New Research

[jethro]

Roy Spencer has never been a fan of Svensmark's theory, he's taken the new information, evaluated it against recorded Cosmic Ray data and estimated what effect it would have on the radiative budget.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/05/indirect-solar-forcing-of-climate-by-galactic-cosmic-rays-an-observational-estimate/

[knocker]

Well past the point of no return?

The present rate of greenhouse carbon dioxide emissions through fossil fuel burning is higher than that associated with an ancient episode of severe global warming, according to new research. The findings are published online this week by the journal Nature Geoscience.

http://noc.ac.uk/news/carbon-release-and-global-warming-now-and-ancient-past

[Gowon]

Well past the point of no return?

The present rate of greenhouse carbon dioxide emissions through fossil fuel burning is higher than that associated with an ancient episode of severe global warming, according to new research. The findings are published online this week by the journal Nature Geoscience.

http://noc.ac.uk/new...nd-ancient-past

Whenever I read these kind of studies, they are always ambiguous.

“Our findings suggest that humankind may be causing atmospheric carbon dioxide to increase at rates never previously seen on Earth, which would suggest that current temperatures will potentially rise much faster than they did during the PETM,†concluded Dr Harding

This part of the article says it all for me;

“The PETM has been seen by many as a natural test bed for understanding modern man-made global warming, despite it not being a perfect analogy. However, the total amount of carbon released during this climatic perturbation and its rate of release have been unclear.â€

So despite it not being a perfect analogy, they reckon they can still predict how today's climate will respond.

Personally, I wont be loosing any sleep over it.

[Waterspout]

I think the study assumes temperatures responded to co2 releases, whereas the co2 release may have been prompted by the temperature rising first due to some other natural cause.

Also, the PETM was started by a massive Methane release. It's like comparing Apples with Oranges if this is the nearest comparison to today!

Also, we don't currently have any "Severe Global Warming" - the temperature peaked Circa 1998.

The new CERN data, regarding Cosmic Rays, will be interesting, as the Authors say they cannot state the exact results, as this is not allowed before publication. So, be interesting to see the full results later this year.

It will be Ironic if this study showed a dramatic connection between CRs and Climate, as some people ciritised the Ch4 programme TGGWS for pushing this theory a few years ago, as being fantasy.

Edited June 9, 2011 by Waterspout

[VillagePlank]

Taking this into account why has the last few years not seen any kind of falling global temperatures ?

For the same reason that when the sun dips below the horizon, local weather conditions notwithstanding, it isn't instantly cold, and the coldest part of the night, generally, is just before dawn the next day - on average half a day later!

More technically, the energy is already in the system - it doesn't just switch off - we measure the energy in the system: we call it temperature, so we know there's lots of it about. Indeed, some ocean circulation models are still showing that energy absorbed a (very) long time again is now being radiated from the oceans.

A big misunderstanding is that energy moves at the speed of light, and thus, to human observers might as well be instant. Well, it does - in a vacuum, but certainly does not through solid rock, sand, water amongst a huge variety of surfaces distributed amongst the Earth.

It is instructive, I think, to think of the Earth's temperature as the difference between absolute zero. That is the measure of energy in the system.

EDIT: as an example, consider the CET. We know that there are prominent cycles, by Fourier transform, in the CET record - see, here, with the prominent cycles in descending order of magnitude being 17, 23, 2, 28, and 52 years. Now, instead of dismissing solar cycles as not being a given function of itself at the same time index, you'd need to construct - because the evidence tells you to - a function something like this:

T(S,y,m)

where T returns the temperature, S is solar activity, y is years hence, and m is some modifier that alters the magnitude of effect (the theory that it must be instant would have a modifier of zero, except the first call of the function where it would be one) so we can say:

T(S,0,m) = T(S,17,m) + T(S,23,m) + T(S,2,m) + T(S,28,m) + T(S,52,m)

Plug in sunspots (or whatever) and you have the basics of a solar model derived from evidence (at least for the CET) You can derive the m parameter by some form of gradient descent algorithm - the convergence theorem is probably one's best bet as this was proved by Rosenblatt (1962) and later (poss independently) by Haykin (1994) and Minsky & Papert (1969). Rosenblatt's latest generalisation (2006) is here

Edited June 12, 2011 by Sparticle

[Iceberg]

OF course the coldest part of the night is just before dawn, simplistically temps will continue to drop until the natural level is reached or until heat is introduced i.e the sun comes up,it's not due to any mystically lag.

Equally when you have a cloudy day it doesn't take 2 weeks for temperatures to start falling. Today is a perfect case in point. !

I am sorry but if you are claiming that cloud takes years to effect surface temperatures you need to re-write 100's of years of observational evidence.

