March 28, 2008

The Global Warming Challenge: Scott Armstrong Calling Al Gore

Professor Scott Armstrong of the Wharton School of Business at the Univ. of Pennsyvania, also associated with the Heartland Institute, is internationally known for his pioneering work on forecasting methods. Recently, he challenged former Vice-President Al Gore regarding Global Climate Modeling - and today sent off another letter:

March 28, 2008
Honorable Albert Gore
2100 West End Avenue,
Suite 620
Nashville, TN 37203
Fax 615 327-1323

Dear Mr. Gore,

The extended deadline for the Global Warming Challenge has passed and, despite the fact that I have responded to all of your concerns to date regarding the challenge, you have not been willing to engage in a scientific test of your forecasts of dangerous global warming.

Despite our literature searches and our appeals both on the Internet and in our published paper on climate change, my colleague and I have been unable to find a single scientific forecast to support global warming. If you are aware of such a study, I appeal to you directly to reveal it to the scientific community so that it can be subject to peer review and so the public can see the scientific basis for your claims.

In addition we need to continue scientific studies. Thus, I pose this question:
“When and under what conditions would you be willing to engage in a scientific test of your global warming forecasts?”

I look forward to your responses. By your own words, the global warming issue remains an important one for the future of the world. Given the enormous expenditures on this issue, I hope that as a concerned and influential citizen, you will take an active role in encouraging the application of science to this issue.

Sincerely,
J. Scott Armstrong

---------------
A history of the Global Warning Challenge is provided at http://theclimatebet.com. It includes all correspondence between Scott Armstrong and Al Gore. The site will post all papers that purport to provide scientific forecasts of global warming. The papers must provide full disclosure on how the forecasts were made, as full disclosure is one of the basic principles of science.

Posted by jennifer at 03:16 PM | Comments (70) | TrackBack

March 03, 2008

Survey of IPCC WG1 Climate Scientists Rejected for Publication

Some time ago I noticed a submitted paper on Roger Pielke Sr's research group publications webpage and I referred to it in a comment on this blog. The paper is a survey entitled 'Is there agreement amongst climate scientists on the IPCC AR4 WG1?' by Brown, F., J. Annan, and R.A. Pielke Sr.

Months passed until on 22nd February 2008 Pielke Sr published the paper on his weblog, explaining the history of the paper's rejection by EOS and Nature Precedings:

One of the readers of Climate Science (Fergus Brown), in response to the questions that have been raised by the weblog (and elsewhere) wanted to poll the climate community to ascertain their views on the IPCC WG1 report. The article that we completed on this subject, under his leadership, is given in its entirety later in this weblog. However, a brief history as to why we are publishing as a weblog and not in another venue is discussed below.

After the survey was completed last summer and the article written, it was submitted to the AGU publication EOS as a “Forum piece. The EOS description of a Forum is that it

”contains thought-provoking contributions expected to stimulate further discussion, within the newspaper or as part of Eos Online Discussions. Appropriate Forum topics include current or proposed science policy, discussion related to current research in our fields especially scientific controversies, the relationship of our science to society, or practices that affect our fields, science in general, or AGU as an organization. Commentary solely on the science reported in research journals is not appropriate.”

Our article certainly fits this description. However, after 4 months without a decision, our contribution was summarily rejected by Fred Spilhous without review. He said our article did not fit EOS policy. We disagreed, of course, based on the explicit EOS policy given above, but our follow request for an appeal was ignored.

We then submitted to Nature Precedings where their policy states

“Nature Precedings is a place for researchers to share pre-publication research, unpublished manuscripts, presentations, posters, white papers, technical papers, supplementary findings, and other scientific documents. Submissions are screened by our professional curation team for relevance and quality, but are not subjected to peer review. We welcome high-quality contributions from biology, medicine (except clinical trials), chemistry and the earth sciences.”

According to Pielke Sr:

Our article was quickly rejected without explanation.

From this experience, it is clear that the AGU EOS and Nature Precedings Editors are using their positions to suppress evidence that there is more diversity of views on climate, and the human role in altering climate, than is represented in the narrowly focused 2007 IPCC report.

Our article follows below. We invite colleagues who are expert in polling techniques to build on the polling questions that we pose in our contribution, and to provide the community and policymakers with the actual range of perspectives on climate science.

Excerpt:

In our poll, there were 140 responses out of the 1807 who were contacted by the first author. The authors participated along with poll specialist David Jepson (Bsc Hons) in writing the polling questions (see Table 1 for the questions), but had no knowledge of who participated in the polling. It is interesting to note, however, that among the respondents were a substantial number of senior scientists and leading figures in climate science, whose support and interest in the poll were much appreciated. It is important to recognize that we are not presenting the results as representing anything other than the views of those who responded as we have no way to assess the relationship of the responders with the total relevant population.

The results are quite informative. No scientists were willing to admit to the statement that global warming is a fabrication and that human activity is not having any significant effect on climate [0%]. In total, 18% responded that the IPCC AR4 WG1 Report probably overstates the role of CO2, or exaggerates the risks implied by focusing on CO2-dominated Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), to a greater or lesser degree. A further 17% expressed the opinion that the Report probably underestimates or seriously underestimates the consequences of anthropogenic CO2 -induced AGW and that the associated risks are more severe than is implied in the report. The remaining 65% expressed some degree of concurrence with the report’s science basis, of which the largest group [47% of all respondents] selected option 5.

The options were:

1. There is no warming; it is a fabrication based on inaccurate/inappropriate measurement. Human activity is not having any significant effect on Climate. The data on which such assumptions are made is so compromised as to be worthless. The physical science basis of AGW theory is founded on a false hypothesis.

2. Any recent warming is most likely natural. Human input of CO2 has very little to do with it. Solar, naturally varying water vapour and similar variables can explain most or all of the climate changes. Projections based on Global Climate Models are unreliable because these are based on too many assumptions and unreliable datasets.

3. There are changes in the atmosphere, including added CO2 from human activities, but significant climate effects are likely to be all within natural limits. The ’scares’ are exaggerations with a political motive. The undue emphasis on CO2 diverts attention away from other, important research on climate variability and change.

4. There is warming and the human addition of CO2 causes some of it, but the science is too uncertain to be confident about current attributions of the precise role of CO2 with respect to other climate forcings. The IPCC WG1 overestimates the role of CO2 relative to other forcings, including a diverse variety of human climate forcings.

5. The scientific basis for human impacts on climate is well represented by the IPCC WG1 report. The lead scientists know what they are doing. We are warming the planet, with CO2 as the main culprit. At least some of the forecast consequences of this change are based on robust evidence.

6. The IPCC WG1 is compromised by political intervention; I agree with those scientists who say that the IPCC WG1 is underestimating the problem. Action to reduce human emissions of CO2 in order to mitigate against serious consequences is more urgent than the report suggests. This should be done irrespective of other climate and environmental considerations.

7. The IPCC WG1 seriously understates the human influence on climate. I agree with those scientists who say that major mitigation responses are needed immediately to prevent catastrophic serious warming and other impacts projected to result from human emissions of CO2. We are seriously damaging the Earth’s climate, and will continue to face devastating consequences for many years.

Co-author James Annan gives his view on his own blog with a post entitled 'Too crap to publish or too hot to handle?'

Lead author Fergus Brown gives his views here and here.

Thanks to Luke for suggesting this subject as a blog post.

Posted by Paul at 01:36 AM | Comments (46) | TrackBack

February 29, 2008

New Paper from the Virtual World: Stabilizing Climate Requires Near-Zero Emissions

A new GRL paper by Matthews and Caldeira suggests that, in order to stabilise the computer modelled future climate, CO2 emissions need to be reduced to near-zero.

The abstract of the paper is below:

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 35, L04705, doi:10.1029/2007GL032388, 2008

Stabilizing climate requires near-zero emissions

H. Damon Matthews

Department of Geography, Planning and Environment, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

Ken Caldeira

Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Stanford, California, USA

Abstract
Current international climate mitigation efforts aim to stabilize levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. However, human-induced climate warming will continue for many centuries, even after atmospheric CO2 levels are stabilized. In this paper, we assess the CO2 emissions requirements for global temperature stabilization within the next several centuries, using an Earth system model of intermediate complexity. We show first that a single pulse of carbon released into the atmosphere increases globally averaged surface temperature by an amount that remains approximately constant for several centuries, even in the absence of additional emissions. We then show that to hold climate constant at a given global temperature requires near-zero future carbon emissions. Our results suggest that future anthropogenic emissions would need to be eliminated in order to stabilize global-mean temperatures. As a consequence, any future anthropogenic emissions will commit the climate system to warming that is essentially irreversible on centennial timescales.

So, 'emission impossible' becomes even more difficult. The only way to achieve near-zero emissions is via air capture of CO2.

