New research (h/t Richard Cumming) reveals a pulse of CO2 takes just a decade to inflict its maximum warming and hangs around for a century.
But how does it warm the ocean?
The paper is available at Environmental Research Letters.
Our research continues…
Views: 148
“We [the warmists] find the median time between an emission and maximum warming is 10.1 years, with a 90% probability range of 6.6–30.7 years.”
We (the sceptics) find the maximum warming has been reached for 10.1 years, with a 10% probability that it will continue for 6.6–30.7 years and a 90% probability it will cool after 6 years
Here’s the falsehood (the BIG LIE):
“Global temperature rises in response to the CO2 forcing, but with a lag of about a decade due to the thermal inertia of the upper layers of the ocean. The maximum temperature is reached when the ever-decreasing rate of warming in response to the increase in radiative forcing is balanced by the slowly decreasing magnitude of radiative forcing of atmospheric CO2.”
# # #
Oceanic thermal inertia is the “heat sink” characteristic of the sun => ocean => atmosphere system. The sun heats the ocean – not CO2.
When solar input increases (as it did LIA – 1958, Max 1958-2005) the oceans take up more and more heat which causes the overall climate to warm up. On a millennial timeframe, the lag is 30 – 40 years:
‘Correlation between solar activity and the local temperature of Antarctica during the past 11,000 years’
X.H. Zhao and X.S. Feng (2014)
• SSN [Sunspot Number] and Vostok temperature (T) had common periodicities in past 11,000 years.
• The millennial variations of SSN and T had a strong and stable correlation.
• The millennial variation of SSN led that of T by 30–40 years.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2014/11/new-paper-finds-strong-evidence-sun-has.html
“Thus, the well known ~1000 year climate cycle responsible for the Holocene Climate Optimum 6000 to 4000 years ago, the Egyptian warm period ~4000 years ago, the Minoan warm period ~3000 years ago, the Roman warm period ~2000 years ago, the Medieval warm period ~1000 years ago, and the current warm period at present all roughly fall in this same 1000 year sequence of increased solar activity associated with warm periods.” [THS]
CO2 is a bit player, not contributing to ocean warming contrary to the BIG LIE.
Conversely, the oceans take up less and less heat which causes the overall climate to cool down when solar input decreases (as it is now). Again, the time lag over 10 – 100 years but discernible at 30 – 40 years as above. More immediate effects are centred on the planetary thermal inertia of around 14 years +/- 6 i.e. 8 – 20 years (Abdussamatov 1012).
So expect a small but perceptible temperature fall on average around the end of this decade, 14 years after solar input started decreasing after 2005. The big fall will be 2035 – 2045.
Some context:
‘A new approach to long-term reconstruction of the solar irradiance leads to large historical solar forcing’
Shapiro, Schmutz, Rozanov, Schoell, Haberreiter, Shapiro, and Nyeki (2011)
ABSTRACT
Context. The variable Sun is the most likely candidate for natural forcing of past climate change on time scales of 50 to 1000 years. Evidence for this understanding is that the terrestrial climate correlates positively with solar activity. During the past 10000 years, the Sun has experienced substantial variations in activity and there have been numerous attempts to reconstruct solar irradiance. While there is general agreement on how solar forcing varied during the last several hundred years—all reconstructions are proportional to the solar activity—there is scientific controversy on the magnitude of solar forcing.
4. Results and Discussion
Both reconstructions suggest a significant increase in TSI during
the first half of the twentieth-century as well as low solar irradiance
during the Maunder and Dalton minima. The difference
between the current and reconstructed TSI during the Maunder
minimum is about 6 ± 3 W/m2 (equivalent to a solar forcing of
FP−M∼ 1.0±0.5W/m2) which is substantially larger than recent
estimates (see Sect. 1). Note that as our technique uses 22-year
means of the solar modulation potential our approach cannot be
tested with the last, unusual solar minimum in 2008. In order
to reproduce the current minimum as shown in Fig. 1 we have
adopted a value of 584 MeV for the future 22-year average in
2020 (which is 92% of the 22-year average for 1988–2009).
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1102/1102.4763v1.pdf
Solar forcing from LIA to Present (compare to Shapiro et al above):
http://www.geo.arizona.edu/palynology/geos462/20clim_crowly00.jpg
That solar forcing not only explains SLR (a partial proxy for OHC):
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/clip_image004_thumb5.png?w=602&h=455
The solar forcing also explains GMST:
Loehle (2007)
http://www.drroyspencer.com/library/pics/2000-years-of-global-temperature.jpg
Ljungqvist (2010)
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/loehle_v_fig1.png?w=867
Loehle (2007) vs Ljungqvist (2010)
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/loehle_v_fig21.png?w=720
So the problem for the warmists is: what alternative forcing (e.g. CO2) would explain SLR/OHC and GMST over the last 1000 years that would negate the solar case?
