar ice and sea ice, as well as large glaciers and that includes much of the land mass of Greenland. The situation worsens as temperatures (from higher CO2 levels) lead to earlier and earlier melting, analogous to leaving the fridge door open longer and longer. Surface temperatures last summer ranged up to 3 Celsius higher than average and generated a much earlier melting.

When snow melts, grains tend to cluster in a process called 'constructive metamorphism. This reduces the albedo or reflectivity of the surface - leading to increased absorption of solar radiation. Meanwhile, bare ice is much less reflective than snow, absorbing even more solar radiation and further speeding any melting. (In the diagram, the red arrows indicate incoming radiation and the blue arrows indicate radiation reflected back into space. Percentages give the amounts of reflected incoming solar radiation).

All this - combined with an intense El Nino - paved the way for the abnormal temperatures we're seeing now in the eastern U.S.  The other aspect to bear in mind, as Philander noted, is that the El Ninos in the future -fed by global warming - will steadily increase in intensity. The EL Nino -La Nnia oscillation itself will keep going until the first 'year of no seasons' predicted by David Suzuki as long ago as 1991.  He estimated in his book, 'It's A Matter of Survival' (1991), that the first year of no season would occur in 2040. But given the pace of warming has ramped up to the point a 2C target threshold is now mostly regarded as a pipedream (given no serious carbon emissions cuts) we will likely see that first year of no seasons as early as 2030.

As a recent TIME report noted (Dec. 28, p. 18):

"A 3.5 C temperature rise would occur even if all (200) nations meet initial pledges to reduce carbon emissions.  This would still submerge coastal cities and drive over half of species to extinction."

It would also make life so horrific for humans, they will wish for extinction. Think of 6-8 month heat waves lasting even through supposed 'cold' months and temperatures hitting 95F- 100 F regularly - even in December. Think of it happening not just in the U.S. but globally.  And think of power grids mostly being down because they are unable to meet the vastly enhanced power demands, say for air conditioning.

The other factor that's enabled a more rapid heating from global warming, is the reduction of global dimming. The effect was first spotted by Gerry Stanhill, an English scientist working in Israel. Stanhill called the phenomenon 'global dimming', but his research, published in 2001, met with a skeptical response from other climate scientists. It wasn't until several years later that his conclusions were confirmed by Australian scientists using a completely different method to estimate solar radiation, that climate scientists at last woke up to the reality of global dimming.

Dimming appears to be caused by air pollution. This visible air pollution reflects sunlight back into space, preventing it reaching the surface. But the pollution also changes the optical properties of clouds. Because the particles seed the formation of water droplets, polluted clouds contain a larger number of droplets than unpolluted clouds. Recent research shows that this makes them more reflective than they would otherwise be, enhancing albedo and hence offsetting the lowered albedo from Arctic melting.

Stanhill and others estimated that global dimming masked up to one third of global warming for the past twenty -five years. Now that masking is at an end, and we are seeing mean global temperatures ramp up yearly.

We are headed for very "interesting" times indeed, mostly brought about because we paid too much attention to the climate change skeptics and their hacks in the media for too long. Now the planet inherited by our younger generations will likely not be worth living on. But perhaps they will be able to find a new one, based on a working interstellar drive.  If they settle such a world, hopefully they  won't end up trashing it for profit and expedience like their ancestors did to Earth.

One can always hope!

Scientific Experts Flunk Nearly All GOP Prez Candidates On Climate Change

It just doesn't get any better than this: At the request of the Associated Press, eight climate and biological scientists (university professors) graded the top dozen presidential candidates on what they have said regarding climate change-global warming.  That includes: in debates, tweets and in interviews, e.g. on radio or TV. (Source: The Denver Post, 'GOP Hopefuls Not Even Warm', NOv. 23, p. 11A)

To eliminate the possibility of bias all the candidates' comments were stripped of identity, names and instead given randomly generated numbers so none of the professors would know who exactly made each comment that they were grading. All of the scientists were selected by professional scientific societies as being the most capable of assessing the level of fact, fiction or distortion in any given statement.

The end results were noting short of amazing, well, okay - assuming you didn't know that the Reepos are the anti-science party.  A summary of the findings, grades follows:

- Hillary Clinton had the highest score at 94.

- Martin O'Malley scored 91, although three of the professors didn't assign grades, saying his statements were more about policy.

- Bernie Sanders scored an 87, and according to press releases was "dinged for exaggeration" when he said global warming "could make the Earth uninhabitable"

But let's be fair here. Technically, global warming itself would not make the planet uninhabitable, BUT - if global warming accelerated to the runaway greenhouse effect, it absolutely would render Earth uninhabitable.  See, e.g.

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/venus/greenhouse.html


Moving on:

- Jeb Bush was the only Republican candidate to "almost" pass at 64. (Though in the end the profs agreed to given him a passing grade, I guess because they couldn't bear to see all the Reeptards fail)

- Gov. Chris Christie scored 54, though like O'Malley, two profs deferred grading because they believed his statements were more about policy than science.  (Which suggests to me that the realms of policy and science can often overlap)

- John Kasich scored 47

- Rand Paul scored 38

- Carly Fiorina scored 28

- Marco Rubio scored 21

- Donald Trump scored 15

- Ben Carson score 13

- Ted Cruz scored 6. (All eight professors put Cruz at the bottom of the class)


Some example comments and reactions:

Rubio confronted the issue in a Sept. 16 debate, arguing that:

"China is now the top greenhouse gas emitter and the U.S. can do little to change the future climate"

But one prof from Macalester College (Louisa Bradtmiller) responded that the fact the U.S. still spews out 17 percent of the world's CO2 shows "big cuts would still make a difference"

To Rubio's claim that China isn't doing much, Prof. Andrew Dressler - a climate scientist at Texas A & M called "nonsense" and is "out of date".

Cruz earned bad grades for telling an interviewer:

"If you look at satellite data for the last 18 years there's been zero global warming. That satellites say it ain't happening".

But Florida State's James Elsner called bollocks and noted ground data show every decade has been warmer than the last since middle of the 20th century and that satellite-based observations "show continued warming over the past several decades"

Climate scientist Michael Mann observed, when the comment for Cruz' random numbered comment came up:

"This individual understands less about science and climate change than the average kindergartner."

In fact, federal ground-based data (which scientists aver is more reliable than satellites) show 15 of the 17 years since 1997 have been warmer than 1997, and 2015 is on track to top 2014 as the warmest ever year on record. So much for the nonsense of a "global warming pause".

Meanwhile, "the Donna" (as in prima donna) - in a September radio interview, said:

"It could be warming but it's going to start to cool at some point. And you know in the 1920s people talked about global cooling".

But as I pointed out in several previous posts,  while the global cooling zeitgeist originated in the 1920s it was  picked up again in the mid to late 1970s. It was soon left in the scientific dustbin, after it was discovered a decade or so later, that it had been incepted by particulates and aerosols in the atmosphere.  After the Clean Air Act and similar bills were passed overseas (e.g. in the UK), those particulates disappeared and the cooling was no longer evident. (Aerosols remained and gave way to the global dimming phenomenon which also concealed the worst of global warming - but when aerosols were also controlled - after similar legislation, global dimming also receded and warming assumed dominance.)

Harvard's James McCarthy - a former President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)  called Trump's comments "nonsense". Emmanuel Vincent, a climate scientist at the Univ. of California-Merced said:

"The candidate does not appear to have any commitment to accuracy"

The general assessment of all the Reepo candidates who failed?

Roughly the level of advanced kindergartners or first graders. Totally unfit to govern a nation faced with perhaps the greatest crisis in human history.

More Proof Some People Shouldn't Be Writing Articles On Global Warming

In a number of previous posts I've noted that some journalists, while they may be fair to middling at politics or general affairs, need to steer clear of writing on global warming, the greenhouse effect or climate change in general.  This lot includes George Will of the WaPo group, Debra Saunders of the SF Chronicle and Holman Jenkins of the Wall Street Journal. None of this lot, as well as others listed from time to time, appears to know a thing on the key scientific issues to do with global warming.

