John Penhallurick’s Blog 14. The Truth about Glaciers

The IPCC and its supporters claim that one of the major effects of global emissions is to cause glaciers to retreat, with the clear implication that if we don’t drastically reduce our emissions of CO²,they will disappear.
No-one can forget the claim in the IPCC’s 2007 report that the galciers in the Himalayas would disappear by 2035.

The IPCC’s report in 2007 said “glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate.” The claim appears in the full report, but not in the more widely read “Summary for policymakers”.

The claim was attributed to a report by the campaign group WWF, but in the New Scientist article, Guardian writer Fred Pearce noted that WWF had cited a 1999 interview in the magazine with Indian glaciologist Syed Hasnain as the source of the claim. Hasnain told the magazine last week that “it is not proper for IPCC to include references from popular magazines or newspapers”.

However there is clear scientific evidence that glaciers have at least as far back as the end of the last Ice Age regularly retreated, during warm periods, and advanced, during cool periods.

A new paper published in Quartenery Science Reviews (Munroe et al. 2012) finds that alpine glaciers in Glacier National Park, Montana retreated up to 6 times faster during the 1930′s and 1940′s than over the past 40 years.

The Multi-proxy study of sediment cores retrieved from lakes below modern glaciers supports the first detailed Neoglacial chronology for Glacier National Park (GNP) and shows maximum reconstructed retreat rates [in] 1930″ of about 125 meters per year, compared to near zero in ~1975 and about 20 meters/year at the end of the record in 2005.  The authors report, “Results indicate that alpine glaciers in Glacier National Park advanced and retreated numerous times during the Holocene after the onset of Neoglaciation 6,500 years before the present” and “Retreat from the Little Ice Age maximum was the most dramatic episode of ice retreat in at least the last 1000 years.”

Abstract:

A lacustrine-based Neoglacial record for Glacier National Park, Montana, USA

15 October 2012 Jeffrey S. Munroe | Thomas A. Crocker | Alena M. Giesche | Lukas E. Rahlson | Logan T. Duran | Matthew F. Bigl | Benjamin J.C. Laabs

Multi-proxy study of sediment cores retrieved from lakes below modern glaciers supports the first detailed Neoglacial chronology for Glacier National Park (GNP), Montana. Analysis focused on sedimentary properties sensitive to the extent and activity of upstream glacier ice, including: water, organic matter, carbonate, and biogenic silica content; bulk density; mass accumulation rate; phosphorus fractionation; magnetic susceptibility; L*a*b* color values; and grain size distribution. Results indicate that alpine glaciers in GNP advanced and retreated numerous times during the Holocene after the onset of Neoglaciation ca 6500 BP.

The two oldest phases of glacier expansion were synchronous with the well-documented Garibaldi (5600–6900 BP) and Tiedemann-Peyto (1900–3700 BP) phases in western Canada. Younger phases correspond with the First Millennium Advance in western Canada, as well as glacier with advances in the Sierra Nevada. The culminating Little Ice Age (LIA) advance was the most recent and extensive of a series of advance/retreat cycles over the past millennium. Retreat from the LIA maximum was the most dramatic episode of ice retreat in at least the last 1000 years.

Like everything else cited by the IPCC as caused by human emissions of CO² the advance and retreat of glaciers is a cyclical phenomenon, with natural causes.

John Penhallurick’s Blog 2 Evidence from past climate change

Evidence from past climate change

The IPCC and its supporters seem to assume that the climate showed no change prior to the advent of the industrial age in Europe. The authors and supporters of the notorious “Hockey Stick” version of climate change over the last 1,000 years certainly tried to give that impression. An obvious reason for this position is to try to show that the most recent warming is unique, and so must be due to changing human activities. This is a total fallacy. It is no accident that many of the scientists who do not subscribe to the IPCC’s propaganda come from a background as geologists or paleoclimatologists. It cannot be denied that there have been a number of significant climate changes over the last three thousand years, as can be seen in Figure 1. The highest temperatures in the last 11,000 years were during the Holocene  Climate Optima which occurred from about 8,000-6,000

Figure 1

Global Temperature Variation over the last 11,000 years

years BP and again from 5,000 to 3,500 BP. Then we have the Minoan Warming from about 3,200-2,900 years BP; then a very cold period from about 2,800-2,400 year BP. This was followed by the Roman Warming from about 2,300-1,700 year BP; the minor Dark Ages Cooling; then the Medieval Warm Period, followed by the Little Ice Age, and since about 190-180 years BP the Modern Warming. Such data are nonetheless embarrassing for the warmists’ case, as human emissions can have played no part in climate change prior to 1850. Taking account of this historical perspective, it is inconceivable that the recent warming is solely or even mainly due to a new factor, human emissions of CO², and that natural variability, which was responsible for all previous warmings and coolings, has suddenly stopped playing any role.

One response that I have received from supporters of the IPCC is to ask why we should worry about the past when the needs of the present and future are so important, which needs no further comment. Judged in terms of the requirements of objective, evidence-based science, such a response is beneatrh contempt. Another standard response to such data from such people is to claim that the climate fluctuations mentioned above affected only Europe. But these periods were worldwide in their effects. Just to cite evidence from the two most recent completed climate fluctuations: there is ample evidence that the Early Medieval Warming 900-1300 AD was global. Tree ring studies from California suggest North America was also warmer (see Becker, W. S. 2001). Greenland was settled by the Vikings during this period. In East Africa, the same period of warming is shown from evidence using sediments, fossil diatoms and numbers of species of midges, which shows alternating dry and wet conditions. China flourished during this period. In Argentina, the carbon chemistry of prehistoric villages shows that villagers clustered in the lower valleys during the Dark Age Cooling; that they moved upslope to 4300m in the Central Peruvian Andes during the period of the Early Medieval Warming, and that they moved back downslope with the onset of the Little Ice Age in 1320. (see Cioccale, M. A, 1999).

Recent scientific data suggest that far from the Early Medieval Warming being a minor and local fluctuation, temperatures up to 1° warmer than the current temperature occurred. Surge & Barrett (2012) stated: Seasonal sea-surface temperature (SST) variability during the Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA), which corresponds to the height of Viking exploration (800–1200 AD), was estimated using oxygen isotope ratios (δ¹⁸O) obtained from high-resolution samples micromilled from archaeological shells of the European limpet,Patella vulgata. Our findings illustrate the advantage of targeting SST archives from fast-growing, short-lived molluscs that capture summer and winter seasons simultaneously. Shells from the 10th to 12th centuries (early MCA) were collected from well-stratified horizons, which accumulated in Viking shell and fish middens at Quoygrew on Westray in the archipelago of Orkney, Scotland. Their ages were constrained based on artifacts and radiocarbon dating of bone, charred cereal grain, and the shells used in this study. We used measured δ¹⁸O_WATER values taken from nearby Rack Wick Bay (average 0.31 ± 0.17‰ VSMOW, n = 11) to estimate SST from δ¹⁸O_SHELL values. The standard deviation of δ¹⁸O_WATER values resulted in an error in SST estimates of ± 0.7 °C. The coldest winter months recorded in the shells averaged 6.0 ± 0.6 °C and the warmest summer months averaged 14.1 ± 0.7 °C. Winter and summer SST during the late 20th century (1961–1990) was 7.77 ± 0.40 °C and 12.42 ± 0.41 °C, respectively. Thus, during the 10th to 12th centuries winters were colder and summers were warmer by ~2°C and seasonality was higher relative to the late 20th century. Without the benefit of seasonal resolution, SST averaged from shell time series would be weighted toward the fast-growing summer season, resulting in the conclusion that the early MCA was warmer than the late 20th century by ~ 1 °C. This conclusion is broadly true for the summer season, but not true for the winter season. Higher seasonality and cooler winters during early medieval times may result from a weakened North Atlantic Oscillation index.

The beginning of the Little Ice Age 1280-1300 to 1850 AD (which none of the Climate models can explain) coincided with the Wolf Minimum of the Sun(1280-1340 AD). Other solar minima during this period include the Spörer Minimum (1450-1540 AD), the Maunder Minimum (1645-1715 AD), the coldest period in the Little Ice Age; and the Dalton Minimum (1795-1825 AD). Not surprisingly, since these events involved solar minima, their effects were experienced world-wide. That it affected all continents and all major islands from New Zealand in the South Pacific to Svalbard in the ArcticSea is clear. (see Grove, J. M. 1988) The Little Ice Age was not a uniformly cold episode, however. In Europe and North America, at least six phases of glacial expansion occurred. These were separated by warmer periods.

You can now either go back to my post no.1 to access all pages by clicking on the following line

1. Evidence that the IPCC’s case is a fraud.

or you can go on to the next document:

3. How the IPCC has corrupted science.

John Penhallurick’s Blog 13:The sun is the major factor in climate change

The sun is the major factor in climate change
It’s the sun, stupid!

