From The Register, UK:
Get a TDi estate not an EV, and save the planet! By Lewis Page, 8/31/10
Swiss boffins have mounted an investigation into the largely unknown environmental burdens of electric cars using lithium-ion batteries, and say that the manufacturing and disposal of batteries presents no insurmountable barriers to electric motoring. However, their analysis reveals that modern diesel cars are actually better for the environment than battery ones.
The revelations come in a new report [1] issued by Swiss government research lab EMPA, titled Contribution of Li-Ion Batteries to the Environmental Impact of Electric Vehicles. The Swiss boffins, having done some major research into the environmental burdens of making and disposing of li-ion batteries - to add to the established bodies of work on existing cars - say that battery manufacture and disposal aren't that big a deal. However, in today's world, with electricity often made by burning coal or gas, a battery car is still a noticeable eco burden:
The main finding of this study is that the impact of a Li-ion battery used in [a battery-powered car] for transport service is relatively small. In contrast, it is the operation phase that remains the dominant contributor to the environmental burden caused by transport service as long as the electricity for the [battery car] is not produced by renewable hydropower ...
A break even analysis shows that an [internal combustion engined vehicle] would need to consume less than 3.9 L/100km to cause lower [environmental impacts] than a [battery car] ... Consumptions in this range are achieved by some small and very efficient diesel [cars], for example, from Ford and Volkswagen.
Actually quite a lot of the new diesels are in the better-than-battery ballpark, according to UK government figures. The notional battery car considered by the EMPA analysts was a Volkswagen Golf with its normal drivetrain replaced by a battery one: but it seems that you would be doing slightly better for the environment to buy an ordinary new Golf [2] with a 1.6 litre "BlueMotion" injected turbodiesel - which would be a lot cheaper. That would consume 3.8 l/100km, not 3.9.
So would a new Mini Cooper D hatchback or a new Ford Focus, actually. And if you could bear to go for something a little smaller - VW Polo [3] rather than Golf - you'd be streets ahead on the environmental front, down as low as 3.4 l/100km with more than 15 per cent of the car's in-service emissions clipped off compared to the 3.9 l/100km battery-car baseline. As the Swiss boffins tell us, it's the in-service energy use and emissions which count most.
You could even treat yourself to a small estate car - the Skoda Fabia [4] - and beat a battery Golf by a large margin in terms of eco-credentials, according to the EMPA analysis.
Of course, battery car lovers will argue that's not the point. Swiss electricity is already largely generated by carbon-free nuclear and hydropower plants (carbon-free provided you don't count all the concrete used to build them, that is). These and other technologies not yet much used (solar, wind, tidal etc) may one day put the battery car far ahead of internal-combustion ones in terms of carbon emissions.
And if nobody buys battery cars now, they'll stay expensive and scarce forever, so it's still possible to view the act of buying one as green even today when they actually do more damage to the environment than the right internal-combustion model.
But if you just want to emit less carbon right away, it seems you should buy a modern eco-diesel rather than an electric vehicle.
Links
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es903729a
http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/search/vehicleDetails.asp?id=25188
http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/search/vehicleDetails.asp?id=25449
http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/search/vehicleDetails.asp?id=26131
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Warmist catfight: Revkin "making sh*t up" & should "shut the f*** up"
Wow- perennial alarmist Andrew Revkin of the New York Times Dot Earth blog seems to have touched a nerve amongst fellow warmists with his latest entry, On Harvard Misconduct, Climate Research and Trust. Revkin, attempting to be a bona fide journalist states,
UPDATE: the same nut (Easterbrook) who wrote the piece above is presenting a paper on why climate scientists should not write their own software (sounds like he is accusing them of being tribalists!)
"Do I trust climate science? As a living body of intellectual inquiry exploring profoundly complex questions, yes.