Now add to that another member of the WSJ propagandists' stable, John Steele Gordon ('The Unsettling Anti -Science Certitude on Global Warming').  His main complaint-  though he also has questions that he puts forward- which I will get to - seems to be that climate scientists have adopted a position of "certainty" and claim the science is 100 percent "settled".

In his words:

"To say we have it all wrapped up is itself a form of denial. The essence of scientific inquiry is that there is always more to learn."

First, no serious climate scientist claims we "have it all wrapped up".  Science, which too many believe is based on "proof", is actually much more subtle in its evidentiary approaches - so we leave "proof" to the rarefied areas of advanced math. In empirical science we instead apply quality assurance (QA) criteria to the evidence available for particular hypotheses. Thus, it is more practical to consider criteria of adequacy, and whether data meet these criteria. For example, a leading global warming hypothesis is that warming has never occurred when the CO2 concentration is below 200 parts per million (ppm). Similarly, cooling has never occurred when it exceeds 200 ppm. Both of these have been found to hold as noted by Gale Christianson ('Greenhouse')

In this way, the relative merit of a scientific finding can be adduced based on standards similar to those employed in industrial quality control. If certain minimal criteria or standards are not met, then the finding is regarded with skepticism or rejected outright. So far none of the minimal criteria or standards for the primary hypotheses have been found unmet in the case of global warming.

Indeed, as recent CO2 concentrations have been found to be increasing at a rate of 2 ppm/ yr, Earth temperatures have never been hotter, e.g.

Gordon's statement concerning scientific inquiry, i.e. "always seeking to learn more", is true, of course, but that doesn't mean all directed inquiry remains open ended in respect of never arriving at probabilities or relatively high QA conclusions. As noted earlier, if high QA evidence is at hand then consistency means high QA conclusions are forthcoming. This is the  case with global warming but that doesn't mean we have it "all wrapped up".

I've already noted, for example (March 27, 2012), the peculiar anomalies associated with albedo (degree of surface reflectivity).. I noted Earth’s albedo increased from 2000 to 2004 but that this had NOT led to a reversal in global warming as expected. In other words, the data mismatch indicated a "loose string" in the theory - BUT not a deal breaker. Indeed, I cited a paper: 'Can Earth’s Albedo and Surface Temperature Increase Together’ (Eos Transactions , Vol. 87, No. 4, p. 37 ) wherein the authors cited (to then) the most up to date cloud data from the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP). The data – from a range of meteorological satellites covering the entire Earth- disclosed the most likely reason for the anomaly was primarily in the redistribution of the clouds. This led the authors to write (ibid.):

"whereas low clouds have decreased during the most recent years, high clouds have increased to a larger extent leading to both an increase in cloud amount AND an increased trapping of infrared radiation.”

Still we regard it as an area of open inquiry, but no deal breaker in the sense of blowing up a global warming consensus that: 1) The Earth is getting hotter, 2) This is due to increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, and 3) If it continues then we may reach the runaway greenhouse effect (see Venus for an example at work)

Afterward,  Gordon then digresses  for several paragraphs, examining Newtonian gravitation and how it had to retreat with the discovery of Mercury's advancing perihelion. He claims that with the Einstein general relativity equations "the planet turned out to be exactly where Einstein said it would be"  - but this is misleading.

The equation was not one of the planet's pre-determined position, as from celestial mechanics, but rather of computing:

e = [24 (p)³ a²]/ T² c² [1 - e²]

 where e is the advance (or rotation) of the perihelion in seconds of arc, T is the period of revolution in seconds, c the velocity of light and e the eccentricity of the orbit. Einstein, on page 164 of the paper  ‘On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light’,, asserts that for Mercury e= 43 seconds per century. Readers interested in this calculation and related ones can go to:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/01/looking-at-general-relativity-part-5.html

Alas, what Gordon didn't say is that despite the Newtonian failure to predict the advance of Mercury's perihelion, we still use Newtonian gravitational theory in standard celestial mechanics, i.e to obtain planetary positions or to compute the trajectory needed for a spacecraft to reach Pluto, for example.

Gordon then proclaims:

"Climate science today is a veritable cornucopia of unanswered questions" - which is simply not true. There are some unanswered questions (I noted the albedo and cloud issue earlier) but they don't amount to a "cornucopia" by any means. Some of the questions he lists include:

1) Why did the warming trend between 1978 and 1998 cease though computer models predicted steady warming?

Ans. Standard temperatures had not as yet been normalized to a defined altitude, e.g. troposphere, and measured consistently from the same positions using satellites. For more on this go to:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm

2) How sensitive is the climate to increased carbon dioxide levels?

Based on ice cores and other analyses predictions have been validated that for every 2 ppm increase in CO2  concentration there is a corresponding 2 W/m² increase in solar insolation. That is, the latter has been increasing now for at least ten years past the base insolation 1360 W/m². This is the amount of effective radiation in watts delivered per square meter.

3) What feedback mechanisms are there that would increase or decrease that sensitivity?

The primary mechanism to increase sensitivity is a positive albedo feedback - driving us toward the runaway greenhouse. This was described by  Sagan in his essay, 'Ambush : The Warming of the World', in his book 'Billions and Billions: Thoughts on Life and Death at the Beginning of the Millennium' :

"Melting of ice caps (already occurring) results in diminished albedo (reflection of solar radiation back into space), and a darker Earth surface - with more infrared radiation absorbed - reinforcing the tendency while enhancing the melting effect, leading to further darkening of the surface, reduced albedo and more melting."

This mode of positive feedback is what we're faced with in the melting of the Arctic.

A negative feedback to decrease sensitivity would be any accumulation of particulates in the atmosphere which would increase global dimming  -and thus mask the warming. The mechanism isn't difficult to understand: The particulate pollution reflects sunlight back into space, preventing it reaching the surface. But the pollution also changes the optical properties of clouds, most often in the lower atmosphere. Because the particles seed the formation of water droplets, polluted clouds contain a larger number of droplets than unpolluted clouds. Recent research shows that this makes them more reflective than they would otherwise be, again reflecting the Sun's rays back into space, via a spurious albedo effect, i.e. which reduces warming by reflecting more infrared radiation.

4) Why did episodes of high carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere earlier in Earth's history have temperature levels above and below the average?

In fact, CO2 levels when high never manifested "below average" temperatures, however fluctuations of CO2 levels (i.e. above and below the critical threshold of 200 ppm) would have, given when less than the threshold there'd be below average temperatures and when higher than the threshold there'd be above average temperatures.   This is further confirmed once the 200ppm was passed the last time and concentrations have risen since the Industrial Revolution in tandem with the enhanced radiocarbon C14 over C12  noted by John Eddy, e.g.













As Eddy noted: 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.

Thus, what we're seeing now with the C14:C12 ratio obviates any problems or issues with past variations, especially when the CO2 concentrations went above and below 200 ppm.

After his "cornucopia" of four questions, Gordon brings up the great email flap and avers "the communications showed that whatever the emailers were engaged in it was not the disinterested pursuit of science."

Well, not really. As I noted after the climategate fiasco exploded, e.g.:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2011/11/climategate-20-or-more-pseudo-climate.html

"The warp and woof that the data  trends disclose enticed Myles Allen of Oxford University to publicly comment (Financial Times, July 29, 2010) that it was clear from the accumulated work of climate scientists that human-engendered greenhouse gases were the problem. In his words (ibid.):

"Climategate never really brought climate science into question at all."

So that Gordon's complaint is basically irrelevant.  Well, the major transgression of the emailers was "groupthink" in the words of the FT's Christopher Caldwell at the time. I translate that more accurately into circling the wagons against know nothing Huns.    No scientist I know of has any problems defending his or her work against the scrutiny of PEERS. However, vs. ignorant laymen with an agenda - decidedly political, it's a different matter. Defense then comes to the fore.  For one thing, what quality can be assured by ignorant scrutiny when it's driven by political or economic imperatives?