Posted by Paul at 07:33 PM | Comments (31) | TrackBack

Peer Reviewed US Study Finds More Informed People 'Show Less Concern for Global Warming'

Mass media efforts to raise American public concern about climate change, such as Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" and the "scientific consensus" media drumbeat, ironically may be having just the opposite effect, according to a new study appearing in the scientific journal Risk Analysis.

The above is taken from here.

Study Excerpt:

Paul Kellstedt, Sammy Zahran and Arnold Vedlitz examined results from an original and representative sample of Americans and found that "more informed respondents both feel less personally responsible for global warming, and also show less concern for global warming." The researchers also found that "confidence in scientists has unexpected effects: respondents with high confidence in scientists feel less responsible for global warming, and also show less concern for global warming." […] "Perhaps ironically, and certainly contrary to... the marketing of movies like "Ice Age" and "An Inconvenient Truth," the effects of information on both concern for global warming and responsibility for it are exactly the opposite of what were expected. Directly, the more information a person has about global warming, the less responsible he or she feels for it; and indirectly, the more information a person has about global warming, the less concerned he or she is for it."

The abstract from the paper is below:

Personal Efficacy, the Information Environment, and Attitudes Toward GlobalWarming and Climate Change in the United States

Paul M. Kellstedt,1∗ Sammy Zahran,2 and Arnold Vedlitz2

Despite the growing scientific consensus about the risks of global warming and climate change,
the mass media frequently portray the subject as one of great scientific controversy and debate.
Andyet previous studies of the mass public’s subjective assessments of the risks of global warming
and climate change have not sufficiently examined public informedness, public confidence
in climate scientists, and the role of personal efficacy in affecting global warming outcomes. By
examining the results of a survey on an original and representative sample of Americans, we
find that these three forces—informedness, confidence in scientists, and personal efficacy—are
related in interesting and unexpected ways, and exert significant influence on risk assessments
of global warming and climate change. In particular, more informed respondents both feel
less personally responsible for global warming, and also show less concern for global warming.
We also find that confidence in scientists has unexpected effects: respondents with high
confidence in scientists feel less responsible for global warming, and also show less concern
for global warming. These results have substantial implications for the interaction between
scientists and the public in general, and for the public discussion of global warming and climate
change in particular.

Risk Analysis, Vol. 28, No. 1, 2008 DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01010.x

Posted by Paul at 06:33 PM | Comments (23) | TrackBack

'Experts' Views on the Future of Car and Air Travel in Australia

OVERSEAS trips may become a once-in-lifetime experience and car travel needed to be cut by 80 per cent if we have any hope of avoiding "dangerous" climate change, experts say.

Energy experts from Monash University said the carbon emission standards recommended by the government-hired Professor Ross Garnaut would not be possible if Australia’s love affair with cars and planes continued.

Continue reading Car travel 'cut by 80 per cent'

Posted by Paul at 12:36 AM | Comments (43) | TrackBack

February 28, 2008

First Woman to Earn PhD in Meteorology Speaks Out

Dr Joanne Simpson was the first woman in the world to earn a doctorate in meteorology. She has devoted her entire professional life to studying clouds and violent storms, and at 75, she's still at it.

Formerly of the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. Present Position Chief Scientist for Meteorology, Earth Sciences Directorate. Simpson’s career also included working with the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, and NASA. Former Colorado State Climatologist Roger Pielke Sr. Called Dr Simpson “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

The following are excerpts from her guest post on Roger Piellke Sr's Climate Science weblog:

Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receive any funding, I can speak quite frankly. [...] The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system. We only need to watch the weather forecasts. [...] The term “global warming” itself is very vague. Where and what scales of response are measurable? One distinguished scientist has shown that many aspects of climate change are regional, some of the most harmful caused by changes in human land use. No one seems to have properly factored in population growth and land use, particularly in tropical and coastal areas. [...] But as a scientist I remain skeptical. I decided to keep quiet in this controversy until I had a positive contribution to make. […] Both sides (of climate debate) are now hurling personal epithets at each other, a very bad development in Earth sciences.

Biography of Dr Joanne Simpson.

Posted by Paul at 07:35 PM | Comments (30) | TrackBack

February 27, 2008

New Paper Reviews the Evidence for a Cosmic Ray-Climate Connection

A new paper is currently in press in the journal Comptes Rendus Geoscience, which reviews the evidence for a connection between Cosmic Rays and Climate.

The invited review authored by Ilya G. Usoskin and Gennady A. Kovaltsov is entitled: 'Cosmic rays and climate of the Earth: possible connection' is available via Ilya Usoskin's personal website for free download (as a corrected proof).

The Abstract states:

Despite much evidence relating climatic changes on Earth to solar variability, a physical mechanism responsible for this is still poorly known. A possible link connecting solar activity and climate variations is related to cosmic rays and the physical-chemical changes they produce in the atmosphere. Here we review experimental evidence and theoretical grounds for this rela tion. The cosmic ray – climate link seems to be a plausible climate driver which effectively operates on different time scales, but its exact mechanism and relative importance still remain open questions.

The paper concludes:

We have reviewed the experimental evidence and theoretical models relating cosmic ray variations to the terrestrial climate changes.

On short time scale of a few days, there exists much evidence that CR changes may affect the process of cyclogenesis via the changing transparency and pressure, particularly in the North Atlantic during cold seasons. Although each individual piece of evidence is barely significant, in aggregate, they suggest that the relation can be real.

A link between low clouds and CR appears statistically significant on the inter-annual time scale since 1984 in limited geographical regions, the largest being North Atlantic + Europe and South Atlantic. We note that many reconstructions of the past climate are based on European data, where the CR-cloud relation is the most pronounced. Extension of this relation to the global scale may be misleading.

A relation between the geomagnetic field changes and climatic variations provides evidence favoring the possible CR influence on climate. A study of regional climate variations in relation to the geomagnetic dipole axis migration over the last millennium is also promising.

There is an indication of the climate changes synchronously with the CR flux on Mega-yr time scales, but this result is not straightforward to interpret. Large uncertainties make it only indicative.

Essential progress has been recently achieved in theoretical modelling of both ionizing effect of CR and physical mechanisms relating CRII to cloud variations, but the link between micro- and macro-physics is still missing. A new experimental evidence, obtained by the SKYexperiment team, confirm that enhanced ionization notably facilitates the production of small ion clusters in realistic atmospheric conditions.

In conclusion, a CR-climate link seems to be a plausible climate driver, as supported by the bulk of statistical studies and existing theoretical models. However, further studies, in particular a clear case study as well as improved model development, are foreseen to improve our understanding of the link between cosmic rays and the climate on Earth.

Posted by Paul at 03:47 AM | Comments (20) | TrackBack

February 26, 2008

Plane Stupidity and BoM Bombs

Yesterday (Monday 25th February) four Greenpeace protesters breached security at London's Heathrow airport and climbed on the tail of a Boeing 777 in order to display a banner saying, 'Climate Emergency, No 3rd Runway.'

Prometheus points out in an article entitled, 'A sense of proportion' that last month the Chinese government announced plans to build 97 new airports in the next 12 years. Furthermore, on Saturday China announced plans to build nearly 100 new airports by 2020 to cater for soaring demand.

So why can't Heathrow have a much needed 3rd runway and what difference would it make to climate anyway? Not much point asking Greenpeace unless you want a silly answer devoid of facts.

Meanwhile back in Oz, The Australian carries a story today containing the Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) explanation for cooler February temperatures across most of Australia straight after record hot temperatures in January. Another one of those 'climate experts' is qouted as saying, "It's just year-to-year variability. Underneath that variability is this insidious slow warming, which is the greenhouse effect, but it's not big enough to stop natural variability, and it's going to take a long time before it is."

Read the entire article entitled, 'Natural changes blow hot and cold.'

Posted by Paul at 10:00 AM | Comments (18) | TrackBack

February 25, 2008

West Antarctic Glaciers Surging Faster - Not Blamed on Global Warming

British explorers in West Antarctica reported glacier movement in the region has picked up by a startling seven percent this season, a development, they said, which could lead to a significant rise in sea level.

The biggest of the glaciers, the Pine Island Glacier, is causing the most concern.

The reason does not seem to be warming in the surrounding air.

One possible culprit could be a deep ocean current that is channelled onto the continental shelf close to the mouth of the glacier. There is not much sea ice to protect it from the warm water, which seems to be undercutting the ice and lubricating its flow

Julian Scott, however, thinks there may be other forces at work as well.

Much higher up the course of the glacier there is evidence of a volcano that erupted through the ice about 2,000 years ago and the whole region could be volcanically active, releasing geothermal heat to melt the base of the ice and help its slide towards the sea.

Read more on the BBC website: 'Antarctic glaciers surge to ocean'

Posted by Paul at 08:58 PM | Comments (68) | TrackBack

Plotting Carbon Dioxide Mostly For Fun: Jan Pompe

Hi Jennifer,

Following on from the discussion at 'Carbon Dioxide versus Temperature' I have done two plots first is the normalises annual mean CO2 growth rate with annual fossil fuel usage the second is normalised CO2 mean growth rate compared with sea surface mean temperature anomalies.