Do I trust all climate scientists, research institutions, funding sources, journals and others involved in this arena to convey the full context of findings and to avoid sometimes stepping beyond the data? I wouldn’t be a journalist if I answered yes."After posting, Revkin promptly bolted to "camping over the next few days, so comment moderation will be very sporadic," but while he is away a catfight* has erupted amongst fellow warmists accusing Revkin of "making sh*t up," "ignorance," being "appalling," "pontificating" "nonsense" he "reads on the internet," etc. Here is some of the vitriol, courtesy of Tenney Naumer and computer programmer Steve Easterbrook [comments in italics added by me]:
Steve Easterbrook has his say on Andrew Revkin's latest attempt to join Judith Curry in her tribe of professional self-immolationists [note 'immolationists' is not an English word according to dictionary.com; immolation is defined as 'to sacrifice' and self-immolation as suicide for 'an extreme form of protest']
When did ignorance become a badge of honour for journalists? by Steve Easterbrook, Serendipity, August 28, 2010
Here’s an appalling article by Andy Revkin on Dot Earth which epitomizes everything that is wrong with media coverage of climate change. Far from using his position to educate and influence the public by seeking the truth, journalists like Revkin now seem to have taken to just making shit up, reporting what he reads in blogs as the truth, rather than investigating for himself what scientists actually do.
Revkin kicks off by citing a Harvard cognitive scientist found guilty of academic misconduct, and connecting it with “assertions that climate research suffered far too much from group think, protective tribalism and willingness to spin findings to suit an environmental agenda.” Note the juxtaposition. On the one hand, a story of a lone scientist who turned out to be corrupt (which is rare, but does happen from time to time). On the other hand, a set of insinuations about thousands of climate scientists, with no evidence whatsoever. Groupthink? Tribalism? Spin? Can Revkin substantiate these allegations? Does he even try? Of course not. He just repeats a lot of gossip from a bunch of politically motivated blogs, and demonstrates his own total ignorance of how scientists work.
He does offer two pieces of evidence to back up his assertion of bias. The first is the well-publicized mistake in the IPCC report on the retreat of the Himalayan glaciers. Unfortunately, the quotes from the IPCC authors in the very article Revkin points to, show it was the result of an honest [baloney - see IPCC's Himalayan glacier 'mistake' not an accident] mistake, despite an entire cadre of journalists and bloggers trying to spin it into some vast conspiracy theory. The second is about a paper on the connection between vanishing frogs and climate change, cited in the IPCC report. The IPCC report quite correctly cites the paper, and gives a one sentence summary of it. Somehow or other, Revkin seems to think this is bias or spin. It must have entirely escaped his notice that the IPCC report is supposed to summarize the literature in order to assess our current understanding of the science. Some of that literature is tentative, and some less so. Now, maybe Revkin has evidence that there is absolutely no connection between the vanishing frogs and climate change. [Climate scientist Roger Pielke Sr thinks the frog/climate change connection is dubious] If so, he completely fails to mention it. Which means that the IPCC is merely reporting on the best information we have on the subject. Come on Andy, if you want to demonstrate a pattern of bias in the IPCC reports, you’re gonna have to work damn harder than that. Oh, but I forgot. You’re just repeating a bunch of conspiracy theories to pretend you have something useful to say, rather than actually, say, investigating a story.
From here, Revkin weaves a picture of climate science as “done by very small tribes (sea ice folks, glacier folks, modelers, climate-ecologists, etc.),” and hence suggests they must therefore be guilty of groupthink and confirmation bias. Does he offer any evidence for this tribalism? No he does not, for there is none. He merely repeats the allegations of a bunch of people like Steve McIntyre, who working on the fringes of science, clearly do belong to a minor tribe, one that does not interact in any meaningful way with real climate scientists. So, I guess we’re meant to conclude that because McIntyre and a few others have formed a little insular tribe, that this must mean mainstream climate scientists are tribal too? Such reasoning would be laughable, if this wasn’t such a serious subject.