The mention of solar irradiance points to another major failing of climate models: that they totally ignore the sun, which is the source of over 99% of the energy in the world, except for minor contributions from the molten core of the planet and the decay of radioactive elements. The Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) varies in an 11 year sunspot cycle, during which the sun builds up from a small to a large number of sunspots, which then again decline in number. The importance of the Solar cycle for climate on earth is convincingly demonstrated by the Maunder Minimum, which saw the lowest temperatures of the Little Ice Age. During one 30-year period within the Maunder Minimum, astronomers observed only about 50 sunspots, as opposed to a more typical 40,000-50,000 spots in modern times. The IPCC discounted the significance of the sun for increasing temperatures, because there has been only a 0.1% increase in TSI since the seventeenth century. But this is to forget the other ways in which the sun can influence climate:

• Variations in the intensity of the sun’s magnetic field with cycles including the Schwabe (eleven year), Hale (22 years) and Gleissberg (70-90 years).
• Effect of the sun’s plasma and electromagnetic fields on rates of the earth’s rotation, and hence the length of the day.
• Effect of the sun’s gravitational field through the 18.6 year Lunar Nodal Cycle, causing variation in atmospheric pressure, temperature, rainfall, sea-level and ocean temperatures, especially at high latitudes.
• Known links between solar activity and monsoonal activity, or the phases of climate oscillations such as the Atlantic Multidimensional Oscillation, a 60-year long cycle during which sea surface temperatures vary about 0.2°C above and below the long-term average, with effects on northern hemisphere air temperature, rainfall and drought.
• Magnetic fields associated with solar flares, which modulate galactic cosmic ray input into the Earth’s atmosphere.  This in turn may cause variations in the formation of low-level clouds. This causes cooling: a one per cent variation in low cloud cover producing a similar change in forcing to the estimated increase caused by human green-house gases.
• The 1500 year-long Bond Cycle, as a result of which the three most recent warm peaks of this cycle had a major effect on the Minoan, Roman and Medieval Warm Periods

As Robert Carter (2010) has stated: “That many of the mechanisms and possible mechanisms  by which the sun influences Earth’s climate are poorly understood is no justification for ignoring them.” Of immediate relevance is the fact that solar cycles longer than the eleven year average are followed by later cycles of lesser intensity, and with it a cooler climate.  According to Archibald (2010, Solar cycle 24 update. Available at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/02/solar cycle 24 Update.), Cycle 24 may produce cooling of up to 2.2°C for the mid-latitude grain-growing areas of the northern hemisphere. This may have already started. The winter of 2010-2011 in Europe began with an unusually cold November caused by a cold weather cycle that started in southern Scandinavia and subsequently moved south and west over both Belgium and the Netherlands on 25 November and into the west of Scotland and North East England on 26 November. This was due to a low pressure zone in the Baltics, with a high pressure over Greenland on 24 November. From 22 November 2010, cold conditions arrived in the United Kingdom, as a cold northerly wind developed and snow began to fall in northern and eastern parts, causing disruption. The winter arrived particularly early for the European climate, with temperatures dropping significantly lower than previous lows for the month of November. On 28 November, Wales recorded their lowest-ever November temperature of −17.3 C (1 F) in Llysdinam, and Northern Ireland recorded their lowest ever November temperature of −9.5 C (15 F) in Lough Fea. The UK Met Office issued severe-weather warnings for heavy snow for eastern Scotland and the north-east of England.

Dr. Vincent Courtillot, who is a professor of geophysics at the University Paris-Diderot and Chair of paleomagnetism and geodynamics of the Institut Universitaire de France, has pointed to the  failure of climate models in relation to the sun. He notes that while the total solar irradiance (TSI) only varies by about .1% over a solar cycle, the solar UV varies by about 10% and that secondary effects on cloud formation may vary up to 30% over solar cycles. The IPCC computer models dismiss the role of the sun by only considering the small variations of the TSI and ignore the large changes in the most energetic and influential part of the solar spectrum – the ultraviolet.  (See http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/05/courtillot-on-the-solar-uv-climate-connection/ )

The latest science on the sun predicts that it could very soon completely confound the IPCC’s ridiculous claims:

Astronomers: World may be entering period of global cooling

Posted on April 21, 2012by Anthony Watts

From the National Astronomical Observatory Of Japan (via Dr. Benny Peiser of The GWPF)

World May Be Entering Period Of Global Cooling:

The sun may be entering a period of reduced activity that could result in lower temperatures on Earth, according to Japanese researchers.

Officials of the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan and the Riken research foundation said on April 19 that the activity of sunspots appeared to resemble a 70-year period in the 17th century in which London’s Thames froze over and cherry blossoms bloomed later than usual in Kyoto.

In that era, known as the Maunder Minimum, temperatures are estimated to have been about 2.5 degrees lower than in the second half of the 20th century. The Japanese study found that the trend of current sunspot activity is similar to records from that period.

The researchers also found signs of unusual magnetic changes in the sun. Normally, the sun’s magnetic field flips about once every 11 years. In 2001, the sun’s magnetic north pole, which was in the northern hemisphere, flipped to the south.

While scientists had predicted that the next flip would begin from May 2013, the solar observation satellite Hinode found that the north pole of the sun had started flipping about a year earlier than expected. There was no noticeable change in the south pole.

If that trend continues, the north pole could complete its flip in May 2012 but create a four-pole magnetic structure in the sun, with two new poles created in the vicinity of the equator of our closest star.

Source:The Asahi Shimbun, 20 April 2012

You can either go back to my NO. 1 document to access any of the documents:

1.The sun is the major factor in climate change.
or you can go to the next document:

14.The truth about glaciers.

John Penhallurick’s Blog 11:The truth about Arctic Ice

Can human emissions of Carbon Dioxide be blamed for the retreat of Arctic Ice?

The retreat of Arctic Ice has been one of the signature claims from the The IPCC and its supporters, and was a major feature of that heavily flawed documentary from Al Gore, as being attributable to human carbon dioxide emissions. Yet there is ample evidence that in fact the ice retreats and advances fairly regularly.

Evidence readily available, principally from Russian sources, shows that the Arctic had as little ice in the period 1920-1940 as it has today. It is interesting to consider the following information. I am convinced that a lot of the evidence adduced by IPCC supporters of the effects of human emitted greenhouse gases are in fact cyclical. And hence due to natural causes

This is the abstract of a paper presented in Report   on Study of the Arctic Change Workshop held November 10-12, 1997 University   of Washington Seattle, Washington This report is available in full on the   Internet at http://psc.apl.washington.edu/publication/Arctic_Change/arctic.pdf.

“Arctic Warming” During 1920-40: A Brief Review of Old Russian Publications

Sergey V. Pisarev and P.P. Shirshov Institute of Oceanology Russian Academy of Science Moscow, Russia

 

The idea of Arctic Warming during 1920–40 is supported in Russian publications by the following facts:

• retreating of glaciers
• melting of sea islands
• retreat of permafrost
• decrease of sea ice amounts
• acceleration of ice drift
• change of cyclone paths
• increase of air temperature
• biological indications of Arctic warming
• ease of navigation
• increase in temperature and heat content of Atlantic Waters, entering Arctic Basin.

2. The reasons of Arctic Warming (according to old Russian publications)

3. Cooling in 1950–1960.

 

Retreating of glaciers, melting of islands, and retreat of permafrost

 

During the Persey cruise in 1934 Zubov noticed that the glaciers of Jan-Mayen and Spitsbergen were considerably reduced, relative to their sizes adduced in British sailing directions of 1911. Retreat of glaciers was observed also at Spitsbergen, Franz-Joseph Land, and Novaya Zemlya. The ice bridges between some of Franz-Joseph islands melted. Alman explored the glaciers of Spitsbergen in 1934 and came to the conclusion that they were melting. The observations of 1935–1938 showed that Iceland glaciers were melting too. According to Sumgin, the south boundary of permafrost shifted to the north by 40 km during 1905–1933.The disappearance of Vasilievsky Island in the Laptev Sea and washing away of the Lyakhovsky islands were phenomena of the same type.

 

The decrease of sea ice amounts in 1920–1940

The area of ice in the Greenland Sea in April–August of 1921–1939 was 15–20% less than in 1898–1920 (data of Karelin). In the Barents Sea. the area of ice was 12% less in 1920–1933 than in 1898–1920 (data of Zubov).Vise pointed out that since 1929 the south part of the Kara Sea in September was free of ice, while in 1869– 1928 the possibility of meeting ice there in September was about 30%.

The polar ice very often came close to the coast of Iceland in the last century and in the beginning of this century. During 1915–1940 the situation changed: no ice was observed in that region; negligible amounts of polar ice were noticed there only in 1929.

The thickness of ice determined during the Fram cruise was 655 cm; during the Sedov cruise it decreased to 220 cm (the reason for this was more intensive summer melting of ice).

Before Arctic warming, the strait of Jugorsky Shar froze near the 24th of November, but in 1920–1937 it became frozen two months later—in January.