First FYI the provenance of the data in some the actual data is ftp and current that causes safari to crash the links to actual data are in the page.

For fossil fuel usage: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_glob.htm

For mean annual growth rate of CO2: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

For mean annual sea surface temperature: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/#datdow

The covariance for this is .63. The motivation for comparing annual growth rate with usage is that if there is a relationship the difference if any will be due to what is actually put into the atmosphere this assumes (quite wrongly of course) that all the other sources and sinks are inactive. So the caveat here is there will be much more actually influencing CO2 concentrations and the correlation could well be meaningless or due to common factors if there is indeed a link. Bottom line is that apart from the general trend (which leads to the relatively high covariance) the growth rate varies much more than growth in usage and the CO2 peaks and troughs don't match and I expect that if the data is detrended the covariance will be much smaller. I don't have time to check this as I have to finish packing and putting stuff out for council clean up.

This has a better covariance of .73 (correlation is the same) but as I suspected we don't see any lag. This is because there is a single data point at each year for each series and any lag less than year is likely to be completely obliterated. Since the CO2 levels have an annual cycle superimposed on the long term trend any such lag will be buried in the "noise". However we do have a physical (chemical) link with partial pressure of atmospheric CO2 and concentration in solution that is also temperature sensitive this needs more work than I have time for at the moment. There is however this http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html . Where he plots concentration versus temperature difference from the vostok ice core, below I plot temperature versus concentration difference which is better I don't know yet and I did it this way because that's the way I had the data loaded I'll look more closely when I get back [from Bellengen].

Looks similar to Jeffry Glasman's maybe it makes no difference but I'll have to convince my self of that on.

Cheers,
Jan Pompe

Posted by jennifer at 07:00 PM | Comments (12) | TrackBack

The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change: I'm off to New York

The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change is the first major international conference to focus on issues and questions not answered by advocates of the theory of man-made global warming.

Hundreds of scientists, economists, and public policy experts from around the world will gather on March 2-4, 2008, at the Marriott New York Marquis Hotel on Manhattan’s Time Square, to call attention to widespread dissent in the scientific community to the alleged “consensus” that the modern warming is primarily man-made and is a crisis.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UPDATE

I was a delegate at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change, March 2-4, 2008, New York City.
You can read some of my blog posts on the conference at the following links:

March 03, 2008
Climate Change Conference, New York – Day 1, In Review
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002809.html

March 04, 2008
Climate Change Conference, New York – Day 2, In Review
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002813.html

March 06, 2008
Climate Change Conference, New York – Day 3, In Review
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002820.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The debate over whether human activity is responsible for some or all of the modern warming, and then what to do if our presence on Earth is indeed affecting the global climate, has enormous consequences for everyone in virtually all parts of the globe. Proposals to drive down human greenhouse gas emissions by raising energy costs or imposing draconian caps could dramatically affect the quality of life of people in developed countries, and, due to globalization, the lives of people in less-developed countries too.

The global warming debate that the public and policymakers usually see is one-sided, dominated by government scientists and government organizations agenda-driven to find data that suggest a human impact on climate and to call for immediate government action, if only to fund their own continued research, but often to achieve political agendas entirely unrelated to the science of climate change. There is another side, but in recent years it has been denied a platform from which to speak.

The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change promises to be an exciting event and the point of departure for future conferences, publications, and educational campaigns to present both sides of this important topic.

The goals of the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change are:

1. to bring together the world’s leading scientists, economists, and policy experts to explain the often-neglected “other side” of the climate change debate;

2. to sponsor presentations and papers that make genuine contributions to the global debate over climate change;

3. to share the results of the conference with policymakers, civic and business leaders, and the interested public as an antidote to the one-sided and alarmist bias that pervades much of the current public policy debate; and

4. to set the groundwork for future conferences and publications that can turn the debate toward sound science and economics, and away from hype and political manipulation.

The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change is the first major international conference questioning global warming alarmism, but it will not be the last one. This event is intended to be a catalyst for future meetings, collaboration among scientists, economists, and policy experts, new research, and new publications.

The proceedings will be transcribed, edited, and published as a major contribution to the debate over global warming. Other possible follow-up activities now being discussed include:

1. an event in London in 2009;

2. launch of a new journal devoted to climate change;

3. launch of an association of philanthropists willing to support further research and public education opposing global warming alarmism;

4. support for an International Climate Science Coalition that will act as an alternative voice to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; and

5. expanded cooperation among the scores of organizations currently sponsoring research, publications, and events on the dubious claims in support of the theory of man-made catastrophic global warming.

James M. Taylor
Senior Fellow
The Heartland Institute

For more information visit: http://www.heartland.org/NewYork08/program.cfm

I will be there.

-----------------
UPDATE

I was a delegate at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change, March 2-4, 2008, New York City.
You can read some of my blog posts on the conference at the following links:

February 25, 2008
The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change: I'm off to New York
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002787.html

March 03, 2008
Climate Change Conference, New York – Day 1, In Review
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002809.html

March 04, 2008
Climate Change Conference, New York – Day 2, In Review
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002813.html

March 06, 2008
Climate Change Conference, New York – Day 3, In Review
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002820.html

Posted by jennifer at 08:07 AM | Comments (26)

February 22, 2008

Carbon Dioxide versus Temperature

According to Lance Endersbee:

The CO2 levels in the atmosphere are damped by the oceans.

The oceans are a huge source and sink for volatile gases.

The surface area of the oceans is vast in relation to the depth of the oceans and the atmosphere.

Thus we are dealing with a surface phenomenon.

The above chart is an actual experience curve relating actual CO2 levels with actual global average sea surface temperatures.

It is not a time scale, just the simple relation between two physical parameters.

The line is made up of the succession of actual monthly plotted points.

If we have regard to the possible errors of measurement of CO2 and SST, it is remarkably consistent.

The clear relationship is what would be expected from solubility data.

It is only evident in the temperature data from satellite sources.

The 21 year moving average covers the double solar cycle, including the change in solar polarity.

It also covers El Nino and La Nina events. It also recognizes the longer response time of the oceans.

This chart proves that human emissions of CO2 cannot accumulate in the atmosphere.

They are scavenged as they occur.

We can use the chart to predict the decreased levels of CO2 that will result from cooling.

From Joe D'Aleo:

Below is the monthly Hadley land and ocean and UAH MSU LT temperatures over the last decade with the CO2. Note the temperatures have not warmed, something even IPCC's Pachauri took note of (paraphrasing him - as for the plateauing of temperatures in recent years, we have to see if there are natural factors offsetting greenhouse gases).

Note the correlation with CO2 has vanished the last decade for both data sets.

Updated graph above:

The reasons some years appeared 3 times and some 2 in the originally posted graph was that I inadvertently choose an interval of 5 months instead of 6 months. It is fixed in the new graph.

As for Ian Mott's comments, I started with 1998 which was 10 years ago to get a decadal plot. The last data point was January 2008 which is why 2008 appears at the end.

Aside from the brief bounce coming out of the moderate/strong La Nina of 1999, there has been no increase despite the steady climb of CO2. If we were nearing that 'tipping point' Hansen and Gore love to talk about, surely, a decade is not too short a period to expect some thermal response to CO2 increases.

Joe D'Aleo

Posted by Paul at 07:11 PM | Comments (50) | TrackBack

Is Recent Major Hurricane Activity Normal? Comment and Reply in Nature

The debate over whether there is an observable link between global warming and hurricanes rumbles on.

In this week's Nature journal there is a comment and reply arising from Nyberg et al, Nature 447, 698-701 (7 June 2007):

Low Atlantic hurricane activity in the 1970s and 1980s compared to the past 270 years:

Hurricane activity in the North Atlantic Ocean has increased significantly since 1995 (refs 1, 2). This trend has been attributed to both anthropogenically induced climate change(3) and natural variability(1), but the primary cause remains uncertain. Changes in the frequency and intensity of hurricanes in the past can provide insights into the factors that influence hurricane activity, but reliable observations of hurricane activity in the North Atlantic only cover the past few decades(2). Here we construct a record of the frequency of major Atlantic hurricanes over the past 270 years using proxy records of vertical wind shear and sea surface temperature (the main controls on the formation of major hurricanes in this region1, 3, 4, 5) from corals and a marine sediment core. The record indicates that the average frequency of major hurricanes decreased gradually from the 1760s until the early 1990s, reaching anomalously low values during the 1970s and 1980s. Furthermore, the phase of enhanced hurricane activity since 1995 is not unusual compared to other periods of high hurricane activity in the record and thus appears to represent a recovery to normal hurricane activity, rather than a direct response to increasing sea surface temperature. Comparison of the record with a reconstruction of vertical wind shear indicates that variability in this parameter primarily controlled the frequency of major hurricanes in the Atlantic over the past 270 years, suggesting that changes in the magnitude of vertical wind shear will have a significant influence on future hurricane activity.