Revkin claims to have been “following the global warming saga – science and policy – for nearly a quarter century.” Unfortunately, in all that time, he doesn’t appear to have actually educated himself about how the science is done. If he’d spent any time in a climate science research institute, he’d know this allegation of tribalism is about as far from the truth as it’s possible to get. Oh, but of course, actually going and observing scientists in action would require some effort. That seems to be just a little too much to ask.
So, to educate Andy, and to save him the trouble of finding out for himself, let me explain. First, a little bit of history. The modern concern about the potential impacts of climate change probably dates back to the 1957 Revelle and Suess paper, in which they reported that the oceans absorb far less anthropogenic carbon emissions than was previously thought. Revelle was trained in geology and oceanography. Suess was a nuclear physicist, who studied the distribution of carbon-14 in the atmosphere. Their collaboration was inspired by discussions with Libby, a physical chemist famous for the development of radio-carbon dating. As head of the Scripps Institute, Revelle brought together oceanographers with atmospheric physicists (including initiating the Mauna Loa of the measurement of carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere), atomic physicists studying dispersal of radioactive particles, and biologists studying the biological impacts of radiation. Tribalism? How about some truly remarkable inter-disciplinary research?[Revelle recanted global warming alarmism before his death]
I suppose Revkin might argue that those were the old days, and maybe things have gone downhill since then. But again, the evidence says otherwise. In the 1970s, the idea of earth system science began to emerge, and in the last decade, it has become central to the efforts to build climate simulation models to improve our understandings of the connections between the various earth subsystems: atmosphere, ocean, atmospheric chemistry, ocean biogeochemistry, biology, hydrology, glaciology and meteorology. If you visit any of the major climate research labs today, you’ll find a collection of scientists from many of these different disciplines working alongside one another, collaborating on the development of integrated models, and discussing the connections between the different earth subsystems. For example, when I visited the UK Met Office two years ago, I was struck by their use of cross-disciplinary teams to investigate specific problems in the simulation models. When I visited, they had just formed such a cross-disciplinary team to investigate how to improve the simulation of the Indian monsoons in their earth system models. This week, I’m just wrapping up a month long visit to the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, where I’ve also regularly sat in on meetings between scientists from the various disciplines, sharing ideas about, for example, the relationships between atmospheric radiative transfer and ocean plankton models.
The folks in Hamburg have been kind enough to allow me to sit in on their summer school this week, in which they’re training the next generation of earth science PhD students how to work with earth system models. The students are from a wide variety of disciplines: some study glaciers, some clouds, some oceanography, some biology, and so on. The set of experiments we’ve been given to try out on the model include: changing the cloud top mass flux, altering the rate of decomposition in soils, changing the ocean mixing ratio, altering the ocean albedo, and changing the shape of the earth. Oh, and they’ve mixed up the students, so they have to work in pairs with people from another discipline. Tribalism? No, right from the get go, PhD training includes the encouragement of cross-disciplinary thinking and cross-disciplinary working.
Of course, if Revkin ever did wander into a climate science research institute he would see this for himself. But no, he prefers pontificating from the comfort of his armchair, repeating nonsense allegations he reads on the internet. And this is the standard that journalists hold for themselves? No wonder the general public is confused about climate change. Instead of trying to pick holes in a science they clearly don’t understand, maybe people like Revkin ought to do some soul searching and investigate the gaping holes in journalistic coverage of climate change. Then finally we might find out where the real biases lie.
So, here’s a challenge for Andy Revkin: Do not write another word about climate science until you have spent one whole month as a visitor in a climate research institute. Attend the seminars, talk to the PhD students, sit in on meetings, find out what actually goes on in these places. If you can’t be bothered to do that, then please shut the fuck up.
Update: On reflection, I think I was too generous to Revkin when I accused him of making shit up, so I deleted that bit. He’s really just parroting other people who make shit up.
Update #2: Oh, did I mention that I’m a computer scientist? I’ve been welcomed into various climate research labs, invited to sit in on meetings and observe their working practices, and to spend my time hanging out with all sorts of scientists from all sorts of disciplines. Because obviously they’re a bunch of tribalists who are trying to hide what they do. NOT!