Even Gordon admits that's a major concern of his when he writes at the end:

"If anthropogenic climate change is a reality then that would be a huge problem only the government could deal with. It would be a heaven sent opportunity for the left to vastly increase government control over the economy"

So there we have it at last in a nutshell. Forget all the "anti-science" blather, bullshit and PR malarkey. Gordon in his heart of hearts knows the facts are there, knows climate change is real - as real as the glaciers now cracking and melting in the Arctic- and he's petrified it would mean economic action by the government. THAT is what has his panties in a twist, not the "cornucopia of questions" supposedly buzzing in his brain.

In like manner all the other objections by the Right and its think tanks fall under the same perverted purview. Mount pseudo-scientific, PR attacks against the global warming hypothesis to try to make enough dummies reject it and thereby prevent any meddling in the oil-based economy, even if we dig every last barrel up out of the ground - which will surely kill us and convert the Earth to another Venus.

See also:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/04/newsmaxglobal-warming-is-22-billion.html

Newsmax:"Global Warming Is $22 Billion Scam!"- The Idiot Parade Continues

 Newsmax is one of those "select"  sites that appears to be inbred with Fox. Its main content - most of the time- appears to appease the Reich wing nuts and Tea Party. You see it when you come across a story like the one wifey sent me yesterday morning. Full of huff and puff and reading codswallop like this:

"a top U.S. intelligence agent slams a 164-page document in the middle of the table. This document, you soon find out, contains damning evidence that a network of politicians, corporations, and scientists have conspired together to promote the fear of “global warming” . . . despite evidence clearly stating no such “global warming” exists.

The motive: $22 billion per year."

A "top U.S. intelligence agent informed them"? Yeah, right! And flying monkeys eat Repuke brains at night while clowns take over their bodies during the day. Of course, the author  - Tom Luongo-  imputes this so-called "agent" is a guy named John L. Casey (see below)- who "once did classified research". Seriously? A guy who once did "classified research" is an intelligence agent? I don't think so!   So, it's only a slightly larger step to believe this "agent"  asked Tommy boy to join him on this special "mission." What is it? To out those involved in the “$22b global warming lie" , which is "eating up precious taxpayer dollars". (We'll see how many such dollars are 'eaten' when the worst warming strikes and dykes must be built to prevent flooding in east coast cities and new power grids built to support the demand for a/c. during 4 month heat waves)

Can you say, crackpot?  What we have, in fact, is no "global warming lie"  but obdurate, ignorant dummies who believe they can bloviate on global warming though they never took a college physics course in their lives. Like one idiot on the Financial Times site ( a commenter) with whom I recently had an exchange - if you could call it that. In fact it was mostly him parroting the babble from assorted denier sites - which I recognized because I'd seen it from others. Thus, I wanted him to prove his arguments were authentically his so he was even entitled to have the debate. Thus I  presented him with one simple thermodynamics problem:

One kilogram of mercury is initially at 0 C. Find its change in entropy when heat is slowly added to raise its temperature to 100 C.

Data: Heat of fusion for Hg = 1.17 x 10 ⁴ J/ kg, specific heat (Hg) = 138 J/ kg C; Melting temperature (Hg) = -39 C)

Specific heat (H2O) = 4,200 J/ kg C
-----------------------------

Alas, he couldn't do it though he did confess "Look, I admit I don't really know what disciplines factor into climate science". Fair  enough, but if you don't know even that, do not parrot arguments to pretend you do! Anyway, this new guy - shown below:

Tom Luongo - Newsmax hack who claims he's been recruited by an "intelligence agent' to show global warming is a $22b lie.

Claims he has "new research" showing global warming is a "lie". One must then ask what it is. Enter now this new character, the former "intelligence agent" John L. Casey:

Supposedly a former White House "insider"  who  "is one of America’s most successful climate change researchers and climate prediction experts. ... He spent 35 years conducting classified research, examining confidential documents, and directing critical scientific programs."

Luongo and Newsmax  expended at least three paragraphs on Casey's alleged creds including his former NASA ties -"investigating the Space Shuttle disaster"-  as well as climate research and earthquake predictions. But this birdbrain was busted by the Broward - Palm Beach New Times ( 'Tea Party Welcomes Global Cooling Theorist') noting:

"This week's joker is one John L. Casey, president of the Space and Science Research Corp. and CEO of the International Earthquake and Volcano Prediction Center -- both outfits conveniently located in Orlando, just down the road from Disney World.

Casey, with a CV spotty as a case of measles, describes himself as "a former White House space program adviser, consultant to NASA Headquarters, and space shuttle engineer." He claims an M.A. in management from Webster University in St. Louis and a B.A. in physics and mathematics from "JSU" -- whatever and wherever that is."

In other words, this jive turkey isn't a real climate scientist at all, just another pretender like Willie Soon. Especially as we see:

"Casey's work has never been published in a peer-reviewed academic journal, only self-published on the internet. He told New Times that's because "the importance of the findings and conclusions mandated the widest public dissemination possible, which the web supplies."

The web does supply a lot, but peer-reviewed journals and books are also critical. I have put lots of solar physics material on the web too - via this blog - but it's also  backed up by content from previously published peer -reviewed papers including in Solar Physics and the Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada, and Meudon (France) Solar- Terrestrial Predictions Proceedings.

Meanwhile, the climate research I regularly cite is from peer-reviewed climate papers usually appearing earlier in Eos, the journal of the American Geophysical Union. In other words, my sources show I am not a hack or a clown like Casey and his advocate Tom Luongo .  On the topic of Casey's rationale for avoiding peer-reviewed journals, University of Miami climate scientist Dr. Benjamin Kirtman pointed out:

"This is the usual nonsense associated with individuals who are afraid their work cannot withstand peer review."

Why afraid? Well, because they know ab initio their work is too full of holes to be accepted for publication. And then the likes of Luongo have the nerve to implicate climate scientists in some fraudulent, cockamamey conspiracy to "hood wink the American public"!  This is exactly the sort of crap that allows critics to disparage all conspiracy theories and to conflate real ones with bogus foolishness.

Worse, for these two clowns,  as Dr. Kirtman continues about Casey's sorry work and record:

"It looks to me that Casey is confused about global dimming, which actually seems to be in a reversal... As for the "global cooling" Casey is arguing for, all evidence is to the contrary. Indeed, ocean heat uptake has continued to steadily rise since the 1950s, and there is no plausible physical process (including changes in solar output) that would end this trend in the near-term (10-30 years). Casey's "Summary Climate Assessment" has some unsupportable statements. For example, Casey's assessment states that "Integrated Global Atmospheric Temperatures continue to show a long term COOLING trend that began in 2007. (100 year trend)." This is untrue (by far, 2001-10 is the warmest decade since the 1850s) and it is not mathematically possible detect a 100-year trend with seven years of data."

This error of trying to extrapolate a 100 year trend from seven years of data is similar to the one committed by the  nitwits who claim warming "has stopped the past 17 or 18 years".  That is, in the original  Nature paper by Keenlyside et al, they mistook data points representing five year means for indefinite  means! See e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/06/george-will-no-warming-for-last-16.html

Some of Casey's claims portrayed as facts include:

1) The oceans are not getting warmer.

Clearly shot down based on the migration of some  aquatic species (e.g. sharks) to warmer waters and other species  (including sardines etc.) to cooler waters because they cannot survive the warmer ones, i.e. in the Pacific. This latter has led to the debacle of seal pups starving to death off the So. Cal. coast, because their usual food  sources are absent, Then there is the measured increase in carbonic acid H2 CO3 in the oceans, a direct result of CO2 being absorbed. 

2) We haven't seen any warming in 17 years.

This is challenged and dismantled in the link shown above, where I rip Georgie Will to shreds - based on incorrect statistical interpretations. In addition, an important paper by Sonia Seneviratne appearing in Nature Climate Change in March last year showed another, secondary source of statistical error inheres in ignoring peak high temperatures over long duration in extended land areas. Seneviratne's team reported a clear rise in the area of land experiencing more than 30 days of harsh heat per year and other regions experiencing more than 50 days of sever heat. Both of these under-reported in satellite assays and hence disclosing a lower mean temperature than should have been noted. The results, the authors state:

"Show that it would be erroneous to interpret the recent slowdown (in the late 90s and early 2000s) as a general slowdown of climate change"   Adding:

"The mean temperature or any single variable is not enough to talk about climate change"

3) The North Polar Ice cap is increasing in size.