The comment is from Urs Neu: Is recent major hurricane activity normal?

The first paragraph reads:

Arising from: Nyberg et al. Nature 447, 698–701 (2007);

The anomaly of the recent increase in Atlantic major hurricane activity (MHA) is controversial. From a reconstruction of past MHA, Nyberg et al. conclude that the present activity is not unusual by comparison with that of the past 270 years. However, here I estimate the uncertainty of average MHA in the hurricane record before 1945 and show that the reconstruction of Nyberg et al. differs strongly from that record, and probably overestimates past MHA. Owing to this and further reasons, I question whether their reconstruction provides an accurate basis for conclusions about past MHA.

Nyberg et al reply:

Neu suggests that the reconstruction of Atlantic major hurricane activity (MHA) (that is, frequency) in Nyberg et al. overestimates past MHA because it differs significantly from the known observational records of tropical storms and MHA before 1945 and overestimates the influence of vertical windshear |Vz|.

Nyberg et al point out that:

"Neu’s record shows a sudden rise in MHA around 1944, coincident with the start of aircraft reconnaissance, which allowed much better monitoring of tropical cyclones. Also, according to ref. 4, the undercount bias is up to six tropical cyclones per year between 1851 and 1885, and up to four per year between 1886 and 1910. These biases are higher than the ones Neu(1) uses in his record of major hurricane numbers. Furthermore, to quote from ref. 4, ‘‘conclusions from this paper on the number of missed tropical cyclones are likely conservative’’. Moreover, MHA shows a stronger variability, closely correlated to [Vz](ref. 2), than tropical storms and non-major hurricanes in the reliable record(1–3), indicating a varying MHA/tropical storm ratio back in time."

and conclude:

"The proxies used in ref. 2 reflect the region where almost all Atlantic major hurricanes form (see Fig. 2 of ref. 2), and the nonlinear solution(2) allows for varying MHAin response to [Vz] and other influences such as SSTs. Absolute MHA values may change slightly given different model calibrations, but the proxies(2) still indicate a declining trend in MHA until the early 1990s superimposed on decadal and multi-decadal variability and that the conclusions in Nyberg et al(2) remain."

1. Neu, U. Is recent major hurricane activity normal? Nature 451, doi: 10.1038/
nature06576 (2008).
2. Nyberg, J. et al. Low Atlantic hurricane activity in the 1970s and 1980s compared to
the past 270 years. Nature 447, 698–701 (2007).
2. Best track data of the NOAA National Hurricane Center (HURDAT). Æhttp://
www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/Data_Storm.htmlæ (data used as published 11 June
2007). (Hurricane Research Division, US National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration.)
4. Landsea, C. W. Counting Atlantic tropical cyclones back to 1900. Eos 18, 197–208
(2007).
5. Landsea, C. W. et al. in Hurricanes and Typhoons: Past, Present and Future (eds
Murname, R. J. & Liu, K.-B.) 177–221 (Columbia Univ. Press, New York, 2004).
6. Swanson, K. L. Impact of scaling behavior on tropical cyclone intensities. Geophys. Res.
Lett. 34, L18815 (2007).
7. Miller, D. L. et al. Tree-ring isotope records of tropical cyclone activity. Proc. Natl Acad.
Sci. USA 103, 14294–14297 (2006).
8. George, S. E. & Saunders, M. A. North Atlantic oscillation impact on tropical north
Atlantic winter atmospheric variability. Geophys. Res. Lett. 28, 1015–1018 (2001).
9. Aiyyer, A. R. & Thorncroft, T. Climatology of vertical wind shear over the tropical
Atlantic. J. Clim. 19, 2969–2983 (2006).
10. Giannini, A., Cane, M. A. & Kushnir, Y. Interdecadal changes in the ENSO
teleconnection to the Caribbean region and the North Atlantic Oscillation. J. Clim. 14,
2867–2879 (2001).
11. Jury, M., Malmgren, B. A. & Winter, A. Subregional precipitation climate of the
Caribbean and relationships with ENSO and NAO. J. Geophys. Res. 112, D16107
(2007).
12. Hoerling, M. P., Hurrell, J. W. & Xu, T. Tropical origins for recent North Atlantic
climate change. Science 292, 90–92 (2001).
13. Osborn, T. N. et al. Evaluation of the North Atlantic oscillation as simulated by a
coupled climate model. Clim. Dyn. 15, 685–702 (1999).

A subscription to Nature is required in order to view the complete comment, reply and original article.

UPDATE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - February 21, 2008

*** NEWS FROM NOAA ***
NATIONAL OCEANIC & ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE WASHINGTON, DC
Contact: Dennis Feltgen, NOAA 305-229-4404

Increased Hurricane Losses Due to More People, Wealth Along Coastlines, Not Stronger Storms, New Study Says
A team of scientists have found that the economic damages from hurricanes have increased in the U.S. over time due to greater population, infrastructure, and wealth on the U.S. coastlines, and not to any spike in the number or intensity of hurricanes.

“We found that although some decades were quieter and less damaging in the U.S. and others had more land-falling hurricanes and more damage, the economic costs of land-falling hurricanes have steadily increased over time,” said Chris Landsea, one of the researchers as well as the science and operations officer at NOAA’s National Hurricane Center in Miami. “There is nothing in the U.S. hurricane damage record that indicates global warming has caused a significant increase in destruction along our coasts.”

Full paper:

Normalized Hurricane Damage in the United States: 1900–2005

Roger A. Pielke Jr.1; Joel Gratz2; Christopher W. Landsea3; Douglas Collins4; Mark A. Saunders5; and
Rade Musulin6

Posted by Paul at 02:51 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

February 21, 2008

Garnaut Confirms Need to Cut Emissions by 60 Percent

Releasing his Interim Report in Adelaide [Australia] today, Professor Ross Garnaut who was appointed by the new Labor government to provide policy advice on climate change, said that Australia should
promote strong global action on climate change and be prepared to match the commitments of
other developed nations.

The Executive Summary states:

This Interim Report seeks to provide a flavour of early findings from the work of the Review,
to share ideas on work in progress as a basis for interaction with the Australian community,
and to indicate the scope of the work programme through to the completion of the Review.
There are some important areas of the Review’s work that are barely touched upon in the
Interim Report, which will feature prominently in the final reports. Adaptation to climate
change, energy efficiency and the distribution of the costs of climate change across
households and regions are amongst the prominent omissions from this presentation.
Many views put forward in this Interim Report represent genuinely interim judgements. The
Review looks forward to feedback from interested people before formulating
recommendations for the final reports.

Developments in mainstream scientific opinion on the relationship between emissions
accumulations and climate outcomes, and the Review’s own work on future “business as
usual” global emissions, suggest that the world is moving towards high risks of dangerous
climate change more rapidly than has generally been understood. This makes mitigation
more urgent and more costly. At the same time, it makes the probable effects of unmitigated
climate change more costly, for Australia and for the world.

The largest source of increased urgency is the unexpectedly high growth of the world
economy in the early twenty-first century, combined with unexpectedly high energy intensity
of that growth and continuing reliance on high-emissions fossil fuels as sources of energy.
These developments are associated with strong economic growth in the developing world,
first of all in China. The stronger growth has strong momentum and is likely to continue. It is
neither desirable nor remotely feasible to seek to remove environmental pressures through
diminution of the aspirations of the world’s people for higher material standards of living. The
challenge is to end the linkage between economic growth and emissions of greenhouse
gases.

Australia’s interest lies in the world adopting a strong and effective position on climate
change mitigation. This interest is driven by two realities of Australia’s position relative to
other developed countries: our exceptional sensitivity to climate change: and our exceptional
opportunity to do well in a world of effective global mitigation. Australia playing its full part in
international efforts on climate change can have a positive effect on global outcomes. The
direct effects of Australia’s emissions reduction efforts are of secondary importance.
Australia has an important role to play alongside its international partners in establishing a
realistic approach to global mitigation. Australia can contribute to the development of clear
international understandings on the four components of a successful framework for global
mitigation: setting the right global objectives for reduction of the risk of dangerous climate
change; converting this into a goal for stabilisation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at
a specified level; calculating the amount of additional emissions that can be emitted into the
atmosphere over a specified number of years if stabilisation of atmospheric concentrations is
to be achieved at the desired level; and developing principles for allocating a limited global
emissions budget among countries.

Australia should make firm commitments in 2008, to 2020 and 2050 emissions targets that
embody similar adjustment cost to that accepted by other developed countries. A lead has
been provided by the European Union, and there are reasonable prospects that the United
States will become part of the main international framework after the November 2008
elections. Some version of the current State and Federal targets of 60 per cent reduction by
2050, with appropriate interim targets, would meet these requirements.

Download and read the full report here: http://www.garnautreview.org.au/CA25734E0016A131/pages/reports-and-papers

Posted by jennifer at 02:58 PM | Comments (16) | TrackBack

February 19, 2008

Are Climate Models Falsifiable?