Link: http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/?p=1874*Note : the term 'catfight' is often used in gender-neutral fashion; from Wikipedia: "the term is not exclusively used to indicate a fight between women, and many formal definitions do not invoke gender. Instead, it refers to any "vociferous fight."
UPDATE: the same nut (Easterbrook) who wrote the piece above is presenting a paper on why climate scientists should not write their own software (sounds like he is accusing them of being tribalists!)
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Paper: More ways the Sun influences Climate
Incredible as it may seem, the IPCC claims the Sun has little to no significant influence upon the climate, preferring to blame 97% of climate change on CO2. This myopic conclusion is based upon consideration of only one solar parameter- the total solar irradiance (TSI) - while ignoring potential secondary amplifying effects from the much more variable solar magnetic field, such as the cosmic ray theory of Svensmark et al, and the much greater variability than previously thought of the UV portion of the solar spectrum (which is capable of heating the ocean unlike the IR from 'greenhouse gases'). A new paper finds yet another means by which variation in solar magnetic activity can have marked influence on weather, climate, and ocean oscillations.
Professors Jean-Louis Le Mouel, Vincent Courtillot, et al have published several papers of late revealing more evidence and information about how the Sun's variable magnetic activity may impact various terrestrial phenomena, including weather and climate (see for example Kossobokov et al. 2010; Le Mouel et al. 2010b). And their new (13 August 2010) publication adds even more remarkable evidence and insights to the topic.
Figure 1. Correlation between the amplitude of the semiannual oscillation in length-of-day (blue curves with middle panel as detrended data while both top and bottom panels as original data) and various solar activity measures (sunspot numbers and proxy for galactic cosmic rays: red curves) from 1962-2009. A 4-year moving-average filter was used to smooth the data series. Adapted from Le Mouel et al. (2010).
Figure 1 displays some rather unexpected and surprising correlations between the long-term variation in the amplitude (A) of the solid Earth rotation parameter (here they have adopted its well-detected semi-annual variation) called length-of-day and two candidate solar activity measures: sunspot number (SN) and neutron count (NC, a proxy for incoming galactic cosmic rays), which were obtained from a station in Moscow, Russia. They point out that A and NC are inversely correlated with SN, the solar activity index, which leads A by about 1 year. And since galactic cosmic rays are also inversely related to sunspot number with a delay of 1 to 2 years or so, A is directly correlated to NC.
Le Mouel et al. (2010) explain the correlations in Figure 1 as being due to a plausible physical link of the 11-year solar activity cycle to a systematic modulation of tropospheric zonal wind (since winds above 30 km contribute less than 20% of Earth's angular momentum, as proxied by A). They also make the important point that although the IPCC and others usually rule out the role of solar irradiance impact on terrestrial climate because of the small interannual changes in the solar irradiance, such an argument does not apply to the plausible link of the large seasonal incoming solar radiation in modulating the semiannual oscillations in the length-of-day amplitude. Consequently, Le Mouel et al. (2010a) say their paper "shows that the Sun can (directly or indirectly) influence tropospheric zonal mean-winds over decadal to multidecadal time scales." And noting that "zonal mean-winds constitute an important element of global atmospheric circulation," they go on to suggest that "if the solar cycle can influence zonal mean-winds, then it may affect other features of global climate as well, including oscillations such as the NAO and MJO, of which zonal winds are an ingredient [Wheeler and Hendon 2004]." Therefore, "the cause of this forcing," as they describe it, "likely involves some combination of solar wind, galactic cosmic rays, ionosphere-Earth currents and cloud microphysics."