Also dealt with before (Sept. 2012), where I noted 3 primary errors made, to wit:

i) They commit an error of omission, namely ignoring the critical land ice contribution and focusing only on sea ice. This is a common error made by those who rush into areas for which they have little or no preparation. In Antarctica, sea ice nearly entirely melts away during the S. hemisphere summer but is extensive in the winter.

ii) They fail to distinguish the two forms of ice: Antarctic land ice is actually stored ocean water that once fell as precipitation. Sea ice, meanwhile, is ice which forms in salt water (sea water) mainly during the winter months.

iii) They fail to distinguish Arctic from Antarctic ice cover and hence the relative importance of each. Arctic sea ice while its cover fluctuates, does remain all year round (so far anyway) and hence provides a reflective surface to increase albedo. (proportion of reflectance back into space). 

4) The 97% figure of climate scientists who support anthropogenic warming is completely fabricated.

Which is an out and out lie. In many of my past blog  posts I've  repeatedly cited the actual results from REAL climate scientists, as opposed to pretenders! Specifically, I've referenced the scientific consensus on global warming reported in Eos Transactions, Vol. 90, No. 3, p. 22, by P. T. Doran and M. Kendall-Zimmerman who found that (p. 24) :

“the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely non-existent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.”

In their analytic survey for which 3146 climate and Earth scientists responded, a full 96.2% of specialists concurred temperatures have steadily risen and there is no evidence for cooling. Meanwhile, 97.4% concur there is a definite role of humans in global climate change.

The authors concluded (p. 24) :

“The challenge appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact (non-existent debate among real climate specialists) to policy makers and a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate exists among scientists”

Indeed!

5) The Sun is the actual agent for  "natural" climate change. 

Which is total balderdash and the first sign the claimant is ignorant and has zero conception of solar physics as it relates to climate.  In his lecture at the 40th Meeting of the Solar Physics Division of the American Astronomical Society ('Solar Irradiance: Recent Results and Future Research Plans') Thomas N. Woods of the University of Colorado  noted that on average though, with such violent inputs smoothed out, the Earth's temperature changes by about 0.07 K (kelvin) over a solar cycle.

Compare this to the 0.6 K change (increase) in global temperatures over the past 100 years arising from human-caused greenhouse effect. Thus, the human component is over 8.5 times greater.

Even if the solar forcing on climate is enhanced by positive feedbacks the amplification is usually no more than a factor 2. So that 0.07 K increases become 0.14 K increases. The human component is still more important by a factor 4.2,

Which is never referenced by either Luongo or Casey, but then - given they are not real climate scientists - why expect anything different.  All we get from the likes of the delusional Luongo is the wild claim (unsubstantiated) that:

"Shortly after John exposed the truth about “global warming,” 1,000 emails and 2,000 documents from leading “global warming” scientists were found . . . revealing potential conspiracies, collusions, data manipulation, destruction of information, and even admission of flaws that were buried."

Sadly, most people lack the educational background and critical thinking skills to see through this bullshit, and would rather believe Newsmax and Luongo's hysterical ideations than the cold, hard facts of science which show unreservedly that humans are the main cause of global warming via pumping tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year.

See also:

http://www.salon.com/2015/04/03/more_americans_trust_fox_news_than_the_government_to_tell_them_the_truth_about_climate_change/

Excerpt:

"When it comes to getting accurate, reliable information on global climate change, more Americans trust Fox News than the president. That’s a problem, the Huffington Post points out, while President Obama tends to contradict himself by insisting that we need to fight climate change and then signing off on fracking and offshore drilling"

Even the Planetary Society has Climate Change Flat Earthers

Incredibly,  on reading the most recent issue of the Planetary Society's Planetary Report (Sept-Oct., p. 18, 'Members' Dialogue') I was astounded to come across two letters that took the organization to task for its "biased treatment of the global warming issue".  This was after their reading the July-August, 2008 special issue. Of course, even then the issue was relatively settled but now even more so - thanks to high resolution satellite imagery of the poles, as well as more detailed ice core analyses. Thus, the complaint that "a growing number of papers don't support global warming" is plain bullocks. In fact, just the converse is true.

One knuckle-dragger, a Warren Miller, wrote:

"Without going into great detail,  interglacial periods are directly correlated to a number of natural phenomena, including Sun cycles, Earth axis variation, orbital procession variation, and yes, CO2 levels. These processes combine to cause an end to ice ages usually once every 100,000 years. Most of the causal culprits are never mentioned by the global warming camp."


Well, they're never mentioned because they're not really relevant. While Miller is gracious enough to note the effects of CO2- CO2 levels, he doesn't go the next step and report that there never has been a glacial period or ice age when the CO2 level is at 200ppm or higher (see, e.g. Gale Christianson's book, Greenhouse).   In effect, the 'Sun cycles' (solar sunspot cycles) would not have played any role in halting an ice age for when CO2 levels were < 200ppm.  The same applies to 'Earth axis variation', 'orbital procession variation' (i.e. change in eccentricity of orbit) which are to do with the controversial Milankovitch hypothesis, which I've already exposed as half-baked schlock in a previous post, e.g. 'The Travails of the Milankovitch Hypothesis', Dec. 5, 2007)

Miller also drags in the red herring of "global cooling" being a prevalent belief in the 1970s, failing to note that the reason was to do with an effect only appreciated years later called global dimming  - by which aerosols and other pollutants in the atmosphere artificially kept down the ambient temperatures by 40 percent or more. Once 'clean air' laws were passed, as in the USA and Britain, the pollutants contributing to the cooling were reduced to the point global warming predominated.

Miller then adds:

"If you wish to continue publishing global warming articles, please do so in an unbiased fashion, befitting the long history of the Planetary Society. Better yet, stick with the topics that have led to your loyal readership."

Ah yes! Don't veer too far off the path of the 'Middle Mind' - into areas some factions of our country can't handle and never will - because it means economic growth must be retracted. And oh, by the way, steer clear of anthropogenic based warming or you will piss guys like Miller off. To which I'd tell Bill Nye, lead CEO of the Society, let that ilk go and even allow the door to smack them in the butt on the way out. We don't need or want them. In fact, their very presence gives a bad name to the Society.

Not to be outdone, we spot the reply of another genius, Phil Pickering, who moans:

"It is going to continue to warm up no matter what is done. Learn to live with it. Just do not continue to scare our young people with unproven scientific facts that make mankind there evil culprit."

Right! So, in other words, our young people are too infantile to handle the truth - that we are steering this planet toward an incendiary disaster - and we need to coddle them and feed them fairy stories that we're not the ones responsible. So just go on burning all that fossil fuel - whether in auto engines, or in coal fired plants and be happy!


What both these characters need to see is the MSNBC documentary, 'The Last Days of Planet Earth': where physicist Michiko Kaku observes:  "For the first time in history, humans have the potential to alter the destiny of a whole planet."

On the same documentary astrophysicist Neil Degresse Tyson put it another way:

"Imagine the irony of our species having the intellect to stop an asteroid impact, but lacking the intellect to moderate the worst effects of global warming. It boggles the mind!"

Indeed, because it's inexcusable! Further, I go so far as one British climatologist who opined in the same documentary that so-called "climate mavericks" and their skeptic pals who are holding back bold changes, are no different from Holocaust deniers. (Who in a number of countries, such as Austria and Germany can be jailed for making public pronouncements).

Is this an incursion of liberty or "free speech"? Well another question: If a fire breaks out in a crowded theater and several 'maverick' voices yell 'There is no fire, stay put!' and all the people perish, what is their accountability (hint: they sneak out after yelling the injunction to stay put)? Should they not face lengthy prison terms? The same situation applies to the global warming deniers whose defective PR has postponed necessary, timely action, which will make the difference between a moderately-warmed, tolerable planet and an intolerable one in the maw of the runaway greenhouse effect.