The acceleration of ice drift

In spite of the fact that the amount of Arctic ice transported to the Greenland sea increased (established by Soviet expeditions in 1920–1940), the amounts of ice in that sea decreased because of the influence of factors promoting destruction and melting of ice:  an increase in the velocity and temperature of the Norway and Spitsbergen currents; an increase in the velocity of winds, connected with common intensification of atmospheric and hydrospheric circulation. The velocity of the drift of North Pole station in 1937 was 2.4 times greater than the velocity of Fram’s drift.

The increase of air temperature

According to Vise, in Varde (northeast of Norway) since 1918 the average annual air temperatures were higher than the average air temperature of the previous century (the exception was 1926, when the average temperature was lower by 0.2°C). Beginning with 1930, not one negative anomaly of average yearly or monthly temperature was observed in the whole Arctic sector from Greenland to Cape Tcheluskin, and during the same time the positive anomalies reached significant values: 1934/35 ± (4–10)°C, November in Spitsbergen ± 10°C.

Vise noticed, that the average annual temperatures observed during the Fram cruise (for the period of November 1893–August 1895) were lower by 4.1°C than those observed during the Sedov cruise (for the period of November 1937–August 1939), although the Fram and Sedov locations more or less coincided (Fram, 81°59’/113°26′; Sedov, 82°43’/121°30).

At the station Tikhaya (Franz-Joseph Land), temperatures below      – 40°C were never observed after 1929. But 10 expeditions in the archipelago before 1929 observed such temperatures every winter, except 1896.

According to Vise, near Dicson and Franz-Joseph Land the amplitudes of tides increased by 20–30% as a result of a decreasing amount of ice

 

Biological indications of Arctic warming

Knipovich, in 1921, was the first who paid attention to the changes of Arctic fauna. Marketable species of fish spread to the north after the beginning of the 20th century and fisheries in the north became more intensive. Some benthos species spread to the north.

The ornitofauna of the Arctic region changed: some species of birds (White Gulls) left their places of habitation, and some southern species were noticed in the far north (swans in Iceland).

Uspensky stated that 40–50 species of birds moved to the North during 1890–1930.

Ease of navigation

The sailing conditions in the Arctic region became much more favorable in 1920–1940. This can be proved by the following cruises:

• Knipovich, 1932 (round Franz-Joseph Land)
• Sibiryak, 1932 (round Severnaya Zemlya)
• sailing of non-icebreaking ships along North Sea Route in the 1930s no ice met
• possibility for non-icebreaking ships to double Novaya Zemlya every year since 1930.

The severe conditions of navigation in previous years can be proved by the following cruises:

• In 1912, the ship Foka, a member of the Sedov expedition, could not reach Franz-Joseph Land.
• In 1912, the ship St. Anna, a member of the Brusilov expedition, was trapped in ice near Yamal and carried out with the ice to the central Arctic.
• In 1901, the icebreaker Ermak failed to double Novaya Zemlya.

Increase of temperature and heat content of Atlantic Waters entering the Arctic Basin

• The waters of Nordcape Current (Zubov) became warmer by approximately 0.7°C in 1940–45 compared to the beginning of this century.
• In the regions adjacent to Spitsbergen and Franz-Joseph Land, the lower boundary of the cold intermediate layer rose from 150–200 m in the beginning of the century to 75–100 m in 1940–45.
• Not one station made during the Fram cruise showed Atlantic Waters exceeding a temperature of 1.13°C, but in 1935 (Sadko cruise) Zubov observed Atlantic Water temperatures reaching 2.68°C, and in 1938 (Sedov cruise) even in the places situated to the north and east of Fram’s drift (it must be colder there) the temperatures reached 1.8°C.
• According to Shokalsky, “the temperature of surface waters of the Gulfstream steadily rises from the beginning of our century.” The increase of surface waters’ temperature can also be seen (Shokalsky) in the other regions of the ocean subjected to the influence of the Gulfstream and the Atlantic Current.

The variation in the extent of Arctic ice is thus clearly cyclic.  It appears to be governed by a number of interacting natural cycles. One of these involves the Multidecadal North Atlantic Oscillation (AMO), the other the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO).

 