Philosopher Karl Popper claimed in his book ‘The Logic of Scientific Discovery’ that a hypothesis, proposition or theory is scientific only if it is falsifiable:

"Logically, no number of positive outcomes at the level of experimental testing can confirm a scientific theory, but a single counterexample is logically decisive: it shows the theory, from which the implication is derived, to be false. Popper's account of the logical asymmetry between verification and falsifiability lies at the heart of his philosophy of science."

It seems that whatever happens in the climate system is consistent with climate model predictions. Warmer, colder, less ice, more ice, droughts, floods, more hurricanes, less hurricanes, stronger hurricanes, weaker hurricanes, and so on.

An recent example from the media:

Cold wave in India attributed to global warming

Mumbai: The recent cold wave sweeping across Mumbai and other parts of India could be attributed to global warming, experts said on Tuesday here at an environmental conference.

Would the observed mid-troposphere warming of less than the 2 to 3 times increase over surface warming predicted by climate models represent falsification? Or would a prolonged period of global cooling do the job?

So, what event or observation, or series of events/observations over what timescale are required to falsify the climate modelled hypothesis of CO2 driven climate change or global warming?

This post was inspired by a couple of blog posts over at Prometheus:

The Consistent-With Game: On Climate Models and the Scientific Method

Climate Model Predictions and Adaptation

Serious answers to a serious question, please.

Posted by Paul at 09:52 PM | Comments (90) | TrackBack

Southern Ocean Wind Currents Weakening?

A 15-year research project has revealed that changes in wind patterns are contributing to rising sea temperatures in the Southern Ocean.

ABC News: 'Research shows Southern Ocean wind currents weakening'

CSIRO Media release: 'Antarctic route highlights new ocean-climate links'

Thanks to Luke for alerting me to this story.

Posted by Paul at 08:45 PM | Comments (35) | TrackBack

Review of the DVD Apocalypse? No! The Scientific Reasons Why 'Global Warming' is NOT a Global Crisis

Christopher Monckton’s 2007 presentation to the Cambridge (University) Union

Monckton begins by saying that he is going to present a perspective on climate change science that the audience will have not seen in the media, from politicians or in reports on the science. Like Al Gore, Monckton is not a scientist and he has as much right as Al Gore to talk about climate change. His scientific approach is one of enquiry rather than advocacy. He talks about correct scientific method and quotes T. H. Huxley on scepticism being the improver of knowledge:

“The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, scepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin.”

He then explains that the debate is not about whether we can freely pollute the planet without care for our fellow creatures, or their or our future, or whether we are adding greenhouse gases to atmosphere, because we are, or that adding greenhouse gases doesn’t enhance temperature – because it does.

Monckton turns his attention to climate alarmism about what might happen if the planet becomes a little warmer, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports.

Monckton points out that Sir John Houghton, the first IPCC chairman, said, “unless we announce disasters no one will listen.”

Al Gore is quoted as saying “I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is.”

The science is being exaggerated to make people listen and there is political bias regardless of scientific truth. Hurricane expert Chris Landsea, resigned from the IPCC in 2005, saying, “I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized.”

Monckton shows the error that he found in the supposedly highly scrutinised 2007 IPCC report on the melting of Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, where there are four wrong decimal points causing the figures to be in error by a facor of 10. See more here on page 14.

The IPCC is a ‘corporation’ that puts itself first. It therefore has an interest in maintaining its existence and status.

In order to demonstrate IPCC political bias, Monckton shows 3 statements that were in the 1995 IPCC draft report:

1. None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gasses.

2. No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of observed of observed climate change] to anthropogenic causes.

3. Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced.

Politicians 'got at it' and took out the above from the final report which stated:

“The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.”

The Consensus is questioned. Monckton suggests that the BBC has abandoned objectivity and then quotes a literature study of 539 papers published between 2004 and 2007, using the search term’ global climate change,’ where only one paper claimed catastrophe, but offered no evidence.

Hansen’s 1988 temperature predictions are examined. Scenario ‘C’ was based on CO2 in the atmosphere being stabilised, but the actual temperature trend has tracked this despite the non-stabilisation of CO2.

So are today’s temperatures unprecedented? Monckton talks about the Medieval Warm Period. The UN IPCC report of 1990 showed a clear Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and a Little Ice Age (LIA), but the IPCC 2001 report showed the ‘Hockey Stick’ graph 6 times in colour with no MWP. So how was this achieved? Data showing a hockey stick shape from Sheep Mountain in California was given 390 times the weighting of the data Mayberry Slough in Arizona, which had a MWP.

The tree ring data set that included MWP was left out, despite the researchers saying that it was included in the publications of 1998 and 1999. It was actually in a computer file marked ‘censored data.’ Monckton asserted that researchers should make both data and methods available to be checked by other scientists. The US National Academy of Sciences panel described the hockey stick as plausible at best, and the ‘validation skill’ not significantly different from zero.

Monckton then provides some of the evidence for a warm MWP:

Data from 6000 bore holes give a rough idea that there was a warm MWP, Stalagmites from the Austria Alps and Southern Africa, Sediments from Sombre lake, Signy Island in Maritime Antarctica, and Lake Huguangyan, Leechow, South China. Formanifera from the NorthWestern Arabian Sea, Oman. The Sargasso sea, North Island NZ, sediment core from Spanish Pyrenees, pollen profile from Northern Fennoscandia, 3 examples of glacial variations from Swiss Alps. Canada, British Columbia, Azores, two from coastal Peru, the summit of Greenland ice sheet. He then shows a graphic of a timescale sensitive reconstructed Northern Hemisphere temperature showing the MWP and the LIA. Next he shows a Sediment-based treeline for the species ‘Zelkova Carpinifolia’ demonstrating the Holocene Climate Optimum, the Roman Warm Period, and the MWP. He presents a slide of a 1340AD tree stump in California, well above today’s tree-line.

Monckton points out that warmer is better - most species live in the tropics and hardly any at the poles. He concludes that, because there was a MWP up to 3C warmer than today:

1. Today’s temperatures are not exceptional

2. Nature caused medieval climate warming

3. There was no medieval climate cataclysm

4. Nature may be causing most warming today

5. Climate catastrophe is not looming or likely

He then moves on to talk about natural causes of climate change where his attention inevitably turns to the sun.

First he mentions William Herschel who in 1801 noticed an inverse correlation between the number of sunspots in the 11-year cycle and the price of grain. He then quotes Solanki (2004) who claimed that the past 70 years of solar activity exceptional and similar to 8000 years ago. During the past 11400 years the sun has spent only 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all earlier higher periods of activity were shorter than the current episode.The Sun has been more active than at any time since the last ice age

Monckton then shows a graph for 1880 – 1990 of CO2 and temperature mismatch, pointing out that there is not a good correlation.

A graph of solar cycle length plotted against temperature is a better match – Solanki/Fligg (1999), as is the Central England Temperature (CET) series plotted against sunspot number, for1750 to 2000.

The next slide is from Neff et al (2001), showing Monsoon activity tracking solar activity, followed by a graph of solar activity versus temperature for the Arctic (Soon, 2004).

So, how much influence can the sun have? A slide of the CET, the world’s longest instrumental temperature series, shows a 2.2C rise in just 35 years, 1700 to 1735, suggesting that the sun was the cause of the recovery from the Maunder Minimum. Monckton concedes that this is evidence from one place and one temperature series, but it is evidence nevertheless. He then shows a slide of the rising trend in solar activity from 1715 attributed to NASA’s David Hathaway, followed by conclusions from the International Astronomical Union Symposium in 2004:

1. Solar changes cause most climate change

2. Solar cycles are 11, 80, and 200 years long

3. The Sun caused today’s global warming

4. Today’s warming is normal, not unusual

5. Today’s global warming will end soon

So how do we distinguish natural from anthropogenic warming?

CO2 and temperature is not a good match as we have already seen.

A good match is temperature anomalies for 1979 to 2001 and tropical outgoing long wave radiation. Why? The sun is incident on the tropics – the azimuth angle is 90 degrees – so most heating is in the tropics - the atmospheric transport engine takes heat away from tropics to northern latitudes and to a lesser extent southern latitudes. So, the tropics are the place to look for a ‘hot spot’ of anthropogenic warming. Monckton shows the IPCC 2007 modelled climate forcings for anthropogenic greenhouse gasses, aerosols, ozone, plus solar and volcanic. If they are combined into a single graph, there should be an anthropogenic fingerprint or hot spot in the tropics. However, the fingerprint is absent from the actual troposphere data, or shows only a small signal at best, suggesting a small effect of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Monckton then discusses some of reasons why computer models are wrong and can’t provide proof of anthropogenic global warming, whereas a mathematical model of the pythagorous theorem can provide absolute proof. Physical sciences with inadequate data cannot provide proof. He quotes Syun-Ichi Akasofu as saying, “No supercomputer, no matter how powerful, is able to prove definitively a simplistic hypothesis that says the greenhouse effect is responsible for warming.”