In this light, I recall after the failure of the climate conference in Durban to accomplish anything significant or durable,  The Economist (December 17, 2011 p. 138) sounded off:

"Its terms - even assuming they are acted upon - are unlikely to prevent a global temperature rise of of more than 2 C, which was the stated aim of the whole UN climate 'process'. Indeed, they might easily allow a 4C rise"

The latter would be catastrophic and on top of the existing (hitherto) 1.2 C increase, bring us to the precipice of the runaway greenhouse. Carl Sagan noted in an interview (with Ted Turner) ca. 1989 (still have it on tape) that the limits for catastrophic climate change- we're talking species exterminating magnitude with a runaway greenhouse - are not as high as many think. In fact, he cited the tolerance increment of six degrees Celsius.

This position was reinforced in Sagan's essay: 'Ambush - the Warming of the World', p. 98, in his last popular book, Billions and Billions, Random House, 1997.

Is this all "scare mongering"? That is what the flat Earth, Denier cultists want you to believe, so they can wreck the world on the basis of pure economics with no thought of the morrow or how our children and grand children will forever curse us for putting our comforts and stock profits over their welfare.

In a blog four years ago, I warned about the impending signs of ice sheet breakup and melting in Greenland in connection with the phenomenon known as "Jokulhlaup" (cf. ‘Jokulhlaup Observed in Greenland ice sheet’, appearing in Eos: Transactions of the American Geophysical Union (Vol. 89, No. 35, 26 Aug. 2008, p. 221). The cited paper specifically noted an increased frequency in occurrence of “jokalhlaups”or sudden glacial bursts of melting runoff from glaciers. It was this phenomena that 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.

Since then, many more drastic break-ups of glaciers have been observed and documented and now readers can access this material directly at the following link:

http://video.pbs.org/video/1108763899

Anyone watching this documented evidence who isn't terrified, has lost most of his or her brain neurons.

We also know that this process provides one of the nonlinear drivers toward catastrophic climate change. Melting of ice caps and glaciers (already occurring) results in diminished albedo (fraction of solar radiation reflected back into space), a darker Earth surface - with more infrared radiation (e.g. HEAT) being absorbed - reinforcing and enhancing global warming. As more ice melts from the polar regions, the positive feedback from lowering albedo proceeds faster. The overall (mean) ocean temperatures continue to rise - ultimately becoming too hot for any marine life- and reaching equilibrium temperature somewhere in the next 500 years. All ocean currents, circulation systems will, of course, eventually cease. With atmospheric circulation soon following (as on Venus) , all solar energy going into heating the oceans until their specific heat capacity is reached. We then will have vaporization.

Even now, before the runaway has set in, we know the acidity of sea water has increased nearly 30% since the Industrial Revolution. Given that sea life, including corals, fish, and the critical phyto-plankton (which provide most of our planet's oxygen) can only exist within very narrow pH levels this may be most disturbing. It means that there is the potential for humanity to suffer devastating famines and loss of life long before the Runaway Greenhouse charges up.

The upshot of all this is that deniers and their BS can no longer be tolerated, given the havoc already afoot from the delays they have promoted. And rather than give the likes of Warren Miller and Phil Pickering a forum to spout off the Planetary Society would do better to ignore them. Their voices represent only a small and irascible minority, and let's bear in mind that in science - unlike in a democracy - truth isn't settled by votes (even if they are few and far between) but by facts and hard evidence.

At Least We Now Know Why This Guy Spins Spurious Physics!

William Happer, a "professor of physics at Princeton" is in the op-ed pages of one of his favorite journals again - The Wall Street Journal ('Global Warming Models Are Wrong Again', today, p. A13). The problem is that his jabber hasn't made it into a recognized, peer -reviewed journal as he once again dredges up red herrings, and nonsense about climate change and whether in fact global warming models are "real".

A key giveaway, however, is that he's attached to the conservative George C. Marshall Institute, e.g.

http://www.marshall.org/experts.php?id=57

from which we discern his specialty area is not in climate science but "a specialist in modern optics, optical and radiofrequency spectroscopy of atoms and molecules, and spin-polarized atoms and nuclei. " Interesting, but not a climate scientist like Michael Mann.

Readers ought to note that the Marshall site has also provided an outlet for other spurious climate science articles-papers, most notably a joint 2003 effort by Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas. Baliunas and Soon's misuse of statistics may be found at: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0007A664-3534-1F03-BA6A80A84189EEDF

I tracked Baliunas' illustrious history since 1993 on Google, and evidently she's written for a lot of other conservative-right wing rags masquerading as peer-reviewed scientific papers, including Capitalism Magazine and National Review. A Greenpeace document on her, available on the web, also ties her to the Global Warming Coalition, a front group of "scientists" for the fossil fuel industry. (Note Happer's "Energy research" connections as well!)

As for Soon and Baliunas, their methodology was terrible, and any proper referee versed at all in statistics would've tossed most of their analyses out in a heartbeat. Especially their choice of one of using 50-year data periods, increments when the IPCC scientists had already disclosed anthropogenic warming appears at 30 -year levels. In effect, Baliunas and Soon employed what we call a 'selective effects filter' to cull the data they preferred not to have to deal with.

In many ways, Happer is just as bad if not worse, for example claiming global temperatures have changed almost not at all in the past ten years. He refers to "monthly values of the global temperature anomaly of the lower atmosphere" coupled with some Univ. of Alabama data that supposedly shows the temperature for the lower atmosphere in February was at -0.12C or "slightly less than the average since the satellite record of temperature began."

What's wrong with this portrayal? Just about everything. First, neither Happer nor his illustrious sources of data takes into account that global dimming effects are still ongoing and alter ambient Rayleigh scattering in concert with standard gray atmosphere models for radiative transport.

Aside: Dimming arising from burning coal, oil and wood,whether in coal-fired power stations, in autos or cooking fires, produces not only invisible carbon dioxide (the principal greenhouse gas responsible forglobal warming) but also tiny airborne particles of soot, ash, sulphur compounds and other pollutants. This visible air pollution reflects sunlight back into space, preventing it reaching the surface. But the pollution also changes the optical properties of clouds, most often in the lower atmosphere. Because the particles seed the formation of water droplets, polluted clouds contain a larger number of droplets than unpolluted clouds. Recent research shows that this makes them more reflective than they would otherwise be, again reflecting the Sun's rays back into space, via a spurious albedo effect.

Had Happer taken into account the nascent effects of particulates as well as aerosols in the lower atmophere he'd not be so flat out amazed at a "global temperature anomaly" peculiar to the lower atmosphere. One mechanism to be reckoned in, applicable to these particulates in plane-parallel (stratified) atmospheres, is Rayleigh scattering in concert with standard gray atmosphere radiative transport. An equation of transfer that applies is: -dI/dt (1/k rho) = I – J

Where k is a mass scattering coefficient, rho is the molecular density (e.g. in cloud cover) and J is the vector source function for a specific intensity I. If the correct Stokes parameters (I, Q, U, V) which describe degree of polarization are included, and the right incidence angle of radiation occurs, we can expect the propagation or radiant energy from the S. hemisphere to the north very effectively.

But.....one can't forget or omit diffusive reflection and re-transmission of radiation, say arising from particulates . Chandrasekhar in Radiative Transfer, (Dover Publications) shows that for angles of incidence in the range : 0.5 < i < 0.8 radian, diffusive reflection allows the radiation reflected normal to the incidence direction to actually have higher intensity than the original. (E.g. for optical depths 1.0 < < 2.0).

In effect, if conditions in the lower atmosphere incorporate such optical depths (and angles of incidence for scattering, diffusive reflection), on account of increased presence of particulates, aerosols, we will expect to find an "anomaly" say in the temperature. The most alarming aspect of global dimming in this regard - as made public by global dimming researchers (e.g. Dr Peter Cox) is that it has obviously deceived many into underestimating the true power of the greenhouse effect, including the role of CO2. In effect, as disclosed by Happer's babble, the extra energy being trapped in the Earth's atmosphere by the extra carbon dioxide (CO2) has been concealed because he's being misdirected by what is really ongoing spurious diffusive reflection and scattering from the particulates responsible for dimming!