It appears certain that the main factors controlling the advance and retreat of Arctic Ice and two critical ocean currents: the  Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. The AMO is an ongoing series of long-duration changes in the sea surface temperature of the North Atlantic Ocean, with cool and warm phases that may last for 20-40 years at a time and a difference of about 1°F between extremes. These changes are natural and have been occurring for at least the last 1,000 years. During the positive phase relatively more warm water is carried north from the tropics, and the ice retreats. During the negative phase, less warm water is carried north and the ice advances. The website of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminsitration (Available at http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/amo_faq.php#faq_10 ) has the following section: Is the AMO a natural phenomenon, or is it related to global warming? Instruments have observed AMO cycles only for the last 150 years, not long enough to conclusively answer this question. However, studies of paleoclimate proxies, such as tree rings and ice cores, have shown that oscillations similar to those observed instrumentally have been occurring for at least the last millennium. This is clearly longer than modern man has been affecting climate, so the AMO is probably a natural climate oscillation. In the 20th century, the climate swings of the AMO have alternately camouflaged and exaggerated the effects of global warming, and made attribution of global warming more difficult to ascertain. On the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, Thayer Watkins of San Jose University in the United States (Available at http://www.applet-magic.com/AGT_PDO.htm ) makes the following statement: The record of average global temperatures from 1880 to 2008, as given below by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in terms of temperature anomalies (deviations from the long term average), shows a pattern of a cycle combined with a long term upward trend. The profile of the cycle and the slope of the long term trend can be estimated by means of regression analysis. The details of the estimation procedures are given elsewhere. The coefficient of determination (R²) for this regression is 88 percent. This means that 88 percent of the variation in average global temperature is explained by a long term trend of 0.5°C per century and a cycle which consists of an approximately thirty-year upswings and downswings. The regression analysis provides the basis for forecasts and backcasts which given in Cycles and Trends in Average Global Temperature and Their Projection and confidence limits for those forecasts and backcasts are given in Confidence Limits. The forecasts and backcasts are based upon the duration of the upswings and downswings being thirty two years and thus the cycle period being sixty four years. The cycle has persisted for the 155 years for which the global temperature data is available. The long term trend of 0.5°C per century quite likely is due to human activities, but from a variety of them rather than solely the production of carbon dioxide. The clearing of land for agriculture and city building goes back into the 19th century and is probably the major source. The increase in water vapor in atmosphere in arid and semi-arid areas due to irrigation, landscape watering, hydro projects and the burning of hydrocarbon fuels fuels is another. The increase in water in the atmosphere leads to a greater greenhouse effect and also the effect of more clouds on the climate. The other result of burning hydrocarbon fuels and of burning carbon (coal) is the increase in the carbon dioxide content of the air and its effect on the greenhouse effect. The long term trend is discernable but not catastrophic. The catastrophic predictions derive from an unjustified extrapolation of the short term cycle. The immediate question is what natural phenomenon can account for the approximately thirty-year cycle of upswings and downswings. One plausible candidate for this cycle is the Pacific (Multi)Decadal Oscillation (PDO). The Pacific Decadal Oscillation is a climate index based upon patterns of variation in sea surface temperature of the North Pacific. It is available from the Northwest Fisheries Science Center, a division of the NOAA Fisheries Service. It has been tabulated for the period 1900 to 2009 and is maintained by Dr. Nathan Mantua. It is the principal component of sea surface temperatures in the northern Pacific Ocean. According to ther Northwest Fisheries Science Center, The PDO index is correlated with many records of North Pacific and Pacific Northwest climate and ecology, including sea level pressure, winter land–surface temperature and precipitation, and stream flow. The index is also correlated with salmon landings from Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and California.The PDO is highly correlated with sea surface temperature in the northern California Current (CC) area; thus we often speak of the PDO as being in one of two phases, a “warm phase” and a “cool phase,” according to the sign of sea–surface temperature anomalies along the Pacific Coast of North America. These phases result from winter winds in the North Pacific: winter winds blowing chiefly from the southwest result in warmer conditions in the northern CC. Conversely, when winds blow chiefly from the north, upwelling occurs, leading to cooler conditions in the northern CC. The term Pacific Decadal Oscillation was coined by Fisheries scientist Steven Hare in 1996 as a result of his work on the connections between Alaska salmon production cycles and Pacific climate. The Pacific (Multi)Decadal Oscillation is sort of the big brother of El Niño, the Southern (Pacific) Oscillation (ENSO). The ENSO occurs sporadically with a time interval between episodes of something on the order of ten years. When an El Niño occurs there is often a spike in the average global temperature and weather is affected around the world. The perturbations due to ENSO events typically last only six to eighteen months. The oscillation is between warming phases (El Niño) and cooling phases (La Niña). The perturbations due to ENSO events typically last only six to eighteen months. The PDO involves a much bigger area of the ocean than the ENSO and the switch between warming and cooling phases takes a correspondingly longer time. Also because of the larger oceanic area involved the effect of the cycle of the PDO is also correspondingly larger spatially. Here is the graph of the annual average for the PDO. The quantity plotted is a simple annual average of the monthly data on the PDO as tabulated by the Northwest Fisheries Science Center. There is a good deal more noise for this data than for the average global temperature (AGT) data but the PDO index has a declining phase from 1900 to about 1919, as does the AGT. Then there is an upswing that lasts until the late 1930’s, as does the AGT. From there there is a downswing lasting until about 1970, as there is for the AGT. From cerca 1970, for both the PDO index and the AGT there is an upswing. For the AGT the upswing lasts until about 2005 whereas for the PDO the downswing begins before 1990. When a bent-line regression is fitted to the PDO index the result is as shown below. In the analysis the turning points were varied and selected to maximize the coefficient of determination. The coefficient of determination (R²) for this equation is 0.325. This indicates that there is a good deal of the variation in the PDO index that is not explainable by a pattern over time. As can be seen the slopes of the upswings are nearly equal and the slopes of the downswings are nearly equal. A regression line was fitted to the data in which the slopes of all the upswings are the same and all the slopes of the downswings are the same. As can be seen below the result looks nearly the same as the unconstrained regression shown above. The coefficient of determination (R²) for this equation is 0.316, nearly the same as that for the unconstrained regression. The big question is how closely can the cyclic profile of average global temperature (AGT) be related to that of the PDO index. The two profiles are shown together below. Or, to more easily view the correspondences and non-correspondences: There appears to a lag between the turning points of the PDO index and those of the AGT. This is as would be expected. However the magnitude of the lag varies which considerably weakens the use of the PDO as a predictor of the AGT. Although the correspondence is intriguing it is impossible to make it precise. The periods of the upswings and downswings for the PDO index is variable and is roughly 26 or 27 years. The corresponding period for the AGT is about 32 years. It is to be noted that a spectral analysis of average global temperatures comes up with a cycle period of about 52 years, corresponding to trends of 26 years in either direction. Conclusions Thus while the Pacific (Multi)Decadal Oscillation appears to be involved in the cycles of the average global temperature there has to be other factors also involved. The strong possibility is that the other oceanic oscillations such as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation are involved as well as the Pacific one. It is already accepted that the ENSO accounts for significant perturbations in the AGT record. The results of the above indicates that there is anthropogenic global warming but of a non-catastrophic 0.5° per century and probably only partially due to due to increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The more perceptible changes in average global temperature are undoubtedly due to oceanic oscillations, one major one being the Pacific (Multi)Decadal Oscillation. More work needs to be done on the PDO index to remove the apparent noise in the data. More work also needs to be done on the matter of cycle lengths and time lags. And finally the other oceanic oscillations have to be examined as supplements to the effect of the PDO. Over all the result is so reasonable and should have been obvious from the beginning. Average global temperature is driven by oceanic cycles and a secular trend of non-catastrophic proportions probably due to human activities. Once the tunnel vision focus on carbon dioxide is given up the truth emerges easily. Data has recently emerged about the North Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation,  in a paper published on Icecap (http://www.icecap.us/). AMO, THE KEY GLOBAL CLIMATE INDICATOR The AMO is an ongoing series of long-duration changes in the sea surface temperature of the North Atlantic Ocean, with cool and warm phases that may last for 20-40 years at a time and a difference of about 1°F between extremes. These changes are natural and have been occurring for at least the last 1,000 years. [per NOAA]. The AMO index is calculated at NOAAPSD by using the Kaplan SST data set [5×5], determining the area weighted average over the North Atlantic over 0-70N and then detrending this data. The average AMO index or the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation index went negative or cool in January 2009 The average for the first 5 months this year is about [-0.06] . It has been cooling since 2003. In the past, the very cold seasons of North America and especially the East coast happened when the annual average AMO went cool [ as low as -0 .405] in the 1970’s. It seems that this level of cool AMO may be several years off as the AMO cooling rate appears to be still slow. Back in 1964 it took about 8 years before the AMO went to [- 0.3] by 1971.Review of other periods for similar rates of decline of the AMO show a spread of about 2-8 years. However the solar activity was much higher during 1964-1972 and things may cool down faster currently with extended solar minimum and anticipated low future solar cycles. If AMO does drop faster, then the cold weather like 1964-1979 may be the norm here much sooner and the East Coast will cool down as well as will the globe. The most sustained number of low AMO levels was during the cold spell of 1902 -1925 and again the 1970’s. The graph below shows how closely Annual Global Air Temperature Anomalies [Crutem3] follow the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation Index [AMO]. GRAPH OF ANNUAL AMO INDEX VS GLOBAL ANNUAL AIR TEMPERATURE ANOMALY[CRUTEM3] 1964-2008-0.5-0.4-0.3-0.2-0.100.10.20.30.40.54567891970123456789198012345678919901234567892000123456789YEARSANNUAL AMO INDEX-0.4-0.3-0.2-0.100.10.20.30.40.50.6GLOBAL ANNUAL AIR TEMP ANOAMLY[C]ANNUAL AMO INDEXGLOBAL AIR TEMP ANOAMLY[CRUTEM3] Extreme AMO levels both cool and warm have clearly affected each of the following warm and cool global periods to account for the extreme global temperature anomalies