BTW I am not saying that solar lags don't exist but in the extent of this study, which is what I was talking about it certainly doesn't.

[VillagePlank]

I am sorry but if you are claiming that cloud takes years to effect surface temperatures you need to re-write 100's of years of observational evidence.

BTW I am not saying that solar lags don't exist but in the extent of this study, which is what I was talking about it certainly doesn't.

I agree. Clouds affect temperature on the Earth very rapidly. As you say, to not agree with that is rather foolish.

Most of the Earth's clouds form in the Southern Ocean or the intertropical convergence zone. That's actually not that much of the Earth's surface area; which is why I have difficulty with the theory - if it is true, it requires a sensitivity constant much the same way CO2 theories do. I feel very uncomfortable with this theory for precisely the same reason I feel uncomfortable with the C02 hypothesis.

Edited June 12, 2011 by Sparticle

[Cloudman]

I think the study assumes temperatures responded to co2 releases, whereas the co2 release may have been prompted by the temperature rising first due to some other natural cause.

Also, the PETM was started by a massive Methane release. It's like comparing Apples with Oranges if this is the nearest comparison to today!

Also, we don't currently have any "Severe Global Warming" - the temperature peaked Circa 1998.

The new CERN data, regarding Cosmic Rays, will be interesting, as the Authors say they cannot state the exact results, as this is not allowed before publication. So, be interesting to see the full results later this year.

It will be Ironic if this study showed a dramatic connection between CRs and Climate, as some people ciritised the Ch4 programme TGGWS for pushing this theory a few years ago, as being fantasy.

It will show, I think, that CRs do nucleate ion clusters in the atmosphere but generally cannot compete with CCN production by the whole raft of othe rprocesses for generating CCN which go on in the atmopshere.

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110619133515.htm

Another Arctic tipping point?

[knocker]

Fastest Sea-Level Rise in Two Millennia Linked to Increasing Global Temperatures.

http://nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=119841&org=NSF&from=news

[Village]

This report about sea levels on the East of the USA doesnt add up IMO.

This sudden rise in rate of increase is not reflected in other places in the world. Therefore it must be due to underlying regional tectonic movements or the reconstructed ancient rates are clearly wrong. But the report doesnt mention this critical piece of the puzzle.

Further, on the eastern part of the UK sea level rise rates have been very stable over hundreds of years and rise at 6mm per year (3mm when techtonic movement is taken into account).

So why is the USA experiencing a lesser rate if its a global issue?

It doesnt add up.

[jethro]

I'm confused.

There has been a new study released which says the levelling off of global temperatures is because China has burnt so much more coal in recent years that the emitted Sulphur has cooled the atmosphere - the premise is that the warming from increased CO2 emissions has been counter balanced by the cooling of sulphur particles in the atmosphere.

http://junksciencecom.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/pnas-cooling-is-warming.pdf

This study says China's coal consumption more than doubled between 2003 - 2007 and calculates the amount of sulphur associated with that consumption. All well and good but although the consumption has increased, their sulphur emissions have decreased due to enforcement of cleaner technology; between 2006 - 2009 their sulphur emissions decreased by 13% even with the rapidly expanding construction of new coal fired power plants.

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/china_takes_first_steps_in_the_fight_against_acid_rain/2333/

Also, Richard Keen, a climate scientist from Colorado University says the atmosphere is as clear as it's been in more than 50 years. The state of the atmosphere affects climate, the cleaner it is, the more sunlight is allowed to penetrate. At a conference in 2008 he said "The lunar eclipse record indicates a clear stratosphere over the past decade, and that this has contributed about 0.2 degrees to recent warming."

http://spaceweather.com/archive.php?view=1&day=20&month=12&year=2010

So, is the atmosphere cleaner than it used to be and contributing to warming or dirtier and contributing to cooling? Something doesn't add up here.

[Methuselah]

I think you're right to be 'confused', J. Can we really have our cake AND eat it?

[Village]

The so called experts are also confused because they cant agree amongst themselves about anything. There are too many variables which drive our weather and climate and we dont know enough about any of them.

The question we should all be asking is; Who was fooled by Gordon Brown's theory that if we here in the UK pay more tax in the form of climate taxes then we can save the World! Further, as temperatures are clearly falling here in the UK....then what are we paying for anyway?