Hence, his finding of "lack of any statistically significant warming over a decade" is fully expected if one hasn't properly reckoned the presence of dimming particulates, their scattering, re-reflection (and hence false albedo effects) into global warming models! Must we spell everything out for these bozos?

Happer and his pals (including all the copycat denier blogs and media echoing his WSJ article like so many duplicate gasbags)also need to avail themselves of the Eos Transactions paper ('Can Earth’s Albedo and Surface Temperature Increase Together’ in Vol. 87, No. 4, Jan. 24, 2006, p. 37 ) from more than five years ago, blaring a five alarm warning about false albedo readings in the lower atmosphere and how it would mislead if researchers were sloppy or careless. The authors pointedly noted evidence that Earth’s albedo increased from 2000 to 2004 but that this had NOT led to a reversal in global warming. They also remarked on apparent temperature anomalies and divergence between differing altitudes but pointed to the differences between clouds at those altitudes. The authors cited (to then) the most up to date cloud data from the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP). The data – from a range of meteorological satellites covering the entire Earth- disclosed the most likely reason for the anomaly was primarily in the redistribution of the clouds. As the authors observed:

"whereas low clouds have decreased during the most recent years, high clouds have increased to a larger extent leading to both an increase in cloud amount AND an increased trapping of infrared radiation.”

In other words, temperature "anomaly" solved, in conjunction with factoring in the global dimming contributions.

Incredibly, this nitwit also repeats the wacko canard that CO2 is not a pollutant! According to Hapless (ibid.):

"CO2 is not a pollutant. Life on Earth flourished for hundreds of millions of years at much higher CO2 levels than we see today."

But not factoring in that the primary contributors were over-active vulcanism, as opposed to 800 million CO2 -spewing mechanical vehicles which in just one year churn out more gigatons of CO2 (35- 40) than the ancient volcanoes did in 1,000 years. Currently, the anthropogenic CO2 emission rate is 135 times greater than the 0.26 gigatons per year emission rate for volcanoes. Even at the height of volcanic activity for one year in the Jurassic, amounting to maybe 2 gigatons of CO2, that is 17.5 times less than the world's autos are pouring out now. But what do you expect from a fossil-fuel committed "energy researcher"?

Nor is one statement made by Happer on the key central point: ALL Greenhouse gases' (including CO2 and methane) ability to absorb heat in the form of solar infrared radiation is directly contingent on the molecular vibrations undergone by the particular gas molecule which allows it to absorb and re-emit incident radiation. It is THIS property which confers the capacity to warm our atmosphere if present beyond a certain limiting concentration. And it is the aforementioned CO2 spewing vehicles that create the effect, hence making THEIR effluent a definite pollutant!

Meanwhile, Happer's obscuring of the role of global warming in the recent meteorological anomalies we've seen (such as the very warm winter, and early Spring) are dealt with effectively at real climate:

http://www.realclimate.org/

Lastly, Happer has the chutzpah to quote the great physicist Richard Feynman on how "new laws" of science are uncovered, starting with a guess and then testing the consequences of our guesses against reality to make new predictions which must then be confirmed. But all of this standard global warming theory has already done, including prediction of a more rapid melting of ice caps and glaciers, which we're actually seing first hand, e.g.

http://video.pbs.org/video/1108763899

The preceding ought to get even the most blinkered global warming denier's attention! In addition, standard anthropogenic warming theory has also predicted ex post facto (see Gale Christianson's 'Greenhouse') that there has never been an ice age when the CO2 concentration exceeded 200 parts per million- and ice core analyses have validated this. In addition, predictions have been validated that for every 2 ppm increase in CO2 there is a corresponding 2 W/m^2 increase in solar insolation. Lastly, the most frightening forecast of all is that the runaway greenhouse effect will be initiated when CO2 concentrations likely exceed 500 ppm.

Do we wait for that threshold to occur, when it will be too late to do anything? Or....do we use reason, our intellects and good science to adopt the precautionary principle and begin to take action now for our own welfare and that of future generations? We can either extol paid thinktank hacks like Happer, or we can pay attention to real climate scientists for whom this issue transcends petty politics and op-eds published in reactionary capitalist op-ed pages!

Think it's hot now? Just wait a few years!

Forty states this week will see high temperatures 90 or above. Many places (such as Oklahoma City) will see their 17th day or more of temperatures over 100. Other parts of the nation are seeing a combination of high temperatures with humidity producing "feels like" temperatures of 100 or above (it was 113 in Minneapolis only a few days ago by this heat index).

Many people want to believe this is just an aberration, an unusually hot but annoying period in one ultra hot summer, but I have news for them: it's just the beginning of ever escalating and intense heat waves which will also see "cool" temperatures at night barely different from daytime highs. Get braced for an accelerated period of global warming! Welcome to the pre-runaway greenhouse effect phase!

Oh, for sure, the meteorologists will point to large high pressure domes over the nation's midsection and expatiate on that and how long it may last. The impression given here is of a transitory meteorological phenomenon which has little or no connection to climate science. So we just need to expect in coming years that the jet stream will float high over Canada and monster Highs (high pressure areas, with a capital H) will sit over the U.S. and other places and make conditions unbearably hot by keeping the jet stream away and hot air flooding in from the south.

But these guys never touch on the whys and wherefores! Well, Geophysicist and climate scientist S. George Philander did more than ten years ago in a small but hot-button piece in Eos: Transactions of the American Geophysical Union (March 31, 1998):‘Who is El Nino?’

Philander argued that El Nino and its sister cycle 'La Nina' are not merely the yin and yangs of a meterological cycle (La Nina ended in May, giving rise to an especially fierce El Nino) but actually offshoots of climate change in terms of their expected future behavior. Thus, as more CO2 is pumped into the atmosphere (as indicated by the Keeling curve - which shows CO2 injection has exceeded the absorption capacity of the oceans), El Nino will ramp up leading to blistering hot and dry conditions, even as La Nina continues her antics bringing cooler spells and precip. However, unmentioned is the game changer of altered albedo.


To grasp this, try to think of what happens when you open the door of your fridge and allow it to defrost. Over a rather brief time interval all your ice melts (de-frosting) and the fridge if left will reach thermal erquilibrium with the room temperature. At this point no ice remains at all. In a similar way, the Arctic is defrosting (and to a lesser extent the Antarctic) and this is encapsulated in the lower diagram.

The defrosting of the Arctic arises from the melting of its polar ice and sea ice, as well as large glaciers and that includes much of the land mass of Greenland. The situation worsens as temperatures (from higher CO2 levels) lead to earlier and earlier melting, analogous to leaving the fridge door open longer and longer. Surface temperatures last summer ranged up to 3 Celsius higher than average and generated a much earlier melting.

When snow melts, grains tend to cluster in a process called 'constructive metamorphism. This reduces the albedo or reflectivity of the surface - leading to increased absorption of solar radiation. Meanwhile, bare ice is much less reflective than snow, absorbing even more solar radiation and further speeding any melting. (In the diagram, the red arrows indicate incoming radiation and the blue arrows indicate radiation reflected back into space. Percentages give the amounts of reflected incoming solar radiation).

As anyone can see (even without a physics background)the above process over time results in ever diminished reflection of solar radiation back into space, a darker Earth surface - with more IR (infrared radiation)absorbed - which reinforces more melting, which in turn leads to more absorbed solar radiation and ever more melting - in a positive feedback loop that will become ever more consolidated.

As it does so, the effects will not be unlike allowing a massive 'defrosting' of the Arctic and a coalescence of the cooler air toward ever more northerly latitudes, while southerly regions (or even temperate one) see hot air trapped almost in perpetuity. (In the sci-fi novel, Heat, one of the best written, at the extreme of global warming depicted, massive highs sat over the midsection of the U.S. for MONTHS without moving as temperatures regularly hit 110-120 each day and barely went down to 95-100 at night - pushing all energy systems to the brink and beyond(including all major power grids, driven into shutdowns by overuse of a/c).