Next, Monckton discusses the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and the huge range of temperature changes published in the literature for a doubling of CO2. Monckton’s own calculation, based on IPCC 2007, is 1.6C for a doubling of CO2, but the IPCC says 3C. He points out that Svante Arrhenius calculated a 4C to 8C temperature change for a doubling of CO2 in 1896, but in 1906, he had the Stefan-Boltzmann equation available to him and re-calculated everything to give 1.6C.

With the wide range of temperature predictions in mind, Monckton looks at the constraints on CO2, which mean that it is not a major factor in climate:

In 1750, CO2 was 0.03% by volume in the atmosphere; in 2007 it is about 0.04%, a change of +0.01%. The IPCC has reduced CO2 forcing by one-fifth in 12 years (1995 to 2007), yet it has kept climate sensitivity at 3C.

Monckton shows a graph of CO2 v temperature over 600,000 years where CO2 and temperature often go in opposite directions, suggesting CO2 is not the main driver of global temperature. The IPCC admits that CO2 went up to about 6000 ppmv in the Cambrian period and the global average temperature was 22C. He claims CO2 residency time is about 5 to 10 years from various publications. The IPCC claim 50 to 200 years based on “the time required for the atmosphere to adjust to a future equilibrium state if emissions change abruptly,” (IPCC 1990). Monckton considers that the IPCC definition has nothing to do with a genuine residency time.

Monckton’s conclusions on the constraints on CO2 as a cause of global temperature change are:

1. There is very little additional CO2 in the air

2. CO2 has few principle absorption bands

3. At the surface, water vapour dominates CO2

4. CO2’s effect diminishes logarithmically

5. CO2 is not potent, only 1/23 the effect of CH4

6. There’s no tropical mid-troposphere hot spot

7. CO2’s atmospheric residency time is short

8. CO2 correlates very poorly with temperature

He then moves on to some of the ’35 errors’ in Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth,’ which I won’t dwell on as they are explained in detail here.

Monckton then discusses CO2 emissions saying that China is the one to watch; if the UK reduced emissions to zero, then they would be made up by just the increase in Chinese emissions in less than 2 years. Apply that to Europe, US and Canada, and then China plus India would make up the difference in their own emissions growth in 10 to 15 years. Shutting down the western economy will therefore not make any difference.

He presents a graphic of child mortality up to the age of 5 per thousand born, against CO2 emissions demonstrates that the higher the CO2 emissions per capita, the lower the child mortality. Population increase is faster in developing countries – denying developing CO2 emissions will likely increase their populations.

Monckton then attacks what he calls the murderous ‘Precautionary Principle’ as an expedience used by environmentalist lobby to push policies that would otherwise be unacceptable. He looks at two previous global scares: one real, and one bogus where the policies were wrong because of the effect of pressure groups.

The first is HIV, where he says the correct policy would have been to isolate cases in order to prevent spread of the disease, but this was regarded as totally unacceptable.

The result: 25 million died, with 40 million infected worldwide. 0.7% infected in the US, 1% is the epidemic threshold. 7.5% infected south of the Sahara.

The second is Malaria, where the 3 letters ‘DDT’ are absent from IPCC ramblings in its latest report.

Before DDT was ‘banned,’ there were 50,000 deaths per year from Malaria. After the ban, there were 1,000,000 deaths per year. As a result, excess deaths are put at between 30 and 50 million.

On 15th September 2006, the DDT ban was lifted by WHO. Dr Arata Kochi or WHO said, “Quite often in this field politics comes first and science second. We must take a position based on the science and the data.”

Monckton then addresses the claim by Gore and others that there are ‘moral issues’ in the climate change debate. He agrees that there are - exaggeration, alarmism, false claims, false claims of consensus, to allow insertion of false claims or data into reports by politicians, to exalt computer models over data, lack of objectivity, inflicting energy starvation, false denial of past temperatures higher than today’s, claiming extreme weather events are caused by humans, and so on, are all moral issues.

He concludes with reference to the human race, “We must get the science right, or we shall get the policy wrong. We have failed them and failed them before. We must not fail again.”

After the applause dies down, there is time for a number of good questions, which Monckton handles well. In my view the presentation was well prepared, well referenced and eloquently delivered, with emotional pleas over the genuine moral issues. Christopher Monckton comes across as a sincere man who is persuaded by objective science. The cause of climate realists has been enhanced by his involvement in the climate change debate, and this DVD is recommended viewing for those seeking an antidote to the daily dose of climate alarmism in the media, or an alternative scientific perspective.

The DVD is available here.

18th February 2008

Paul Biggs

Posted by Paul at 12:48 AM | Comments (46) | TrackBack

February 14, 2008

Call for Australian-NZ Royal Commission on Global Warming

A group of Australian and New Zealand organisations and scientists called on the governments of Australia and New Zealand to set up an Australia New Zealand Royal Commission on the Science of Global Warming (to be known as “the ANZIG Royal Commission” – the Australia New Zealand Inquiry into Global Warming).

Excerpt: We are all of the view that CO2 in the atmosphere is a benefit not a threat to humans, and there is no need to launch a massive assault on our lifestyle, industry and prosperity to solve a non problem. […] “The science is definitely not settled. Hundreds of qualified independent scientists around the world now question whether sufficient attention has been paid to the proven historical influence of natural solar cycles, and many other aspects of climate science. Since the scientific investigations for the IPCC fourth assessment report were completed 18 months ago, new research and new observations have cast serious doubt on many of the IPCC’s conclusions. "Everyone, from the highest government minister to the lowliest taxpaying consumer, must realise that unless it can be proved beyond reasonable doubt that carbon dioxide causes excessive global warming, there is no justification for imposing restrictions and costs on emitters of carbon dioxide. These burdens will pass inevitably on to the whole community, and will fall most heavily on those who can least afford them. No valid, verifiable scientific proof has yet been established. All we have are hypotheses and speculations based on computer models. Governments have a duty to create an opportunity for the full range of scientific evidence to be examined and evaluated. This can best be done by way of a Royal Commission of Inquiry,” Mr Forbes continued.

The full press release is reproduced below:

Thursday, 31 January 2008, 9:42 am
Press Release: New Zealand Climate Science Coalition
31 January 2008 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
(being released simultaneously in Australia and New Zealand)

Time for an Australia New Zealand Royal Commission on Global Warming.

A group of Australian and New Zealand organisations and scientists today called on the governments of Australia and New Zealand to set up an Australia New Zealand Royal Commission on the Science of Global Warming (to be known as “the ANZIG Royal Commission” – the Australia New Zealand Inquiry into Global Warming).

The chairman of Australia’s Carbon Sense Coalition, Mr Viv Forbes, said that many groups and individuals in Australia and New Zealand had listened with alarm and disbelief to plans of both governments to saddle their people and industries with the burdens of carbon taxes and the risks of carbon trading which he described as “an open invitation to massive fraud”.

“We also fear the enormous costs of taxing and decimating our backbone industries of farming, mining, power generation, cement making, forestry, mineral processing and tourism and subsidising many expensive and ineffective alternate energy proposals. The very high costs to society of the actions being proposed require that we settle the science before forcing the whole ANZ community into a futile and expensive exercise to solve a problem that may not exist. ‘Do it just in case’ is not an option.

“The Australian Government has set up the Garnaut Review to look into the likely costs of various proposals for reducing carbon dioxide emissions. However, we need a parallel independent inquiry into the science to determine whether any action at all is required.

“The science is definitely not settled. Hundreds of qualified independent scientists around the world now question whether sufficient attention has been paid to the proven historical influence of natural solar cycles, and many other aspects of climate science. Since the scientific investigations for the IPCC fourth assessment report were completed 18 months ago, new research and new observations have cast serious doubt on many of the IPCC’s conclusions.

"Everyone, from the highest government minister to the lowliest taxpaying consumer, must realise that unless it can be proved beyond reasonable doubt that carbon dioxide causes excessive global warming, there is no justification for imposing restrictions and costs on emitters of carbon dioxide. These burdens will pass inevitably on to the whole community, and will fall most heavily on those who can least afford them. No valid, verifiable scientific proof has yet been established. All we have are hypotheses and speculations based on computer models. Governments have a duty to create an opportunity for the full range of scientific evidence to be examined and evaluated. This can best be done by way of a Royal Commission of Inquiry,” Mr Forbes continued.

“Australia and New Zealand are both heavily dependent on primary production and world trade, neither have nuclear power, and both are leaders in science in the southern hemisphere. The whole hemisphere would be very damaged by the global warming extremism of Al Gore and old Europe. Al Gore is more motivated by extreme Green politics than scientific truth while Old Europe believes that their nuclear capacity protects them from the carbon costs they plan to impose on others.”

Mr Forbes said that this proposal is the joint initiative of The Carbon Sense Coalition based in Australia and the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, and is supported by individual scientists and industry representatives such as:

- Leon Ashby (Mt Gambier, SA), Chairman Landholders Institute, President Bushvision, and Centenary medal recipient for services to conservation and the environment.