Edited July 13, 2011 by Village

[songster]

Given that the dogma is "no warming between 1998 and 2008", I really don't see the contradiction. 2010 set a new record temperature worldwide, entirely consistent with China cutting sulfur emissions between 2006-2009, and these pollutants taking a short time to wash out the atmosphere. This does suggests there's about to be a pretty rapid jump in temperatures over the next couple of years as the effects of sulfur reduction kick in and uncover the underlying CO2-driven warming. It's what we saw after the various clean air acts in the 60s and 70s. The only difference is that back then the sulfur-driven "pause" in the long-term trend lasted about ~25 years from the end of WWII until the clean air acts, whereas in China the same scenario is playing out in a single decade.

[jethro]

Given that the dogma is "no warming between 1998 and 2008", I really don't see the contradiction. 2010 set a new record temperature worldwide, entirely consistent with China cutting sulfur emissions between 2006-2009, and these pollutants taking a short time to wash out the atmosphere. This does suggests there's about to be a pretty rapid jump in temperatures over the next couple of years as the effects of sulfur reduction kick in and uncover the underlying CO2-driven warming. It's what we saw after the various clean air acts in the 60s and 70s. The only difference is that back then the sulfur-driven "pause" in the long-term trend lasted about ~25 years from the end of WWII until the clean air acts, whereas in China the same scenario is playing out in a single decade.

I don't think dogma is relevant to this discussion, it implies a belief unfounded in reality - temperature data sets are collections of empirical evidence.

It remains to be seen if there's a quick rebound in temperature due to China reducing their sulphur emissions, it's impossible to say based on just 2010. That still leaves the puzzle of the clean atmosphere though; satellites tracked the progress of the sulphur cloud after Pinatubo, it was clearly visible so I'm still confused over the Richard Keen statements. Either there was so much sulphur up there that it cancelled out CO2 driven warming or the atmosphere was so clear it contributed 0.2c to the warming. If it was clear and contributed to the warming over the period when there was little or no warming, then what major player was counter balancing the CO2 emissions?

Either there was something balancing the expected warming (if so what?) or CO2 doesn't cause as much warming as we are told to expect. Is the climate far less sensitive to CO2 than supposed or have the scientists over-looked/mis-calculated the cooling abilities of another climate driver?

[jethro]

This conundrum has tickled my curiosity so I've done a little digging to see what I could find.

The basic theory is that Sulphur Dioxide reflects sunlight back into space thus reducing the energy reaching the Earth, causing cooling. From what I cant tell, where the sulphur is in the atmosphere makes a difference to the way it behaves: sulphur in the stratosphere forms aerosols that have major effects on the atmosphere by reflecting sunlight, cooling the earth - 0.5c for 3 years, and absorbing sunlight, raising the temperature of the lower stratosphere 3c for more than a year. Sulphur in the troposphere appears to cause greater warming than four orders of magnitude greater concentrations of CO2.

http://www.tetontect...rg/Climate.html

This phenomena is known as global dimming. Global dimming when associated with aerosol pollution seems to be a fairly localised phenomena, the clean air acts have greatly reduced dimming in some parts of the world whilst other areas like China continue to show dimming.

http://www.metoffice...plained/dimming

More details here:

http://www.metoffice...o/s/dimming.pdf

If aerosol pollution causes dimming and thus cooling and if it's a relatively localised phenomena, you'd expect the first symptoms of cooling to occur directly beneath the polluted air mass, you would expect China to cool before the rest of the world and you'd expect it to cool more - it hasn't.

In analysing daily climate data from 305 weather stations in China for the period from 1955 - 2000 the authors found that surface air temperatures are increasing with an accelerating trend after 1990. They also found that the daily maximum and daily minimum air temperature increased at a rate of 1.27c and 3,2c (100yr) between 1955 and 2000. Both temperature trends were greater than those reported for the Northern Hemisphere

http://journals.amet.../10.1175/3230.1

Sulphur emitted in China, (which should cool) hasn't cooled China (even though it should have a local impact first) but it's cooled the rest of the world enough to largely cancel out the CO2 emissions.

Clear as mud, isn't it.

Does the global reduction in dimming make it any clearer? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming

Not for me, I'm still confused.

[songster]

If aerosol pollution causes dimming and thus cooling and if it's a relatively localised phenomena, you'd expect the first symptoms of cooling to occur directly beneath the polluted air mass, you would expect China to cool before the rest of the world and you'd expect it to cool more - it hasn't.