Problematic because there was no CO2 forcing MWP – LIA
Should be:
“Solar forcing from [MWP to] LIA to Present (compare to Shapiro et al above):
>”Problematic because there was no CO2 forcing MWP – LIA”
U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works
Hearing Statements
Date: 12/06/2006
Statement of Dr. David Deming
University of Oklahoma
College of Earth and Energy
Climate Change and the Media
—————————————————————————————————————————————————————–
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, and distinguished guests, thank you for inviting me to testify today. I am a geologist and geophysicist. I have a bachelor’s degree in geology from Indiana University, and a Ph.D in geophysics from the University of Utah. My field of specialization in geophysics is temperature and heat flow. In recent years, I have turned my studies to the history and philosophy of science. In 1995, I published a short paper in the academic journal Science. In that study, I reviewed how borehole temperature data recorded a warming of about one degree Celsius in North America over the last 100 to 150 years. The week the article appeared, I was contacted by a reporter for National Public Radio. He offered to interview me, but only if I would state that the warming was due to human activity. When I refused to do so, he hung up on me.
I had another interesting experience around the time my paper in Science was published. I received an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change. He said, “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.”
The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was a time of unusually warm weather that began around 1000 AD and persisted until a cold period known as the “Little Ice Age” took hold in the 14th century. Warmer climate brought a remarkable flowering of prosperity, knowledge, and art to Europe during the High Middle Ages.
The existence of the MWP had been recognized in the scientific literature for decades. But now it was a major embarrassment to those maintaining that the 20th century warming was truly anomalous. It had to be “gotten rid of.”
In 1769, Joseph Priestley warned that scientists overly attached to a favorite hypothesis would not hesitate to “warp the whole course of nature.” In 1999, Michael Mann and his colleagues published a reconstruction of past temperature in which the MWP simply vanished. This unique estimate became known as the “hockey stick,” because of the shape of the temperature graph.
Normally in science, when you have a novel result that appears to overturn previous work, you have to demonstrate why the earlier work was wrong. But the work of Mann and his colleagues was initially accepted uncritically, even though it contradicted the results of more than 100 previous studies. Other researchers have since reaffirmed that the Medieval Warm Period was both warm and global in its extent.
There is an overwhelming bias today in the media regarding the issue of global warming. In the past two years, this bias has bloomed into an irrational hysteria. Every natural disaster that occurs is now linked with global warming, no matter how tenuous or impossible the connection. As a result, the public has become vastly misinformed on this and other environmental issues.
Earth’s climate system is complex and poorly understood. But we do know that throughout human history, warmer temperatures have been associated with more stable climates and increased human health and prosperity. Colder temperatures have been correlated with climatic instability, famine, and increased human mortality.
The amount of climatic warming that has taken place in the past 150 years is poorly constrained, and its cause–human or natural–is unknown. There is no sound scientific basis for predicting future climate change with any degree of certainty. If the climate does warm, it is likely to be beneficial to humanity rather than harmful. In my opinion, it would be foolish to establish national energy policy on the basis of misinformation and irrational hysteria.
# # # # #
“We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period” – the warmists lament
The “major researcher in the area of climate change” was Jay Overpeck, a senior scientific advisor to the IPCC:
‘How the climate fraudsters tried to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period’
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2014/02/how-climate-fraudsters-tried-to-get-rid.html
From the HS article:
Below are two graphs that both show temperature changes over a 51 year period. Both use exactly the same format for displaying the data. One chart shows the period 1885 to 1946 and the other chart shows the period 1957-2008. One, it is agreed by everyone, is caused by nature and one, it is claimed by some, is unnatural:
http://a-sceptical-mind.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/temp-comparison.jpg
Can you tell which is which?
Statement of Dr. David Deming
http://www.epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=266543
In a similar vein at WUWT:
‘Another excuse for ‘the pause’ – the oceans ate the heat’
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/03/another-excuse-for-the-pause-the-oceans-ate-the-heat/
Keywords: “heat drawdown” (The Trenberth Factor)
Otherwise known as multi-decadal ocean cycles.
RC,
I would guess the right-hand graph is the earlier period, because I seem to recall the lowest temperature reached in about the 1880s was less than anything recorded in the 20th century. Apart from that, though, they’re remarkably similar. This is excellent. That the scientists did not publicise it earlier was surely an oversight.
>”I would guess the right-hand graph is the earlier period,”
No, the right-hand graph is the later period. You can see the 1998/99 El Nino. The series from 1885 is here:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1885
1885 to 1946 vs 1957-2008
http://a-sceptical-mind.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/temp-comparison.jpg
The Hockey Schtick got it wrong too:
“The answer is that the chart on the left is for 1957 – 2008 and is considered by the climate alarmists to show unprecedented warming. What do you think?”