- The Australian Beef Association, via its chairman Brad Bellinger (Ashford, NSW), director John Niven (Grenfell, NSW), director John Carter (Crookwell, NSW) and director, John Michelmore BAppSc(Chem), (Eyre, SA).

- Professor Bob Carter (QLD), palaeontologist, stratigrapher, marine geologist and environmental scientist, a research Professor at James Cook University (Qld) and University of Adelaide (SA).

- Howard Crozier (NSW), councillor of the NSW Farmers Federation and previously General Manager Finance and Administration of CSIRO.

- Emeritus Professor Lance Endersbee AO, Former Dean of Engineering and Pro-Vice Chancellor, Monash University. Past President, The Institution of Engineers, Australia (1980). Author, “A Voyage of Discovery”, a history of ideas about the earth (2005).

- Bryan Leyland MSc, FIEE, FIMechE, FIPENZ, MRSNZ, consulting engineer to the power industry and chairman of the Economics Panel of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition.

- Owen McShane, director of the Centre for Resource Management Studies in New Zealand, and chairman of the policy panel of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition.

- Dr Muriel Newman (NZ), proprietor of the New Zealand Centre for Political Research.

“We are all of the view that CO2 in the atmosphere is a benefit not a threat to humans, and there is no need to launch a massive assault on our lifestyle, industry and prosperity to solve a non problem.

“We have four recommendations:

1. That the Australian and New Zealand governments commission a joint public inquiry to investigate and report on the science underlying the claims that man-made CO2 causes dangerous global warming. This enquiry must consider whether it is likely that human activity has had a significant effect on global warming and the extent to which the policies being proposed to cut man’s greenhouse gas emissions are likely to affect global warming or any other aspects of climate.

2. That the inquiry be under the charge of at least three commissioners including at least one Australian and one New Zealander, preferably well qualified in science and able to take an objective, independent view of the IPCC process. The chairman should be skilled in obtaining and assessing evidence. (To ensure it has full jurisdiction in both countries, each government may appoint its own enquiry with one or two commissioners, and a common chairman, with meetings to be held concurrently, some in each country).

3. That the inquiry have the power and funding to initiate wide ranging scientific inquiries into all aspects of present knowledge on climate and to take and consider evidence on climate change and to analyse the likely effects of currently proposed policies on reducing carbon emissions.

4. That until such an inquiry has reported, no steps be taken to institute an emissions reduction programme of any kind in Australia or New Zealand.

Mr Forbes said that it is clear there is growing concern among the world scientific community about the conclusions being promoted by the IPCC.

“In contrast to the 2000 or so scientists who are claimed to have contributed to the IPCC (many of whom do not support the extremist political conclusions promoted by the IPCC) there are at least 20,000 scientists who have signed their names in public opposition to the IPCC. (See references below).

“In addition, many organisations, think tanks and business leaders have voiced opposition to the radical proposals from the IPCC, and many more are quietly dismayed. There is no consensus about the science, even if scientific questions could be decided by a show of hands. Scientific questions are determined by facts and evidence, and this is what a Royal Commission can discover and make public.

“In further support of this proposal we have appended links to various submissions made recently to the Garnaut Enquiry, and other relevant documents,” Mr Forbes concluded.

Terry Dunleavy, secretary of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition,
comments: “An ANZ approach to this vital issue is a natural flow-on from close co-operation already existing between the two trans-Tasman neighbours. Australia and New Zealand have one of the most open economic and trade relationships of any two countries. This is based on a comprehensive set of trade and economic arrangements, collectively known as Closer Economic Relations (CER), which underpin substantial flows of merchandise trade, services, investment, labour and visitors between the two countries. Implemented in 1983, CER has already seen such joint official bodies as:

• ANZSFA, the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Authority;

• JAS-ANZ covering classifications and standards in official statistics;

• Ensis, a joint venture of forestry R & D.

• Negotiations to form a joint Australia New Zealand Therapeutics Agency.

“In New Zealand, government advocates of a carbon emissions trading regime have referred to the desirability of harmonising with Australia. Surely, it is logical to first establish that there is scientific justification for the imposition of an economically burdensome carbon emissions scheme, before going down that costly track, whether together or separately. Two countries as close together as we are in so many official ways should have no difficulty in sorting out any jurisdictional complexities arising from the creation of a joint ANZAC Royal Commission to look at an issue that is so common to us both," said Mr Dunleavy.

ENDS

1415 words

Authorised by:

Viv Forbes, BScApp, FAusIMM, FSIA
Chairman
The Carbon Sense Coalition
www.carbon-sense.com

Terry Dunleavy, MBE, JP
Secretary
The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition
New Zealand
http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php

Dr Muriel Newman
Director
New Zealand Centre for Political Research
Whangarei.
New Zealand
http://www.nzcpr.com/About.htm

Brad Bellinger
Chairman
Australian Beef Association
NSW

Howard Crozier
Executive Councilor of NSW Farmers Association
Australia.

--

References:

1. Submission by the Carbon Sense Coalition to the Garnaut Review:
http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/garnaut-submission.pdf

2. Submission by the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition to the New Zealand Parliament in 2006, calling for a Royal Commission: http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=205&itemid=1

3. Submission by The Lavoisier Society to the Garnaut Review: http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/GarnautFinalSubmission.pdf

4. Submission by Prof Bob Carter to the Garnaut Review:
http://carbon-sense.com/2008/01/30/submission-to-the-garnaut-review-by-prof-r-m-carter

5. Submission by Howard Cozier to the Garnaut Review: See Garnaut Review website.

6. Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made global warming: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12

7. 20,000 scientists sign petition against global warming hysteria:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/

8. Over 100 Prominent Scientists Warn UN: Attempting To Control Climate Is Futile:
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164002
In 1997, fully 90% of US State Climatologists did NOT agree with the ADW Hypotheses (Quoted in Singer and Avery, 2007, 65-66)

9. Recent observations show that the world has not warmed since 1998, and 2007 is the coolest year since 2000:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2641
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2007/08/08/1998-no-longer-the-hottest-year-on-record-in-usa/

10. Recent research shows the solar cycles, cosmic rays and clouds have a major effect on our climate:
Svensmark, H. and Calder, N., 2007. The Chilling Stars – a new theory of Climate Change, Icon Books. ISBN-10: 1-84046-815-7
http://carbon-sense.com/2007/12/30/climate-change-is-nothing-new/

11. It is generally agreed that if greenhouse warming was occurring, the strongest warming would be in the upper atmosphere above the tropics. Recent research shows this is not occurring, which indicates that warming is not being caused by greenhouse gases:
Douglass, D.H., J.R. Christy, B.D. Pearson, and S.F. Singer. 2007. A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions. International Journal of Climatology, DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651.

12. Australian Parliamentary Enquiry. Dissenting report on Geo-sequestration:
http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/geosequestration-dissent.pdf

13. Prof David Henderson: Governments are Mishandling Climate Change Issues:
http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=181&itemid=1

14. Program for International Climate Change Conference in New York:
http://carbon-sense.com/2008/01/28/the-2008-international-conference-on-climate-change/

15. “Climate Change Re-examined”, Joel Kauffman, 2007:
http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/ccr.pdf

16. Lance Endersbee reported that temperature readings from 27 rural ground stations in Australia showed no sign of global warming over the 110 years of temperature records (to 1990). (Endersbee, L, 2005 “A Voyage of Discovery”, Fig 142 , page 244).

Posted by Paul at 01:48 AM | Comments (19) | TrackBack

February 13, 2008

2030: Entire World's Current CO2 Emissions to be Equalled by China?

It's long been said said that China was adding one new coal power plant per week to its grid. But the real news is worse: China is completing two new coal plants per week. If China's carbon usage keeps pace with its economic growth, the country's carbon dioxide emissions will reach 8 gigatons a year by 2030, which is equal to the entire world's CO2 production today. If the Chinese economy steps into our carbon footprint, all other greenhouse gas reduction efforts will be for naught.
Alexis Madrigal, Wired, 8 February 2008

China has one of the largest coal reserves in the world, and coal accounts for 67% of its primary energy use, compared with 24% for the world average. China is currently bringing two additional coal-fired power plants to the electric power grid every week. In a hypothetical scenario in which carbon intensity keeps pace with a GDP growth rate of 7%, by 2030, China would be emitting as much as the world as a whole is today (8 GtC/year).
Ning Zeng et al., Science, 8 February 2008

Faced with electricity shortages in more than half the country, the Communist Party responded with an old-style mobilization campaign. Last week, President Hu Jintao visited the Tashan mine and ordered all state-owned mines to produce more coal, and produce it faster, in order to guarantee supply for power plants in the south.
The New York Times, 9 February 2008

China has long been a huge supplier of coal to itself and the rest of the world. But in the first half of last year, it imported more than it exported for the first time, setting off a near-doubling of most coal prices around the world. For the world, which uses coal for about 40% of its electricity, the result is similar to what happened after China became a net importer of oil in 1993.
The Wall Street Journal, 12 February 2008

Posted by Paul at 06:36 AM | Comments (26) | TrackBack

Observations on January's Temperatures

The blogosphere is buzzing with talk of global non-warming or even global cooling.