In analysing daily climate data from 305 weather stations in China for the period from 1955 - 2000 the authors found that surface air temperatures are increasing with an accelerating trend after 1990. They also found that the daily maximum and daily minimum air temperature increased at a rate of 1.27c and 3,2c (100yr) between 1955 and 2000. Both temperature trends were greater than those reported for the Northern Hemisphere

This paper (as you correctly state) only goes up to 2000. The "dimming" effect of Chinese aerosols covers the period from 1998 to 2008 and therefore this paper is irrelevant - although note that 1999 and 2000 are both lower than 1998 in figure 2. If you want to discuss the recent research talking about Chinese sulfates, why not discuss it directly? Here's a freely accessible PDF copy hosted on WUWT:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/pnas-201102467.pdf

And here is one of the key sections of the discussion:

"The finding that the recent hiatus in warming is driven largely by natural factors does not contradict the hypothesis: “most of the observed increase in global average temperature since the mid 20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations (14).†As indicated in Fig. 1, anthropogenic activities that warm and cool the planet largely cancel after 1998, which allows natural variables to play a more significant role. The 1998-2008 hiatus is not the first period in the instrumental temperature record when the effects of anthropogenic changes in greenhouse gases and sulfur emissions on radiative forcing largely cancel."

In other words, they do analyse the changes in solar insolation, Southern Oscillation Index (etc) and find that these factors are predominantly responsible for the relatively steady temperatures since 2008. However, the reason these natural cycles are able to predominate is because in the decade concerned, the total anthropogenic forcing has remained largely constant, because sulfate growth has paralleled CO2 growth. This is unlikely to continue, and hence the effects of rising CO2 will once again be uncovered in the next decade as sulfate emissions are brought down, just as in the 80s and 90s.

[jethro]

This paper (as you correctly state) only goes up to 2000. The "dimming" effect of Chinese aerosols covers the period from 1998 to 2008 and therefore this paper is irrelevant - although note that 1999 and 2000 are both lower than 1998 in figure 2. If you want to discuss the recent research talking about Chinese sulfates, why not discuss it directly? Here's a freely accessible PDF copy hosted on WUWT:

http://wattsupwithth...s-201102467.pdf

And here is one of the key sections of the discussion:

"The finding that the recent hiatus in warming is driven largely by natural factors does not contradict the hypothesis: “most of the observed increase in global average temperature since the mid 20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations (14).†As indicated in Fig. 1, anthropogenic activities that warm and cool the planet largely cancel after 1998, which allows natural variables to play a more significant role. The 1998-2008 hiatus is not the first period in the instrumental temperature record when the effects of anthropogenic changes in greenhouse gases and sulfur emissions on radiative forcing largely cancel."

In other words, they do analyse the changes in solar insolation, Southern Oscillation Index (etc) and find that these factors are predominantly responsible for the relatively steady temperatures since 2008. However, the reason these natural cycles are able to predominate is because in the decade concerned, the total anthropogenic forcing has remained largely constant, because sulfate growth has paralleled CO2 growth. This is unlikely to continue, and hence the effects of rising CO2 will once again be uncovered in the next decade as sulfate emissions are brought down, just as in the 80s and 90s.

Thanks for the link but that's exactly the same paper I posted the link to this morning and what I've been discussing.

Trawling through Google earlier, the only paper I could find which talks directly about Chinese temperatures is the one I linked to; the only others I could find discuss the links between Chinese temperatures and the direct link to the Indian monsoon which would just muddy the waters further.

If you can find another peer reviewed paper which documents Chinese temperatures up to the present time, I'd be grateful if you could post a link.

What are your thoughts on the idea that sulphur emissions have cancelled out the CO2 warming, given that the atmosphere is apparently very clear and has been for some time and that global emissions of sulphur have been in decline for years?

[Michael Hauber]

So, is the atmosphere cleaner than it used to be and contributing to warming or dirtier and contributing to cooling? Something doesn't add up here.

Reading through the articles carefully clears the confusion. China dramatically increased aerosol pollution up to about 2006 and has decreased since then. And the final article notes that the lunar eclipses since the late 90s have been much clearer than the lunar eclipse in 1992 which was at the height of the Pinatubo eruption. The atmosphere over the last decade is dirtier now than it used to be in general, has been getting clearer again over the last few years, and has not been as dirty as it was during the volcanic eruption in 1992.

[jethro]

Reading through the articles carefully clears the confusion. China dramatically increased aerosol pollution up to about 2006 and has decreased since then. And the final article notes that the lunar eclipses since the late 90s have been much clearer than the lunar eclipse in 1992 which was at the height of the Pinatubo eruption. The atmosphere over the last decade is dirtier now than it used to be in general, has been getting clearer again over the last few years, and has not been as dirty as it was during the volcanic eruption in 1992.

So if China dramatically increased aerosol pollution up until 2006 why does Keen say Lunar eclipses have been clear since 1996 - that's a full ten years of heavy pollution which is supposed to have been enough to globally cool temperatures. If it's enough to cool temperatures globally, the atmosphere wouldn't be bright and clear. The time period of the study and conclusion that China cooled the world with their sulphur is 1998 - 2008, the graph on the wiki link only goes up to 2005 but it should surely show a rise in global sulphur up to that point, things like Pinatubo show up on it.