Note that all AMO levels shown are annual average figures. RECORD AMO LEVELS DURING RECENT EXTREME WARM AND COLD PERIODS 1900-1926 COOL PERIODS [AMO NEGATIVE] Lowest global temperature anomalies ever especially 1902-1913 1904 -0.345[ 4th lowest ever 1913 -0 .386[ 2ND lowest ever] 1920 -0.330[6th lowest ever 1926-1944 WARM PERIOD [AMO POSITIVE] [Last global warming period prior to the 1994-2008 warming, the period of the 1930’s drought & dust bowl] 1944 0.360 2nd warmest] 1937 0.304 6th warmest ever] 1964-1976 COOL PERIOD [AMO NEGATIVE] [Latest cool phase post early 1900’s especially 1964-1976] 1974- 0.405[lowest ever] 1976-0.349 [ 3rd lowest ever] 1972 –0.338[ 5th lowest] 1994 -2008 WARM PERIOD [AMO POSITIVE] [Latest global warming period] 1998 0.402[highest ever] 2005 0.326[3rd highest] 2006 0.306[ 4th highest 2003 0.266[8th highest] 2004 0.240[10th highest YEARS WITH THE WARMEST SINGLE MONTH AMO 1878 0.636 1937 0.622 1998 0.562 WARMEST YEAR EVER 2003 0 .504 YEAR OF EUROPEAN HEAT SPELL 2005 0.503 SECOND WARMEST YEAR YEARS WITH THE COLDEST SINGLE MONTH AMO 1913 -0.563 10 Th COLDEST YEAR GLOBAL 1974 -0.495 2ND COLDEST YEAR IN LAST 30 YEARS 1904 -0.474 4TH COLDEST YEAR GLOBAL 1976 -0.464 COLDEST YEAR IN LAST 30 YEARS 1972 -0..460 COLDEST YEAR IN CANADA 1948-2008 GLOBAL WARMING EXPLAINED IPCC said that “Eleven of the last twelve years [1995-2006] rank among the twelve warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature [since 1850]” However, 13 OF THE WARMEST GLOBAL AIR TEMPERATURES happened during the 14 year period JAN 1995- DEC 2008 when PDO and AMO were essentially both warm or positive * and accounts for the global warming and the temperature records . Five of the 10 highest ANNUAL AMO levels occurred during this recent global warming period The numbers below show how the 3 highest monthly global temperature records were accompanied by 3 of the 5 highest single AMO index readings ever .Only1878 and 1937 had the higher monthly AMO levels. The single PDO readings were also high [around 2.0] during these peak periods. 1998 Highest Temperature anomaly [0.546C] AMO [0.562 3rd highest] 2005 Second Highest Temperature anomaly [0 .482C] AMO [0.503 5TH highest] 2003 Third Highest Temperature anomaly [0.473C] AMO [0.504 4th Highest] As one can see there was a similar warming period in 1926-1944. So global warming existed well before manmade green house gases started to rise after the 1940’s OUTLOOK FOR THE FUTURE Unlike the PDO, numerical models have been unable to predict AMO cycles with any accuracy. There are only about 130-150 years of data based on instrument data which are too few samples for conventional statistical approaches. With aid of multi –century proxy reconstruction, a longer period of 424 years was used by Enfield and Cid –Serrano to develop an approach as described in their paper called, The Probabilistic Projection of Climate Risk. [See reference below.] Their histogram of zero crossing intervals from a set of five re-sampled and smoothed version of Gray et al(2004) index together with the maximum-likelihood [MLE] gamma distribution fit to the histogram, showed that the largest frequency of regime interval was around 10 –20 year. The cumulative probability for all intervals 20 years or less was about 70 % . The last interval change was 1994 or about 15 years ago and according to their work, the probability that AMO will switch to cool in 15 years is about 80 % . Based on this analysis , there is a high probability that the current cooling phase of AMO which started in 2009 is real and likely sustainable for the next 20 years at least. The graph below shows the decline of the AMO index from warm to cool between 2005 and 2009 PLOT OF UNSMOOTHED MONTHLY AMO PER KAPLAN SST V2[NOAA/ESRL/PSD1] YEARS 2005-2009-0.2-0.100.10.20.30.40.50.620052006200720082009MONTHS AND YEARSMONTHLY UNSMOOTHED AMOMONTHLY UNSMOOTHED AMOLinear (MONTHLY UNSMOOTHED AMO)Linear (MONTHLY UNSMOOTHED AMO)Linear (MONTHLY UNSMOOTHED AMO)Linear (MONTHLY UNSMOOTHED AMO) The main climate indicator in my opinion in the near term] is likely going to be the cool AMO, cool PDO. ENSO events and the changing polar jet stream which swings more often now north before coming south or heading east, bringing cold air to most of North America, and specially the western half and subsequently east, as the our climate moves from west to east. The graph below shows the relationship between AMO and GLOBAL [ land and marine] TEMPERATURE ANOAMLIES [Hadcrut 3]. AMO appears to be like a thermostat or predictor of global temperatures. ENSO events if moderate or strong seem to modify, amplify or over-ride the AMO effects. GRAPH OF MONTHLY AMO INDEX VS MONTHLY HADCRUT3 GLOBAL LAND AND MARINE TEMPERATURE ANOMALY 2005 -200900.10.20.30.40.50.60.720052006200720082009MONTHSAMO INDEX -0.2-0.100.10.20.30.40.50.6HADCRUT 3 GLOBAL MONTHLY TEMPERATURE ANOMALY[C]hadcrut3 global monthly land +marineamo monthly indexLinear (amo monthly index)Linear (hadcrut3 global monthly land +marine)EL NINO>>>>>-ELNINOLA NINA SEPT-MAYxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxJAN-FEBAUG-JAN This pattern will continue to bring cool yearly temperatures and colder and snowy winters like 2008 and 2009. My best guess is that the climate of the 1960’and 1970’s will be our climate for the next several decades [2-3] at least, and inter-dispersed with periodic warm years. PDO and AMO readings are of limited value for short term use but quite useful and accurate for decadal forecasts .Currently 2009 looks something like 1971 [cool PDO, low cool/ near neutral AMO] and the rest of this decade looks like the 1970’s if you had pick one decade from the past . The 1960’s and the 1950 are also close behind .I also see that during the next few years, the AMO may go down to – 0.4 to -0.5 and PDO’s down to -2 to -2.5. La Nina’s may return and more often than El Nino’s [like in 1970-1976]. If this happens, then the polar jet stream often splits into two parts with the lower branch bringing more rain, snow and cooler weather to the US North west and the upper or north branch which still goes north to Alaska and Yukon and then south, bringing cold air to the western half Canada and the US. POSSIBILTY OF AN EL NINO 2009-2010 There has been an El Nino within about 12 months after each of the last four solar minimums. The same pattern seems to be developing again now. If an El Nino does develop later this year or early 2010, it may be a moderate or weak and short lived [about a year].It may have a minor effect on global temperatures , like in the period 1965-1966 when US temperatures continued to drop despite the El Nino. This latest period of cooler weather is not the start of some modern ice age or new grand cold minimum but just another cool cycle of the planet that happens about after every 20-30 years more recently when AMO and PDO are both in the cool mode simultaneously. The coldest last such cycle 1902-1925 when AMO hit a single month low of -0.563 and PDO went down to -1.72 and global air temperature anomalies plummeted to -0.581 C [crutem3] in 1911. Other such cool periods occurred 1964-1976 and also much earlier during the Dalton and Maunder Minimums. BACKGROUNDER ON AMO FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ATLANTIC MULTIDECADAL OSCILLATION [AMO] PARTIALLY REPRODUCED HERE PER NOAA WEBPAGE The AMO is an ongoing series of long-duration changes in the sea surface temperature of the North Atlantic Ocean, with cool and warm phases that may last for 20-40 years at a time and a difference of about 1°F between extremes. These changes are natural and have been occurring for at least the last 1,000 years. How much of the Atlantic are we talking about? Most of the Atlantic between the equator and Greenland changes in unison. Some area of the North Pacific also seem to be affected. What phase are we in right now? Since the mid-1990s we have been in a warm phase. What are the impacts of the AMO? The AMO has affected air temperatures and rainfall over much of the Northern Hemisphere, in particular, North America and Europe. It is associated with changes in the frequency of North American droughts and is reflected in the frequency of severe Atlantic hurricanes. It alternately obscures and exaggerates the global increase in temperatures due to human-induced global warming. How does the AMO affect rainfall and droughts? Recent research suggests that the AMO is related to the past occurrence of major droughts in the Midwest and the Southwest. When the AMO is in its warm phase, these droughts tend to be more frequent and/or severe (prolonged?). Vice-versa for negative AMO. Two of the most severe droughts of the 20th century occurred during the positive AMO between 1925 and 1965: The Dustbowl of the 1930s and the 1950s drought. Florida and the Pacific Northwest tend to be the opposite – warm AMO, more rainfall. How does the AMO affect Florida? The AMO has a strong effect on Florida rainfall. Rainfall in central and south Florida becomes more plentiful when the Atlantic is in its warm phase and droughts and wildfires are more frequent in the cool phase. As a result of these variations, the inflow to Lake Okeechobee – which regulates South Florida water – changes by 40% between AMO extremes. In northern Florida the relationship begins to reverse – less rainfall when the Atlantic is warm. http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/amo_faq.php AMO EFFECT ON THE 2003 EUROPEAN HEAT WAVE and NORTH AMERICAN CLIMATE Quotes from paper called Atlantic Ocean Forcing of North American and European Summer Climate by Rowan T. Sutton* and Daniel L. R. Hodson ..for the particular decadal change considered (1931 to 1960 compared with 1961 to 1990), the Atlantic Ocean was the dominant oceanic influence on summertime climate in the regions Overall, our results provide strong evidence that during the 20th century the AMO had an important role in modulating boreal summer climate on multi-decadal time scales. We have focused here on time mean anomalies, but some of the most important impacts are likely to be associated with changes in the frequency of extreme events. There is evidence that the frequency of U.S. droughts and the frequency of European heat waves) are both sensitive to Atlantic SSTs. Our results suggest, for example, that the change in phase of the AMO in the 1960s may have caused a cooling of U.S. and European summer climate; a further change in the AMO[ AMO went warm in 1994] may have contributed to recent warming in these regions. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/309/5731/115 EL NINO EFFECTS IN CANADA During the winter of an El Nino event, the air temperature tends to be warm over most of Canada, with the greatest warming centered on Manitoba-western Ontario, where a temperature anomaly of up to +3 degrees Celsius (averaged over the last nine El Nino events) can be found (Hoerling et al., 1997; Shabbar and Khandekar, 1996). Southern Canada also tends to be drier during an El Nino winter (Shabbar et al., 1997). Southern British Columbia tends to receive less snow (Hsieh and Tang, 1999). http://www.msc.ec.gc.ca/education/elnino/canadian/region/index_mean_e.cfm?region=southern_bc THE PROBABALISTIC PROJECTION OF CLIMATE RISK By David B. Enfield and Luis Cid-Serrano http://www.usclivar.org/Newsletter/Variations_V3N3/Enfield.pdf Quote fro opening paragraph The last 15 years have seen much research on decadal to multidecadal (D2M) climate modes and their global and regional impacts. At least some of these D2M modes suggest compelling climatic and ecological impacts. Both the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) are associated with alternating trans-decadal regimes in precipitation and drought frequency, which appear to be sensitive to small but persistent changes in the prevalent atmospheric circulation patterns over the continental regions adjacent to the oceans that mediate the oscillations. They have also been shown to modulate (render nonstationary) the rainfall signatures of El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) in the United States and they are reflected in the multidecadal changes in North Pacific fisheries. Of concern for climate applications is the fact that — unlike El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) — numerical models have proven incapable of predicting future phase shifts of D2M climate modes in a deterministic manner. The alternatives to such predictions are probability-based projections, but these are hampered because the instrumentally based time series are limited to the last 130-150 years, Figure captions Fig. 2: histogram (vertical bars) of zero crossing intervals from a set of five resampled and smoothed versions of the Gray et al. (2004) index and the maximum likelihood (MLE) gamma probability distribution (solid curve) fit to the histogram.