First, another sceptic for Marc Morano's list:

Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Art Douglas recently retired Chair of the Atmospheric Sciences Department Creighton University in Omaha Nebraska:

Capital Press

Ice pack belies global warming

Excerpt: Whatever the weather, Douglas said, it's not being caused by global warming. If anything, the climate may be starting into a cooling period. Many were greatly alarmed at melting sea ice near the North Pole with about one-third of the normal ice pack melted by 2007. But Douglas said between November 2007 and January 2008 the entire Arctic Ocean froze over, with the ice pack forming farther south than normal. Ice is forming in places in Korea and Alaska where it normally doesn't, and Siberia's January snow cover was extensive. "We've really never seen anything like this for many, many years," he said. And the impact has been enormous, with China importing coal "because of a super-cold winter." The amount of sea ice is the largest ever seen in the Southern Hemisphere, and it has even snowed in Buenos Aires, Douglas said. "Within four or five months, it appears that a warming trend can go very rapidly in the other direction." Douglas said the climate can quickly correct itself, restoring lower average temperatures in as little as two years. He said he doubts global warming. He said if greenhouse gases were responsible for global warming, both the Arctic and Antarctic would be experiencing warming, but they aren't. Douglas said he believes the weather patterns the world is now experiencing are regional phenomena and not a global pattern. He also noted that the warmest year on record was 1998, but questioned why, if we're in a warming trend, it hasn't gotten any warmer than it was that year. Douglas said warming trends put more moisture in the atmosphere, resulting in more snow, which leads to cooling.

Lubos Motl's The Reference Frame:

GISS: January 2008 was the coldest month since May 1995

Recently we noticed that according to the satellite data, January 2008 was the coldest month since 2000.

However, NASA's GISS led by James Hansen offers us a more impressive figure extracted from the weather stations (land) and sea surface temperatures (ocean) - a methodology that normally leads to the fastest warming trend. According to the global temperature anomaly in January 2008 was 0.12 °C, the coldest reading since May 1995 when it was 0.08 °C: Hansen's team hasn't seen a cooler month for more than 150 months, not even during the 1995-1996, 1998-2000, 2000-2001 La Ninas. Also, January 2008, the globally coldest January since 1989, was exactly 0.75 °C cooler than January 2007.

If we were fans of the alarm and extrapolated the latter trend, we would deal with 75 °C of global cooling per century. That could indeed be a catastrophe. ;-) If we extrapolated the 0.28 °C month-on-month cooling since December, the cooling would remove 336 °C per century, dropping below 0 Kelvins before 2100. :-) Entertainingly enough, January 2008 was also 0.27 °C (anomaly-wise) colder than June 1988 when Hansen gave his infamous testimony before the U.S. Congress, predicting a dangerous warming in the following 20 years.

No, I am not comparing apples and oranges here. January 2008 was also 0.39 °C colder than January 1988. Incidentally, NCDC shows January 2008 as the global lands' coldest January since January 1982.

La Nina (now referred to as a "strong one") might be insufficient to explain the recent cool weather. An unusually quiet beginning of the solar cycle 24 might be another culprit. I won't really endorse the predictions of a new ice age but I find it obvious that the solar activity matters; see also sunspots and climate.

Joseph D'Aleo (a big shot meteorologist) argues that the temperature is strongly correlated with the ENSO index (El Nino vs La Nina) but it lags by 2 months or so. With this assumption, we should expect the global cooling to continue in the following months. Also, he argues that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) that switched to the cold phase during this winter (the Great Pacific Climate Shift II?) shouldn't be included separately: its effect is to increase the proportion of El Ninos (warm PDO phase) or La Ninas (cool PDO phase).

Anthony Watts of Watts Up With That?:

GISS Land-Ocean Index dives in Jan08, exceeding drops for UAH and RSS satellite data

Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) Land-Ocean Global temperature index data was released yesterday for the month of January, 2008. Like we’ve reported before for other datasets, including the RSS and UAH satellite temperature anomalies, GISS also had a sharp drop in January.

The GISS ΔT was -.75°C, which is larger than the satellite data from UAH ∆T of -.588°C and the RSS RSS ∆T of -.629°C

The ΔT of -.75°C from January 2007 to January 2008 appears to be the largest single year to year January drop for the entire GISS data set.

This is yet one more indication of the intensity of planet-wide cooler temperatures seen in January 2008, particularly in the Northern Hemisphere, which has seen record amounts of snow coverage extent as well as new record low surface temperatures in many places.

A note from blog contributor Arnost:

I'm not really sure that the strengthening of the La Nina is totally responsible for the January drop in temperatures. If you look at the latest NCDC global temp anomaly (+0.18C) and then at the component land and sea temps, it is the land temperatures that have plummeted - by something like 0.8C with the sea surface temps remaining more or less the same:

NCDC Global Combined
2007 11 0.4484
2007 12 0.3975
2008 1 0.1793
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/monthly.land_and_ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat

NCDC Global Land in deg C
2007 11 0.9856
2007 12 0.8042
2008 1 -0.0129
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/monthly.land.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat

NCDC Global Ocean
2007 11 0.2536
2007 12 0.2498
2008 1 0.2481
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/monthly.ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat

This suggests that the sea surface temps are not the driver.

It also must be remembered that the Nina did not really kick in until mid 2007, and typically there's up to a 6 month lag between ENSO and global temps. So its effects are only beginning to be felt now. Further, the Nina is at the moment only a borderline moderate/strong event - it does not make the top 7 over the last 60 years (check out Klaus Wolter's MEI page http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/people/klaus.wolter/MEI/ ). So the current drop in temperatures up to now have likely been caused by another factor. And only the December and January drops may be considered as significantly Nina influenced.

To be fair, I would point out that the GISS January land temp has not decreased as much as the NCDC number (down by 0.3C). GISS does not break-up the land and sea temperatures (as far as I know) so their numbers are: GISS Land + Sea in January +0.18C (down from 0.40C) GISS Land in January +0.31C (down from 0.60C).

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt

It will be interesting to see the HadCRU temps when they come out to see their split. It will also be interesting to see if NCDC corrects what probably is an error.

Posted by Paul at 05:01 AM | Comments (119) | TrackBack

Apocalypse? No! DVD Now Available

Are Al Gore and the UN right about global warming being a planetary emergency? NO! says Christopher Monckton in a 2007 presentation delivered at Cambridge University. Watch Lord Monckton place climate science into largely layman terms, exposing climate scare after climate scare. “Scientifically masterful, brilliantly composed, and emotionally moving,” says Dr. Laurence I. Gould, Professor of Physics, University of Hartford. DVD available in NTSC (US & Canada) and PAL (Europe and Asia).

Apocalypse? NO! Why 'global warming' is not a global crisis

Order from the demandDEBATE Store

I've asked for a review copy, so I'll post up my verdict in due course.

Posted by Paul at 05:00 AM | Comments (13) | TrackBack

February 08, 2008

New Analysis of the 2002 Larsen B Ice Shelf Collapse

A new paper has been published which examines the factors involved in the 2002 collapse of the Larsen B ice shelf in Antarctica.

The lead author, Professor Neil Glasser of Aberystwyth University (Wales, UK) was interviewed about the findings in the Western Mail on 7th February:

'Antarctic ice shelf did not just melt away'

Excerpt: Prof Glasser told the Western Mail, “Climate change may have been the last straw, but it was not the only straw.”

“Ice shelf collapse is not as simple as we first thought,” said Prof Glasser, lead author of the paper."

“Because large amounts of meltwater appeared on the ice shelf just before it collapsed, we had always assumed that air temperature increases were to blame."

“But our new study shows that ice-shelf break-up is not controlled simply by climate. A number of other atmospheric, oceanic and glaciological factors are involved."

“The location and spacing of fractures on the ice shelf such as crevasses and rifts are very important too, because they determine how strong or weak the ice shelf is.”

Prof Glasser pointed out that he is not a climate change sceptic.

The full paper entitled, 'A structural glaciological analysis of the 2002 Larsen B ice shelf collapse' is currently available for free download from the Journal of Glaciology.

The Abstract reads:

This study provides a detailed structural glaciological analysis of changes in surface structures on the Larsen B ice shelf on the Antarctic Peninsula prior to its collapse in February–March 2002. Mapped features include the ice-shelf front, rifts, crevasses, longitudinal linear surface structures and meltwater features. We define domains on the ice shelf related to glacier source areas and demonstrate that, prior to collapse, the central Larsen B ice shelf consisted of four sutured flow units fed by Crane, Jorum, Punchbowl and Hektoria/Green/Evans glaciers. Between these flow units w