Also a NASA satellite study found that the earth has been brightening, not dimming since 1990 and The Baseline Surface Radiation Network surface measurements show a brightening of the planet of 4% in the past decade.

How can we brightening and dimming at the same time?

[paul tall]

So if China dramatically increased aerosol pollution up until 2006 why does Keen say Lunar eclipses have been clear since 1996 - that's a full ten years of heavy pollution which is supposed to have been enough to globally cool temperatures. If it's enough to cool temperatures globally, the atmosphere wouldn't be bright and clear. The time period of the study and conclusion that China cooled the world with their sulphur is 1998 - 2008, the graph on the wiki link only goes up to 2005 but it should surely show a rise in global sulphur up to that point, things like Pinatubo show up on it.

Also a NASA satellite study found that the earth has been brightening, not dimming since 1990 and The Baseline Surface Radiation Network surface measurements show a brightening of the planet of 4% in the past decade.

How can we brightening and dimming at the same time?

I don't know but be sure that The Climate Change Industry will find a way to spin it.

[Methuselah]

I don't know but be sure that The Climate Change Industry will find a way to spin it.

And they are???

[jethro]

I don't know but be sure that The Climate Change Industry will find a way to spin it.

There's an even greater chance that I'm having a real thicko moment here; I was hoping someone could answer this apparent conundrum and show me where my idiocy stems from - I must be missing something fundamental because that paper makes no sense when read in conjunction with the rest of the data I've posted.

How can we be brightening and dimming at the same time

[johnholmes]

Its nothing to do with the discussion above but I think it is probably the correct place to place this post. I am unable to start a new thread but I did post somewhere else about a very interesting article about climate and did promise to ask R Met Soc if I might be allowed to copy and post it into Net Weather.

Much as I feared the head of R Met Soc has turned this down and all I can give you is this, a link for you to see what its about and then either get it from your library or pay for the article!

Hello John,

I checked with our Chief Exec about this and his response is below. I hope this helps,

Best regards,

Althea Howard (Ms)

Membership, Subscriptions and Accounts

Royal Meteorological Society

104 Oxford Road

Reading

RG1 7LL

Tel +44 (0) 118 9568500, Fax + 44 (0)118 9568571

membership@rmets.org or althea.howard@rmets.org

www.rmets.org

Please consider the environment and do not print this email unless you really need to.

-----Original Message-----

From: Paul Hardaker

Sent: 13 July 2011 17:32

To: Althea Howard

Subject: RE: Copy Weather article to member's website?

As Weather is available on-line and articles are downloadable to subscribers unfortunately we don't allow single articles to be copied but we can provide John with a link he can put on to his website:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wea.761/abstract

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Professor Paul Hardaker, FRMetS CMet CEnv

Chief Executive, Royal Meteorological Society

Tel.: +44 (0)1189 568 500

Mobile: +44 (0)7941 597 394

Email: chiefexec@rmets.org

Web: www.rmets.org

ï Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail

-----Original Message-----

From: Althea Howard

Sent: 13 July 2011 15:31

To: Paul Hardaker

Subject: FW: Copy Weather article to member's website?

Paul, could you let me know if this is OK please?

Thanks,

Althea

-----Original Message-----

From: Jodie Carter

Sent: 13 July 2011 15:21

To: Althea Howard

Subject: FW: RMetS.org online feedback

Jodie Carter

The Royal Meteorological Society

104 Oxford Road

Reading

RG1 7LL

Tel: +44 (0) 01189 568500

Fax: +44 (0) 01189 568571

Email: Jodie.carter@rmets.org

Web: www.rmets.org

-----Original Message-----

From: john-holmes@zen.co.uk [mailto:john-holmes@zen.co.uk]

Sent: 13 July 2011 09:24

To: Jodie Carter

Subject: RMetS.org online feedback

Message received from the Royal Meteorological Society Website

Details as follows:

Name: john holmes

Address: john-holmes@zen.co.uk

Message: hi

Sorry but I cannot find my membership number.

My question is regarding an item in the July edition. The first item by Ed Hawkins, \'Our evolving climate....climate variability.

Excellent article and I wondered if I might be allowed to copy and paste it into the following web site I belong too please?

www.netweather.tv is a respectable weather web site and the article would be very useful in the climate change area?

many thanks

John Holmes

Just to give a flavour of it the link below allows you to read the first page. In my view its a first class article and its a pity that I'm not allowed to reproduce it all.

anyway the first page link

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wea.761/abstract