I think it is very difficult unless an inordinate amount of time is spent immersed in these graphs (as I do).
Of course the MfE depicts it thus:
http://www.climatechange.govt.nz/emissions-trading-scheme/about/what-it-means-for-me/brochure-sme/
Source: UK Department of Energy and Climate Change
Ah! Thank you. It’s a clever selection of data.
[Gareth Renowden] – “Solid Treadgold, easy action (NZ still warming fast)”
Heh.
BEST-NZ 37SS unsmoothed monthly anomaly 1997 – Aug 2013 (1.77 decades):
-0.096 C/decade
What’s he talking about?
>”What’s he talking about?”
His usual guff. That’s the title of his response to your “debating points” post:
http://hot-topic.co.nz/solid-treadgold-easy-action-nz-still-warming-fast/#more-13913
But bow he thinks NZ is “still warming fast” is something I cannot answer.
Do we really need all these people at COP20 ?
Provisional list of participants
New Zealand
H.E. Mr. Timothy Groser Minister for Climate Change Issues Government of New Zealand
H.E. Ms. Jo Tyndall Climate Change Ambassador Environment Division Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Ms. Anna Broadhurst Lead Adviser, Climate Change Environment Division Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Mr. Timothy Breese Policy Officer Environment Division Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Mr. Alastair Cameron Senior Analyst Natural Resource Policy The Treasury
Mr. Roger Dungan Senior Policy Officer Environment Division Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Ms. Maya Hunt Senior Policy Analyst International Policy Ministry for Primary Industries
Mr. Christopher Insley Advisor to Climate Change, Iwi Leadership Group
Ms. Sarah Lovegrove Deputy Head of Mission New Zrealand Embassy Santiago Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Mr. Paul Melville Senior Policy Analyst International Policy Ministry for Primary Industries
Mr. Dylan Muggeridge Analyst Climate Change Directorate Ministry for the Environment
Ms. Helen Plume Principal Analyst Climate Change Directorate Ministry for the Environment
Ms. Michelle Podmore Senior Legal Adviser Legal Division Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Ms. Maria Jesus Prieto Arriagada Policy Advisor New Zealand Embassy Santiago Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Ms. Penelope Race Senior Analyst International Climate and Environment Ministry for the Environment
Mr. Matthew Smith Private Secretary Climate Change Ministry for the Environment
Mr. Stephen Walter Senior Analyst International Climate and Environment Ministry for the Environment
Mr. John Carnegie Manager, Energy Environment & Infrastructure Business New Zealand Incorporated
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2014/cop20/eng/misc01p01.pdf
Advancing the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action
Draft by the Co-Chairs
11 November 2014
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2014/adp2/eng/12drafttext.pdf
Non-paper on elements for a draft negotiating text 1
Updated non-paper on Parties’ views and proposals1 2
11 November 2014
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2014/adp2/eng/11nonpap.pdf
10. Agrees that achievement of the aggregate level of ambition indicated as necessary by
the scientific findings assessed in the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change through nationally determined contributions requires:
(a) Implementation of contributions by each Party beyond any commitment or
action currently undertaken by it under the Convention or its Kyoto Protocol;
(b) Mobilization of increasing levels of financial, technological and capacitybuilding
support for developing country Parties, in particular those most vulnerable
to the adverse effects of climate change;
# # #
“Scientific findings” of AR5 being the model failures.
24.
(a) Calls on developed country Parties, other Parties included in Annex II to the
Convention and other Parties in a position to do so to provide additional resources to
the Green Climate Fund, the Global Environment Facility, the Technology
Mechanism and the Adaptation Fund so as to enhance the efforts of these
institutions, in accordance with their respective functions and mandates, to support
developing country Parties in implementing their pre-2020 actions, in particular on
adaptation;
# # #
‘Japan paid for coal-fired power plants with Green Climate Fund money’
CCD, 04 December 2014
Japan loaned $1 billion to build new coal-fired power plants with money allocated to fight global warming. Only in the ever-growing global-warming cottage industry does an organization create a slush fund and not attach any rules governing how it should be used.
[…]
The AP reported Monday that Japan included $1 billion in loans for new coal plants in Indonesia in the climate finance it reported to the United Nations in 2010-12. Japan says those plants are cleaner than older coal plants, though they pollute more than other energy sources.
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/japan-paid-for-coal-fired-power-plants-with-green-climate-fund-money.html
42. Also agrees that future high-level engagement on enhanced action within the
UNFCCC process should provide for contributions from and dialogue with senior
representatives of subnational authorities and other non-State actors;
# # #
It takes 18 personnel already at national level, how many at subnational level?
Not to mention the creep.