Also, in 'Heat', monster infernos erupted across the country ravaging tens of thousands of square miles not just tens of thousands of acres. By this stage, the runaway greenhouse effect was approaching.

Why has the heat ramped up to such an extent? As noted, the increasing infusion of CO2 is one reason, and the Keeling curve shows ultimately a 'tipping point' will be reached if we refuse to control CO2 output. That tipping point is conjectured to be in the vicinity of 500-560 ppm of CO2 concentration. It's a tipping point because once reached, we'll not only have to worry about the manmade catastrophe (from the CO2 arising from fossil fuel burning) but from the CO2 that will begin to be "out-gassed" from the planet's immense store of carbonate rocks (which will join all the methane outgassed from melting Arctic permafrost). One climate scientist I know has described it as "the ultimate climate-change clusterfuck and we'll be right in the middle of it".

In an article appearing in Eos (Vol. 83, No. 34), from August 20, 2002, ‘Progress Made in Study of Ocean’s Calcium Carbonate Budget’, the author notes that sedimentary carbonates represent the largest reservoir of carbon on Earth. The author also noted that “a third of the anthropogenic CO2 that has been added to the atmosphere since the middle of the 18th century has been absorbed by the oceans". This means that the oceans, acting as CO2 reservoirs, have actually masked the worst effects of global warming. The trouble there is that Keeling's curve discloses they're no longer holding the line, since CO2 injection is now exceeding the oceanic uptake rate!

Increases of atmospheric CO2 also increase concentrations of inorganic carbon, mainly in the forms pCO2 and HCO3 in the oceans. A side effect is to also diminish the pH of sea water. No surprise then that the oceans' measured acidity is now nearly 30% higher than at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Some projections show at the currently increased rate of acidification no sea life (including phyto-plankton) will be around within 15 years. That, of course, implies total collapse of all ocean food chains!

The other factor that's enabled a more rapid heating from global warming, is the reduction of global dimming. The effect was first spotted by Gerry Stanhill, an English scientist working in Israel. Stanhill called the phenomenon 'global dimming', but his research, published in 2001, met with a skeptical response from other climate scientists. It wasn't until several years later that his conclusions were confirmed by Australian scientists using a completely different method to estimate solar radiation, that climate scientists at last woke up to the reality of global dimming.

Dimming appears to be caused by air pollution. This visible air pollution reflects sunlight back into space, preventing it reaching the surface. But the pollution also changes the optical properties of clouds. Because the particles seed the formation of water droplets, polluted clouds contain a larger number of droplets than unpolluted clouds. Recent research shows that this makes them more reflective than they would otherwise be, enhancing albedo and hence offsetting the lowered albedo from Arctic melting.

Stanhill and others estimated that global dimming masked up to one third of global warming for the past fifteen or so years. However, the global dimming effect has markedly receded, largely owing to new and improved cleaner air standards. This means the one-third of global warming formerly masked will not be masked any more - and we are now seeing the effects of that!

Stay tuned!

Faith-Based Climate Models? (II)

Peter Huber in his article ('Faith-Based Models', FORBES, Oct. 27, p. 105) continues his skeptical diatribe by writing:

"Some then try to deal with the fact that more cloud cover will reduce the amount of inbound sunlight that reaches the surface and also boost the amount of heat radiated back intio space from above the clouds and so on and so forth".


But as already noted (previous instalment) how cloud cover acts depends on the TYPE of cloud! As Prof. Gale Christianson ('Greenouse') has noted:

"wispy high flying cirrus are semi-transparent to incoming sunlight but block infrared radiation emitted by the Earth thus CONTRIBUTING to the Greenhouse Effect”


Thus, there is no real problem here other than what Huber has created. Reinforcing this the authors of the paper ('Can Earth’s Albedo and Surface Temperature Increase Together’ in EOS, Vol. 87, No. 4, Jan. 24, 2006, p. 37) have emphasized that:

"whereas low clouds have decreased during the most recent years, high clouds have increased to a larger extent leading to both an increase in cloud amount AND an increased trapping of infrared radiation"

Thus, high altitude cloud cover abets infrared radiation trapping and contributes to the global greenhouse.

Huber then disingenously refers to having to parse "millions of lines of terribly complex computer code" -but this isn't necessary to ascertain the effects of the cloud cover. However, satellite data from a range of meteorological satellites covering the entire Earth is! One can, believe it or not, scan said data and see how the variables compare without doing "millions of pages of computer code".

When I prepared my own solar data (sunspot group area, magnetic intensity, solar flare occurrence) in 1980 in preparation for my first paper ('SID Flares and Sunspot Morphology', in Solar Physics, Vol. 88, Nos. 1-2, Oct. 1983) I could easily see how the data was trending and the extent of the correlations even before the first multivariate analysis was done on the university's IBM computer. But it is in Huber's interest to portray the task of ascertaining real global warming as some horrendously vast, complex task accessible only to certain high priests of climate science.

Huber then writes:

"And then it ends with a great leap back to simplicity. The atmosphere grew somewhat warmer in the 20th century. How do we know that human carbon emissions were the cause? Supposedly because the models are scientifically sound, they can't track the temperature changes back to volcanoes, solar variations or any other natural cause so the cause must be us."


Again, disingenuous! As readers may recall, Mount Pinatubo erupted in 1992. This volcanic event reduced global warming effect for up to 2-3 years after and this has been well-documented in numerous sources, as any goolging foray will show. Thus, a period of temperature change (decrease) has been tracked to a specific volcanic event.

More recently, we are aware of much of the worst heating from global warming being concealed by the phenomenon of global dimming. The effect was first spotted by Gerry Stanhill, an English scientist working
in Israel. Comparing Israeli sunlight records from the 1950s with current
ones, Stanhill was astonished to find a large fall in solar radiation.
"There was a staggering 22% drop in the sunlight, and that really amazed
me," he says.

Intrigued, he searched out records from all around the world, and found the
same story almost everywhere he looked, with sunlight falling by 10% over
the USA, nearly 30% in parts of the former Soviet Union, and even by 16% in
parts of the British Isles. Although the effect varied greatly from place to
place, overall the decline amounted to 1-2% globally per decade between the
1950s and the 1990s.

The most alarming aspect of global dimming is that it may have
led scientists to underestimate the power of the greenhouse effect.
While it's known how much extra energy has been trapped in the Earth's atmosphere
by the extra carbon dioxide (CO2), it's surprising is that it has so far translated to a temperature rise of just 0.6°C.

The most worrisome aspect, as a PBS docmentary (2004) by the same title showed, is that once the aerosols and pollutants spawning dimming are removed, the heating of Earth may attain unprecedented proportions of more than 5C in a century.

Thus, Huber's sarcastic reference to the Earth getting "somewhat warmer" is precisely because of global dimming obscuring the most pronounced effects.

As for tracking temperature changes back to variations on the Sun, this has also been done and quite extensively.

In fact, an exhaustive series of studies of temperature - solar sunspot number correlations have already been done and they are listed in the monograph 'Sun, Weather & Climate', by John R. Herman and Richard A. Goldberg, Dover, 1978, p. 127 - Table 3.5)

A total of eight periods are listed under column three, with their correlation coefficients, which include:

1891- 1917 (-0.44)

1870 - 1918 (-0.33)

1893 - 1924 (-0.25)

1888 - 1920 (- 0.24)

1892 - 1920 (-0.38)

1862 - 1920 (-0.33)

1867- 1923 (-0.46)

1871 - 1920 (-0.38)

Note that all entries exhibit a negative correlation coefficient, indicating an inverse relationship between sunspot number and temperature. Meanwhile for Period 2 (Column 4) the Table shows:

1925 - 1957 (- 0.1)

1921 - 1954 (+0.21)

1926 - 1954 (+0.32)

1921 - 1947 (+0.16)

1921 - 1950 (- 0.29)

1921 - 1953 (+0.24)

1924 - 1953 (+0.10)

1921 - 1950 (+0.23)

These coefficients mostly disclose positive correlation, the exception being the 6th entry from top. The authors note (cf. p. 128) that for the entire data set "the correlation coefficient for annual temperature and sunspot number (11-yr. cycle) was -0.38 up to 1920, but for the period 1921- 1950 the correlation had reversed and the coefficient was +0.23".