You can either go back my no.1 document to access all or any post:

1. Evidence that the IPCC’s case is a fraud.
or you can go to the next document:

12.Significant correlations argue against ther IPCC’s model.

John Penhallurick’s Blog 10:Evidence from ice cores

Evidence from ice cores

Another significant reversal for the supporters of cuts to human emissions of CO² has come about through more detailed analysis of ice cores from the Greenland Ice Cap, and from several stations in Antarctica. Many climate alarmists have claimed that those observations actually proved that anthropogenic CO² emissions were responsible for 20th-century global warming. But Petit et al. (1999) reconstructed histories of surface air temperature and atmospheric CO² concentration from data obtained from a Vostok ice core that covered the prior 420,000 years, determining that during glacial inception “the CO² decrease lags the temperature decrease by several thousand years” and that “the same sequence of climate forcing operated during each termination.” Likewise, working with sections of ice core records from around the times of the last three glacial terminations, Fischer et al. (1999) found that “the time lag of the rise in CO² concentrations with respect to temperature change is on the order of 400 to 1000 years during all three glacial-interglacial transitions.”

On the basis of atmospheric CO² data obtained from the Antarctic Taylor Dome ice core and temperature data obtained from the Vostok ice core, Indermuhle et al. (2000) studied the relationship between these two parameters over the period 60,000-20,000 years BP. One statistical test performed on the data suggested that shifts in the air’s CO² content lagged shifts in air temperature by approximately 900 years, while a second statistical test yielded a mean lag-time of 1200 years. Similarly, in a study of air temperature and CO² data obtained from Dome Concordia, Antarctica for the period 22,000-9,000 BP — which time interval includes the most recent glacial-to-interglacial transition — Monnin et al. (2001) found that the start of the CO² increase lagged the start of the temperature increase by 800 years. In another study of the 420,000-year Vostok ice-core record, Mudelsee (2001) concluded that variations in atmospheric CO² concentration lagged variations in air temperature by 1,300 to 5,000 years. It is clear from these ice cores that the increase in CO² could not be the main cause of the increase in temperature, but that it is a consequence of that increase in temperature. What happens is that first, the rocks on the land begin to warm. Gradually, the increasing warmth affects the ocean.  And as the ocean warms, it gives off more CO².

John Penhallurick’s Blog 9:CO2 is a mild greenhouse gas compared to water vapour

Evidence that CO² is a mild greenhouse gas and that water vapour is far more important

About one half of the solar energy that reaches the atmosphere’s outer limits from space actually hits the surface of the earth. The other half of solar insolation is already reflected or absorbed earlier on its way through the atmosphere. It it thus by the remaining half that reaches the ground that the surface of the earth is heated. Every heated body, though, radiates by itself, proportional to its temperature. According to the laws of physics, one is able to calculate the range of wavelengths in which radiation is emitted at a certain temperature of the stove plate or, more generally, a heated body. The many-colored area in Figure 6 shows us how the radiation of heat is distributed if the temperature of a body is of the order of 280 Kelvin (+7°C). This almost corresponds to the earth’s mean global temperature at its surface. The illustration shows a spectrum of radiation approximately between 400 and 1800 ^cm-1.

Figure 6

Earth’s Albedo: the energy reflected back into space from earth’s surface.

(Taken from http://www.espere.net/Unitedkingdom/water/uk_watervapour.html)

In this figure, red + yellow + blue represents the total spectrum of energy reflected by the Earth at 7° C, in the range between 400 and 1800 cm^-1. Red represents the absence of an absorption spectrum due to technical reasons concerning the measurements. Blue denotes the radiation that is absorbed by greenhouse gases. And yellow represents the radiation that is allowed to pass by greenhouse gases. Above the curve are horizontal bars that represent the absorption spectrum of the various gases. If readers are not familiar with the idea of absorption spectrum, it can be explained thus: Molecules are able to oscillate, in many ways. Each different mode of oscillation requires a very specific amount of energy to stimulate the oscillation. That is why molecules absorb at different radiation energies. Also, there are major differences in the absorption spectra of different gases, and these must be factored in if one wants to understand how energy from the earth’s reflected energy is captured. Water vapour (H₂0) absorbs energy over most of the spectrum: from 400-900 microns and from 1130-1800 microns. CO _² absorbs energy from about 650 to 750 microns. In a rough approximation the following trace gases contribute to the greenhouse effect: 60% water vapor; 20% carbon dioxide (CO₂);the rest (~20%) is caused by ozone (O₃), nitrous oxide (N₂O), methane (CH₄ ), and several other gases.

However, supporters of cuts from human emissions may object that the bar for CO²in Figure 6 understates the absorption spectrum of CO₂, so let us consider the absorption spectrum preferred by those supporters (Available at http://www.iitap.iastate.edu/gccourse/forcing/spectrum.html Click on Figure 3).This is reproduced as Figure 7. Note that the absorption spectra in

Figure 7

Absorption spectra of major greenhouse gases

Figure 7 assumes a uniform input of radiation at all frequencies. As Figure 7 shows, this is incorrect for the frequencies in earth’s reflected energy. And although Figure 7 shows CO₂ as having a higher absorption level at around 1400-1500 microns than water vapour, according to to Figure 6, the reflected energy of earth at this range contains only about 27 W·m⁻²·sr⁻¹  of radiation energy, whereas at about 600 microns, where H₂ O has very strong absorption properties, and CO₂  weak absorption properties, the total energy level is about 124 W·m⁻²·sr⁻¹ .  Furthermore, a comparison of the absorption spectra of H₂ O and the lowest spectrum shows that they are overwhelmingly similar, which is exactly what one would expect if H₂ O is the dominant greenhouse gas. The only range where the whole atmosphere spectrum matches that of CO₂ is in the upper range above about 1300 microns. But as we pointed out, the earth’s reflected radiance in this micron range is very weak. Taking all these factors into account, one suspects that the 20% of the energy of earth’s albedo assumed above for CO₂ is probably over-generous.  Still, let us work with the 20% figure for the time being.

A point made by the IPCC is that as a result of the human-caused increase in CO₂energy normally lost from the earth because of infra-red radiation to the atmosphere is instead reabsorbed by the atmosphere, resulting in a greenhouse effect. It is also claimed that this absorption occurs in the lower atmosphere. This is the troposphere, which contains approximately 75% of the atmosphere’s mass and 99% of its H₂ O and aerosols. The percentage H₂ O in surface air varies from a trace in desert regions to about 4% over oceans. But we are interested here in the troposphere, which, according to the IPCC, is where greenhouse gases do their work. And since the troposphere contains 99% of the total H₂ O, it makes sense to assume a conservative average for water vapour of 2% for the whole troposphere. Contrast that with the 0.039% presence of CO². What this means is that at the equator water vapour molecules are 51.28 times more common than CO² molecules. So to calculate the contribution to greenhouse warming by CO_²  vis-a-vis water vapor, we need to multiply the absorption proportions of each molecule (1/3) by the frequency of those molecules in the troposphere: 1/3 X 1/51.28 which comes to 0.0065. But remember that the absorption contributed by CO₂  is the result of all the CO₂ in the atmosphere -780 Gigatonnes. The total annual CO₂ budget is 191.6-224.1 Gt/yr, which is 24.6% of the total.  Above we pointed out that human emissions represent 7.0-7.5 Gigatonnes per year to the CO₂ budget. That is, they constitute only 3.5% to 3.9% of all carbon emissions (mean 3.7%). So to calculate the annual greenhouse effect of human emissions vis -a-vis water vapour, we need to take 3.7% of the 0.0065% contribution of all CO₂, which means that annual contribution of all human emissions are responsible for 0.0002405% of greenhouse warming. Since Australia is reponsible for about 1% of those emissions, we need finally to calculate Australia’s annual contribution to warming by CO₂ is 0.000002405%. Hardly a good reason to seriously damage either Australia’s or the world’s economy.

John Penhallurick’s Blog 8: Further evidence of the lack of correlation between changes in C02 and temperature

Further evidence of lack of correlation between human emissions of CO² and global warming

The years  1929 to 1933 mark the beginning of the Great Depression. In 1929, human emissions of CO² amounted to 1.17 Gt. By 1933, these had fallen to 0.8 Gt per year. Figure 6 shows what happened during this period. There was no corresponding decline in either temperature or carbon added to the atmosphere. Clearly over this period, the increase in temperature shows no relationship with human activity.

Figure 6

Comparison of human emissions and of temperature change and Carbon Dioxide measurements 1928-1933

You can now either go back to my no.1 blog to access any or all documents

1. Evidence that the IPCC’s case is a fraud.
or you can go the next document:

9. Evidence that CO² is a mild greenhouse gas compared to water vapour.

John Penhallurick’s Blog 7: Is carbon dioxide a threat? Further evidence from the Earth’s total CO2 budget

Is carbon dioxide a threat?

Despite their obsession with carbon dioxide, the IPCC and supporters of the drive to cut human emissions of CO₂ show amazing ignorance of the Earth’s total carbon budget. The atmosphere contains about 780 Gigatonnes (Gt) of CO₂ (0.039% of the whole atmosphere), of which about 90 Gt are exchanged with the ocean every year and another 120 Gt with plants. Thus about 25% of CO² is turned over every year, which is consistent with the statements in the section on “How long does CO² remain in the atmosphere?”.