37. Agrees that effective implementation of enhanced action requires the engagement
and contribution of the broadest range of actors and therefore invites:
(a) Parties to further incentivize, in accordance with their national circumstances,
climate actions by subnational authorities, including cities, by establishing effective
regulatory frameworks and financing mechanisms needed to address barriers and
leverage investment;
(b) Subnational authorities, including cities, to scale up and replicate the existing
ambitious policies, measures and action highlighted during the technical
examination process;
# # #
Hence,
‘Cities in Climate Change Danger, Warns Captain Planet’
By Jeffrey Marlow, 12.05.14
Cities: ground zero for climate change
Cities have been getting a lot of love these days, as home to more than half of the world’s population and sites of revitalization, innovative governance strategies, and cultural vibrancy. But urban locations may also be ground zero for climate change, both as perpetrators of a warming atmosphere and as victims of its multi-tiered effects.
So says Dr. Marshall Shepherd, a professor of Geography and Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Georgia and a leading voice in climate science circles. “Cities are where things are most rapidly heating,” he says, “and they also represent particular concentrations of vulnerability.”
Localized heating in and around cities has long been noted – the “urban heat island effect” is caused largely by resurfacing vast areas with materials that absorb and trap short-wave radiation. Shepherd and his colleagues, however, have noticed a new phenomenon in which the whole effect of agglomerated urban areas is greater than the sum of the parts. They’re calling it the urban heat archipelago, where “aggregate urban regions take on a disproportionately large climate forcing function,” Shepherd says, “comparable to the scaling of a mountain chain versus an isolated mountain.”
The replacement effect is also significant. Paving over the Sahara Desert wouldn’t take too much primary production out of commission, but “we tend to put cities on the most fertile of landscapes,” as Shepherd explains. After all, population centers typically formed around areas of consistent water availability – for food production or for trade purposes – and the spatial expansion of built areas removes highly productive land that would otherwise help sequester carbon.
The impacts of a warming climate will be felt disproportionately by cities, Shepherd contends, because of growing population levels and dated infrastructure. The former creates more paved surfaces and more surface runoff, while the latter can’t always handle the new burden. “Stormwater management systems were designed for 1970s rainstorms,” Shepherd says, but stronger storm events and decades of neglect have conspired to create a dangerous situation. On the other end of the spectrum, droughts can be more threatening to more people, since water storage capacity has not kept pace with growth. A medium-intensity 2007 drought in Atlanta, for example, caused a near-critical situation because more people were vying for the same quantity of reserves. At one point, the city was 30 days from running out of water.
Low-relief coastal cities – New Orleans, Houston, Miami, New York, Washington D.C. – are particularly vulnerable, as rising waters have cut the margin of error. “Hurricane Sandy wasn’t a particularly strong storm, all things considered,” Shepherd says of the 2012 storm that wreaked havoc on the Eastern seaboard, “but it was pushing more water onshore than it would have 100 years ago.”
Shepherd will be receiving the Captain Planet Protector of the Earth Award – yes, such an amazing title exists – today in Atlanta, in recognition of his hands-on environmental stewardship. And as a planetary guardian, he has some practical pointers that could help gird urban areas against the coming threats of a changing climate. “Strategic greening,” – it turns out placement and orientation matters when planting trees – “and having more white or highly reflective surfaces are things that can almost immediately reduce the temperature in cities.” It probably won’t be enough to save the planet on its own, but such minor modifications may at least help turn the tide.
http://www.wired.com/2014/12/cities-climate-change-danger-warns-capitan-planet/
I am (almost) rendered speechless by the knowledge that our tiny nation requires a contingent of olympian proportions, all no doubt with very expensive and specialised educations, to attend a pointless meeting in a place that is both exotic and expensive to travel to and stay at to address a problem that does not actually exist. No wonder it’s so bloody hard to acheive a practical level of funding for Primary and Secondary schools from the finite pool of State funds when said pool is being drained by such stupidly pointless junkets. I have long harboured the suspicion that there are many employed in Wellington who we could find something more useful/productive for them to do, although I suspect that many of these individuals have skill sets that are so far in the realms of ‘Yes Minister’ scripts that it may be practical just to pension them off.
I think that various opportunities must exist for them, such as I found when I was new to the workforce (in the mid-fifties) such as grubbing thistles for cockies, separating dags from wool in the back of freezing winter woolsheds for the same cockies. Not very elevated socially or intellectually challenging, but it taught me that there are no free lunches – anywhere.
>”a contingent of olympian proportions”
18 of them x 10 hrs a day x 10 days x $50 per hr = $90,000 + airfares + accommodation + expenses.
And there’s all the staff sitting on their backsides back in NZ. And the preparation began a year ago.
So:
100 people x 40 hrs x 50 weeks x $50 = $10,000,000