I maintain these results are totally consistent with the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming. In their respective papers seeking to mitigate human responsbility in global warming, S.I. Akasofu, and earlier Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon argued the opposite, but they forgot - or neglected to factor in - the 100 year delay time for CO2 deposition and retention in the atmosphere. Thus, inputs at the time of the onset of the industrial revolution, ca. 1845, would not manifest significantly until 100 years later.

And indeed, we see the inversion of averaged correlation coefficients from -0.38 (up to 1920) to +0.23 up to 1950, a total net change of +0.61 in the positive direction, which can take into account a total variability (explained by it) of some 36% (the total change - squared). It is clear, certainly to me, that Akasofu, Baliunas and Soon have drawn exactly the wrong conclusion from their respective results. Indeed, in the latter’s paper ( Fig. 1), showing the IPCC data and the temp. rise of 0.4C between 1910-1940, the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere is surely taken into account. Their conclusion that “the 'CO2' signal does not commence until 1940” is precisely what is in error.

This sort of error, neglecting time delay for signal exposure, is not unique and has been made many times by professionals who should know better. As well by students I have taught. (Though I can understand it more plausibly in the latter. It is just ironic that it is made in a paper purporting to overturn or at least dilute the IPCC results.)

In addition to the preceding work, Solar physicist John Eddy, made it his research specialty to study long-term solar variations connected to climate change, noted the period of 12th century warming in his book, ‘The New Solar Physics’, AAAS Selected Symposium, Westview Press, 1979, p. 17.

Eddy noted that this coincided with a period of higher solar activity (i.e. more sunspots) and possibly greater luminosity – on account of the fact that the irradiance is amplified around sunspots owing to redirection of convective heat flow. (Bear in mind the plasma in spots is at lower temperatures, by about 1500C, because of the powerful magnetic fields in them).

During solar cycle 20 – when I also conducted investigations on solar flares and their effects- the then Solar Max satellite used an active cavity radiometer to measure temperature increases arising from higher activity – especially as generated by more convection at the periphery of large spots. The differential was something on the order of 0.1C at the Sun! Since the radiant energy must now transit 150 million kilometers, and its intensity falls off as the inverse square, one can see this would translate into negligible increases at Earth.

What about longer period increases in solar luminosity associated with its possibly being a variable star – as opposed to sporadic sunspot outbursts?

The maximal magnitude of inherent solar -induced climate variability was probably first highlighted by Sabatino Sofia et al in their paper 'Solar Constant: Constraints on Possible Variations Derived from Solar Diameter Measurements', in Science, Vol. 204, 1306, 1979. Their estimate was a solar change in irradiance of roughly 0.1 % averaged over each solar cycle. (Irradiance is a measure of the energy per square meter received from the Sun).

Thus – if the solar irradiance effect at Earth (solar constant) is normally about 1360 watts/m^2, this would imply an increase of roughly 1.36 W/m^2.. The problem is that there is no observational evidence to support this in the warming period of the 12th century, or any time in the past century – when global warming spiked to serious levels. (Some like Sofia have argued that even if it had occurred, it would only engender a temp. increase contribution of perhaps one-fourth of one degree, or significantly less than what has been documented.

More recent space-based observations appear to show a variation in solar irradiance of at least 0.15% over the standard 11-year solar cycle. (E.g. Parker, E.N., Nature, Vol. 399, p. 416). However, even with this higher percentage ascribed to solar changes, the heating effect is nowhere near comparable to that induced from man-made global warming. (See, e.g. Martin I. Hoffert et al, in Nature, Vol. 401, p. 764).

As the authors in the latter study point out, the heating component arising from greenhouse gas emissions from 1861-1990 amounted to anywhere from 2.0 to 2.8 watts per square meter. The solar variability component detected over the same period amounted to 0.1 to 0.5 watts per square meter. Thus, even the MAXIMUM solar variability amounted to only a fraction (25%) of the MINIMUM power input from human-induced greenhouse warming!

Thus, we see how on all these points, Huber is proven wrong. We can indeed track temperature changes to natural events on Earth (e.g. volcanoes) as well as solar variations, and we see that the magnitudes of these are not enough to account for higher temperatures on Earth, but can conceal the most aggravated and enhanced effects (as in the case of volcanic eruptions and global dimming).

Huber through his piece refers to skeptic scientist Richard Lindzen of MIT, but who is Lindzen after all? He is a meterologist (not specifically a CLIMATE scientist - who typically take longer views) who was one of 100 signers of a petition to the effect man-made global warming is a "fallacy". What is not said, ever, is that these pitiful 100 contrarians are a minuscule fraction of the more than 20,000 working climate scientists who have published more than 15,000 papers validating the phenomenon of anthropogenic warming over the past ten years.

Indeed, the largest scientific organization on the planet - the American Geophysical Union - includes its position statement on human-induced warming as part of its public policy web page:

http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/positions/climate_change2008.shtml


Another suspicious "petition" that has made the rounds is the so-called "Oregon Petition". (I actually received a question about it on the all experts site). The questioner made reference to the "17,000 names" on the petition, all allegedly sicentists but he or she evidently never took note that nearly all the names were fake. Names like "Perry Mason", John Grisham" et al, none of whom were scientists, none of whom were willing signees. The name at the front was "Edwin Teller" but everyone knows he is no climate scientist and his most recent accomplishment was promoting the specious "SDI" or 'Strategic Defense Initiative' in the 1980s - where high-powered lasers and particle beam weapons were to be mounted to satellites to shoot down ICBMs. All nonsense, shown to be bunkum by the American Physical Society's 'Directed Energy Weapons' study (Physics Today, May, 1987)

Lastly, Huber insists that: "Few college graduates, let alone school children, have the sicentific background to think critically about any of this".

This is more codswallop. Merely because I myself can't process of validate a process, or phenomenon or engineering device doesn't necessarily mean I reject its use or accept it as what it is claimed. I have no remote notion of how robotics works to produce something like the Japanses animatronic robot (who dances and performs human gestures) but that doesn't mean I am skeptical to the point of thinking it's a fake and there's really a little man inside a suit!

Nonetheless, any college graduate can certainly look for certain key attributes when approaching something like global warming claims, and look for these criteria:

1- How many sources does it come from? If only one source, of course one must suspect the claims! If from hundreds of peer-reviewed papers, there is a powerful reason to accept the claims.


2- What is the pedigree of the sources? If in such fare as The Journal for Geophysical Research, this is a powerful commendation for validity, but if in a private organization's web paper (like the George C. Marshall Institute, a free market think tank) it isn't. Why? Because the latter is operated by economists, lobbyists and dedicated to an ideological viewpoint that has not been vettted by SCIENCE.

3- What proportion of experts agree to the claims, as opposed to the contrarians who do not? In the case of Lindzen and his cohort of 100, this is a tiny fraction of the 20,000 climate scientists worldwide who had a hand in formulating the AGU position statement shown earlier.

In the end, no "faith" in man-made global warming is being promoted or needed, contrary to Huber's take. One can, motivated by sufficient intelligence and curiosity, obtain enough climatology papers and - with a basic background in general physics - ascertain for oneself that global warming is real, and occurring.

It is now past time for the skeptics to cease their nonstop recitation of red herrings vis-a-vis anthropogenic global warming. As writer Terry Black put it in hius recent Mensa Bulletin article, 'Never Trust A Skeptic' (Nov.-Dec., p. 32):

"It (global warming) has been repeatedly confirmed by the International Panel on Climate Change and the Nobel Prize Committee among many others. A purist might say 'it's still not proven', not beyond doubt. But I've reached the point where I've stopped doubting climate change and begun doubting the doubters, who seem ill-informed and intellectually dishonest. Only an idiot still doubts the Holocaust, or the moon landing. I submit that global warming is equally well-established."

Right on, Mr. Black!
2-