A 2005 estimate of total CO₂ emissions from all sources is as follows:

1. Respiration Humans, Animals, Phytoplankton 43.5 – 52 Gt C/ year 2. Ocean Outgassing (Tropical Areas) 90 – 100 Gt C/year 3. Volcanoes, Soil degassing 0.5 – 2 Gt C/ year 4. Soil Bacteria, Decomposition 50 – 60 Gt C/ year 5. Forest cutting, Forest fires 0.6 – 2.6 Gt C/year 6. Anthropogenic emissions (2010)  Including land-use change and deforestation, in 2010 emissions reached 10.0 GtCC/year (http://co2now.org/) TOTAL 194.6 to 226.6 Gt C/ year

(see Houghton, R. A. (2005). “The contemporary carbon cycle”. In William H Schlesinger (editor). Biogeochemistry. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science. pp.473–513.)

Given that the estimate of anthropogenic emissions of CO₂ is about 10  Gt per year (http://co2now.org/), Canadian climatologist Timothy Ball (2008 “Environmentalists seize green moral high ground ignoring science” Canada Free Press, 13 June. Available at http://www.solopassion.com/node/2291?page=14 ) has estimated that this figure is more than four times less than the combined error (32 Gt) on the estimated CO₂ production from all other sources.

The Skeptical Science website (available at http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-     vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm) states that what this argument misses is the fact that water vapor creates what scientists call a ‘positive feedback loop’ in the atmosphere — making any temperature changes larger than they would be otherwise.

” How does this work? The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere exists in direct relation to the temperature. If you increase the temperature, more water evaporates and becomes vapor, and vice versa. So when something else causes a temperature increase (such as extra CO₂ from fossil fuels), more water evaporates. Then, since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, this additional water vapor causes the temperature to go up even further—a positive feedback.

How much does water vapor amplify CO₂ warming? Studies show that water vapor feedback roughly doubles the amount of warming caused by CO₂. So if there is a 1°C change caused by CO₂, the water vapor will cause the temperature to go up another 1°C. When other feedback loops are included, the total warming from a potential 1° change caused by CO₂ is, in reality,as much as 3°C.”

An obvious defect of IPCC climate models is that they emphasize positive feedback while neglecting negative feedbacks. Kininmonth (2010 A Natural Constraint To Anthropogenic Global Warming. Energy and Environment 21, no.4: 225-236) pointed out that current computer models of the climate system apparently underestimate the rate of increase of surface evaporation with temperature leading to a gross exaggeration of the surface temperature response to radiative forcing. He pointed out that the rate of increase of evaporation (and latent heat exchange) with temperature at the surface is a critical restraining factor that damps surface temperature response to radiative forcing. So even if one accepts the assumptions of the IPCC (as I certainly do not) global average surface temperature is unlikely to rise beyond 1°C. It is the climate models alone that suggest such devastating effects of human emissions of CO₂.

A further important point about CO₂ is that climate models ignore the fact that   as extra gas is added to the atmosphere, incremental temperature increases occur in a declining logarithmic fashion. As Carter (Climate: the Counter-Consensus, p.76) has pointed out:    “A good analogy is of painting the windows of a room with white paint: the first coat  or two of white paint block much of the light and cause a marked darkening of the room, but by the time the tenth coat and more are added, little additional darkening is observed. Similarly, the first 60ppm of carbon dioxide added to the newly forming Earth atmosphere is modelled as causing 2°C of warming, whereas adding another 60 ppm from, say, 300-260 ppm causes less than one tenth of a degree of warming…The 100 ppm post-industrial increase in carbon dioxide from ~280 to ~380 ppm must therefore have already caused most (about 75%) of the anticipated 1.2°C of human warming which supposedly is being caused by a doubling of carbon dioxide from its pre-industrial level. So even if one concedes that about 1°C of warming would occur for a doubling, all that remains to occur for a completion of doubling now is additional warming of an insignificant few tenths of a degree.”

Figure 2 shows different projections for the amount of warming by 2100. The research papers by independent scientists, which are largely based on observational evidence, predict that if current levels of human emissions continue, the temperature should increase by 0.6°C to 1.2°C. Even from recent evidence, the increase in CO² does

Figure 2

Projected Warming to 2100 for a doubling of CO² as indicated by IPCC and various independent researchers

not show a close correlation with any increase in temperature, as can be seen from Figure 3. Temperature fell between 1940 and 1975, while CO_²    shows a striking increase over the same period.

Figure 3

Comparison of temperature increases (determined by Hadley Climate Centre) and CO^₂

(Taken from Carter (2010), Fig. 10.)

Also, it must be pointed out that because of the well-known urban heat-island effect, official thermometer readings are highly suspect. For countries including the United States, Australia and New Zealand, temperature measurements from a sample of rural stations reveal no statistically significant warming during the twentieth century. Figure 5 reveals how significant the impact of a drastic reduction of earth measuring stations since 1990 has been. The temperature data is based on uncorrected measurements, which are available from such sources as GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies available at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

The decline in the number of ground measurements which, as shown in Figure 4, began in 1970 and became severe in 1990, is not randomly distributed. Most stations were lost in the former Soviet Union, China, Africa and South America. And most of the stations that closed were in relatively remote areas. (To examine these closures go to University of Delaware global temperature archive, click Available Climate Data; log in; under Global Climate Data select Time Series 1950 to 1999; then select Station Locations (MPEG file for downloading)). As early as 1991, there was evidence that station closure beginning in the 1970s had added a permanent upward bias to the global average temperature. Willmott, Robeson and Feddema (“Influence of Spatially Variable Instrument Networks on Climatic Averages”,

Figure 4

Uncorrected global surface temperature measurements against number of reporting stations

(Available from http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/nvst.html )

Geophysical Research Letters vol. 18 No. 12, pp. 2249-2251, Dec 1991) calculated a +0.2C bias in the global average due to pre-1990 station closures, and the effect since 1990 must be considerably greater. The climate modellers claim to have corrected for the urban heat island effect, but they refuse to reveal the nature and basis of their corrections. Meteorologists Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony Watts in their 2010 paper “Surface Temperature Records: Policy-Driven Deception” stated that instrumental temperature data for the pre-satellite era have been so widely, systematically and undirectionally tampered with that it does not constitute a reliable record of land-based temperatures.

It is also appropriate to mention here the notorious case of China temperature. Jones, P. D., Groisman, P. Ya., Coughlan, M., Plummer, N., Wang, W-C. & Ka, T. R. published a 1990 study entitled “Assessment of urbanisation effects in time series of surface temperatures over land”  (Nature, 347 (13 Sept.):169-172 Available at http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v347/n6289/abs/347169a0.html   They argued that their data proved that local urban heating was not a significant factor in the warming trend. This paper has been repeatedly relied on by the IPCC, including in its 2007 report. A particular problem was with details of 42 weather stations in China, namely that crucial data about the location of the weather stations could not be verified because documents containing the information no longer exist. It would take too much time to go into all the details here, but one is left with the conclusion that the 1990 paper should not carry the weight with which the IPCC has invested in it. Also, the issue of the post-1990 major declines in land-based measurement stations has not been addressed by the IPCC.

Some supporters of the IPCC actually greeted with glee the UAH satellite temperature figure for 2010, when it came in at 0.54°C, as if this vindicated their views. Similarly, the Government’s former climate minister, Senator Penny Wong, recently stated (The Australian, 2 Feb. 2010): “Globally 14 of the 15 warmest years on record occurred between 1995 and 2009.” Since direct temperature records date from only about 1850, and since during that period we have been in a recovery from the Little Ice Age, this is nothing to marvel at. Also, a serious error was found in the NASA temperature data for the United States in 2007. When corrected, it was determined that the warmest year in the past 100 years was not in 1998 and 2006 as previously believed, but was 1934, followed by 1998. 1921 became the third hottest year, followed by 2006 and 1933. Out of the five hottest years, three occurred in the 1920s and 30s and only two were in the past 10 years. We should also take into account that in that 15-year period, there have been two strong El Nino events (1997 and 2009), and one moderate (2002) (See http://ggweather.com/enso/oni.htm .)

The 2009 event does much to explain the relatively sudden increase in temperature of 2010. In contrast, during the same period, there were only three moderate La Nina Events (1999, 2007 and late 2010). The floods in Eastern Australia during early 2011 indicated that the La Nina cycle has strengthened, and a decrease in the earth’s mean temperature was recorded by the University of Alabama at Huntsville satellite-based global temperature measurements: it fell from +0.55° C during a major rise caused by the 2010 El Nino, which had been preceded by a fall to -0.30°C during 2009, to -0.10°C in March 2011 (Available at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/05/global-temperature-still-headed-down-uah-negative-territory/ )

More fundamentally, the suggestion that meaningful judgements about climate change can be made on the basis of a single year, or even the 150 years since instrumental recordings of temperature began, is laughable. Carter (2010: 38-69) explains the need to work in terms of climate points, based on 30 year averages. Even the 150 years of instrumental temperature measures represents only five climate points, and such intervals are too short to carry statistical significance for long-term climate change. Nonetheless, the warming that has been observed since the last severe stages of the Little Ice Age is likely to be followed like its predecessors, the Roman Warming and the Early Medieval Warming, by cooling, which some measurements, such as the microwave sounding units borne on NOAA polar orbiting satellites (MSUs), suggest has already started. It is also true that the temperatures we are experiencing around the transition from the twentieth to the twenty-first centuries are not unusually warm, in terms of past climate measurements. They are about one degree C cooler than those that obtained in the Holocene Climate Optima several thousand years ago; about 2° C cooler than those reached in the last interglacial period (125,000 years ago); and about 2°-3° C cooler than those that prevailed in the Pliocene age (6-3 million years ago). Also, a 2012 study showed that the Early Medieval Warm Period was ~1°C warmer than today.

You can either go back to my no.1 blog to access any of the documents

1. The IPCC’s case is a fraud.
or you can go to the next document.

8. Further evidence of the lack of correlation between human emissions of CO^{2 and temperature.}

John Penhallurick’s Blog 6:How long does CO2 remain in the atmosphere

How long does CO₂ remain in the atmosphere

This question is importantbecause the IPCC and its supporters argue that human emissions of CO₂ can remain in the atmosphere for hundreds, if not thousands, of years, and this persistence of human emissions in the atmosphere intensifies their contribution to global warming.  The most authoritative estimates of the lifetime of CO₂ in the atmosphere were stated in a number of recent papers by a Norwegian, Professor Tom Segalstad of the University of Oslo. (See especially Segelstad, T.V. (1996) “The distribution of CO₂ between atmosphere, hydrosphere, and lithosphere; minimal influence from anthropogenic CO₂ on the global ‘Greenhouse Effect’”. In Emsley, J.(Ed.),The Global Warming Debate. The Report of the European Science and Environment Forum. Bourne Press Ltd, Dorset ,U.K. Available at http://www.co2web.info/ESEFVO1.pdf ). He found that the measured lifetime, based on the studies of some 50 independent researchers, is at most about 5 years. The observed decrease in radioactive C₁₄ after the cessation of atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons confirms that the half-life of CO₂ in the atmosphere is less than 10 years. Segelstad concluded that even using the IPCC’s exaggerated estimate of the amount of CO₂ emissions, human emissions would still only account for 0.45% (= 3.5 parts in 780) of the greenhouse warming in any particular year. This is equivalent to a rise of 0.1°C in the whole warming effect detected.

You can now either go back to my no.1 document to view all or any posts:

1.Evidence that the IPCC’s case is a fraud.
or you can go the next document:

7. Is carbon dioxide a threat?

John Penhallurick’s Blog 5:The role of the ocean in climate change

4. The role of the ocean in climate change

The IPCC and its supporters also betray a remarkable ignorance about the role of the worldwide ocean in climate change. First, they argue that the extra contribution to global CO₂ by human emissions is dangerous because the ocean has reached saturation point with carbon dioxide. They believe that this extra contribution from human emissions is causing sea levels to rise.

a) Are human emissions of CO₂ causing sea level to rise?

One of the main scare tactics employed by the IPCC and its supporters is to claim that human emissions of  CO₂ are causing sea level to rise in a way that will threaten much of the world. There is in fact no evidence that sea level is rising in the way that climate models predict.

Statements made by the IPCC and its followers talk about “sea-level change” as if this were a simple matter.  It is not. For a start, it is necessary to distinguish between eustatic changes, which relate to a notional world-wide average; and local relative sea-level (LRSL), which corresponds to changes in actual sea-levels at real and particular coastal locations.

Figure 1 displays eustatic changes in sea-level based on evidence from many sites since the end of the last ice-age.  It shows a dramatic rise in sea-level, of about 130 m between about 20,000 years and 7,000 years before the present (BP), with a much milder rise since, of much less than a metre in the last 1,000 years. It should be noted, however, that such data do not permit the prediction of future shore-line positions at any one location, which would need to take into account local uplift or subsidence of the land substrate and also local sediment supply.

                        

FIGURE 1

Post-glacial sea-level rise (Global Warming Art (2011))

As Robert Carter has stated: …the geological substrates differ from place to place and are rarely absolutely stable; rather the substrate is sinking in some places (for example, on delta coasts, such as around the Gulf of Mexico or in Blangladesh) and rising in others (for example, in many, but again not all, places in earthquake-prone countries like Japan or New Zealand). As a result, we see around the world a complex pastiche of different rates of local sea-level rise or fall, with the position of the shoreline at any one time or place being dependent on the interaction of three things – the rate of substrate movement up or down, the rate of sediment supply from rivers versus marine transport or erosion, and the rate of change in eustatic sea-level. (see Carter, 2010,Climate: the counter-consensus,p. 92)

All the evidence in fact shows that contrary to the IPCC’s claims, sea-level rise is not accelerating. UK oceanographer Simon Holgate (2008) analysed nine long sea-level records for the period 1904-2003.  He found that between 1904 and 1953, sea-level rise was 2.03 mm per year, compared with 1.45 mm per year for the period 1953-2003.

Further proof that sea-level rises are not increasing, as the climate models predict, comes from a paper by Phillip Watson (2011). Based on century-long tide gauge records from Fremantle, Western Australia (1897 to present); Auckland Harbour in New Zealand (1903 to present); Fort Denison in Sydney Harbour (1914-present); and Pilot Station at Newcastle (1925 to present), Watson concluded there was a consistent trend of weak deceleration from 1940 to 2000. Climate change researcher Howard Brady of Macquarie University was quoted in The Australian of Friday 22 July 2011, p. 1, as saying that the recent research meant sea level rises accepted by CSIRO were already dead in the water as having no sound basis in probability. He added that divergence between sea-level trends from climate models and sea-level change from the tide-gauge records was now so great that it was clear there is a serious problem with the model.

b) Can human emissions of CO₂ warm the oceans?

This view that human emissions are the cause of rises in sea level can in part be rejected in terms of the Earth’s actual annual Carbon Budget, which is discussed at greater length in the document  6 Is CO₂  a threat? As is pointed out there, the total emissions from the earth range from 192 to 224 gigatonnes of carbon per year (Gt C/ year), while human emissions in 2011 amounted to 10 Gt C/ year. Note that the human emissions are considerably less than the natural variability in the total emissions. So how can the 0.05% of emissions due to human emissions be upsetting the balance?

Secondly, the IPCC has claimed on numerous occasions that human emissions of CO₂ are heating the ocean. Robert M. Carter, 2010, Climate: the counter consensus, ch.4 has pointed out that the ocean has a heat capacity 3,300 times more than the atmosphere.  I believe that even this figure is an underestimate. It is easy to see why this is so. At standard temperature and pressure (0°C and 100 kPa) dry air has a density of 1.2754 Kg/m³. The density of water at 0°C is 999.8395 kg/m³. In other words, water has 783.94 times the density of air. In addition, we must consider the total mass of both the atmosphere and the oceans.  The oceans of the world have a far greater mass than the atmosphere: 1.5 x 101⁸ tonnes compared with 5 x 101⁵ tonnes. In consequence, the mass of the ocean is about 300 times that of the atmosphere. It follows from this that the ocean has a far greater heat capacity than the atmosphere, specifically 783.94 x 300 = ~235,000 times more. The oceans of the world have an average depth of 5 km.  If all the available heat in the atmosphere were applied to the ocean, it would warm only the upper 0.21 meters of the worldwide ocean to the same temperature as the atmosphere. Thus it is impossible for the atmosphere to exert a significant heating effect on the ocean, as the IPCC and its supporters have claimed.

Far from the atmosphere warming the ocean, it is the ocean that controls the warmth of the lower atmosphere in three main ways: through direct contact; by infrared radiation from the ocean’s surface; and by removal of latent heat by evaporation. We have had a demonstration of the power of oceans to influence the atmosphere in that fact that in late 2010, a strong El Niño event raised world temperature by ~0.55°C, according to the University of Alabama’s satellite-based measurement of temperatures. The strong La Niña event, in early 2011, which followed, caused a rapid fall of ~0.65° to a decline of -0.10°C below average. Incidentally, the 2010 El Niño rise was preceded by a fall in temperature averages of -0.30°C during 2009.

A  further point made by Professor Carter is that while the time constant of the atmosphere, during which a molecule of CO² may be circulated worldwide, is about one year, that of the ocean is one thousand years or longer.  Thus it is quite likely that the outgassing of CO2 evident in the twentieth century may have been caused by the Medieval Warm Period, of about 1,000 years ago.

You can either go back to my no.1 blog, to access any of the pages:

1. Evidence that the IPCC’s case is a fraud.
or you can go to the next document:

6. How long does CO2 remain in the atmosphere?