In summation, it is becoming clear there are many ways in which the magnetic activity of the Sun can impact various meteorological phenomena on Earth, including temperature and rainfall. The study of Le Mouel et al. (2010) is another unique contribution in that it shows there are connections of solar activity, through persistent modulation of the zonal wind, to faster or slower rotation rates of the solid Earth. And it must be noted that such contributions are only possible because they are willing to take broad multi-disciplinary approaches to understanding the complex patterns that are contained in different dynamical indices of the Earth. Such objective efforts stand in stark contrast to the near-religious paradigm of atmospheric CO2 as the predominant driver of climate change, as encapsulated in the UN IPCC reports.
References:
Le Mouel, J.-L., Blanter, E., Shnirman, M., and Courtillot, V. 2010a. Solar forcing of the semi-annual variation of length-of-day. Geophysical Research Letters 37: 2010GL043185.
Kossobokov, V., Le Mouel, J.-L., and Courtillot, V. 2010. A statistically significant signature of multi-decadal solar activity changes in atmospheric temperatures at three European stations. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 72: 595-606.
Le Mouel, J.-L., Kossobokov, V., and Courtillot, V. 2010b. A solar pattern in the longest temperature series from three stations in Europe. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 72: 62-76.
adapted from the NIPPC Report
Professors Jean-Louis Le Mouel, Vincent Courtillot, et al have published several papers of late revealing more evidence and information about how the Sun's variable magnetic activity may impact various terrestrial phenomena, including weather and climate (see for example Kossobokov et al. 2010; Le Mouel et al. 2010b). And their new (13 August 2010) publication adds even more remarkable evidence and insights to the topic.
Figure 1 displays some rather unexpected and surprising correlations between the long-term variation in the amplitude (A) of the solid Earth rotation parameter (here they have adopted its well-detected semi-annual variation) called length-of-day and two candidate solar activity measures: sunspot number (SN) and neutron count (NC, a proxy for incoming galactic cosmic rays), which were obtained from a station in Moscow, Russia. They point out that A and NC are inversely correlated with SN, the solar activity index, which leads A by about 1 year. And since galactic cosmic rays are also inversely related to sunspot number with a delay of 1 to 2 years or so, A is directly correlated to NC.
Le Mouel et al. (2010) explain the correlations in Figure 1 as being due to a plausible physical link of the 11-year solar activity cycle to a systematic modulation of tropospheric zonal wind (since winds above 30 km contribute less than 20% of Earth's angular momentum, as proxied by A). They also make the important point that although the IPCC and others usually rule out the role of solar irradiance impact on terrestrial climate because of the small interannual changes in the solar irradiance, such an argument does not apply to the plausible link of the large seasonal incoming solar radiation in modulating the semiannual oscillations in the length-of-day amplitude. Consequently, Le Mouel et al. (2010a) say their paper "shows that the Sun can (directly or indirectly) influence tropospheric zonal mean-winds over decadal to multidecadal time scales." And noting that "zonal mean-winds constitute an important element of global atmospheric circulation," they go on to suggest that "if the solar cycle can influence zonal mean-winds, then it may affect other features of global climate as well, including oscillations such as the NAO and MJO, of which zonal winds are an ingredient [Wheeler and Hendon 2004]." Therefore, "the cause of this forcing," as they describe it, "likely involves some combination of solar wind, galactic cosmic rays, ionosphere-Earth currents and cloud microphysics."
In summation, it is becoming clear there are many ways in which the magnetic activity of the Sun can impact various meteorological phenomena on Earth, including temperature and rainfall. The study of Le Mouel et al. (2010) is another unique contribution in that it shows there are connections of solar activity, through persistent modulation of the zonal wind, to faster or slower rotation rates of the solid Earth. And it must be noted that such contributions are only possible because they are willing to take broad multi-disciplinary approaches to understanding the complex patterns that are contained in different dynamical indices of the Earth. Such objective efforts stand in stark contrast to the near-religious paradigm of atmospheric CO2 as the predominant driver of climate change, as encapsulated in the UN IPCC reports.
References:
Le Mouel, J.-L., Blanter, E., Shnirman, M., and Courtillot, V. 2010a. Solar forcing of the semi-annual variation of length-of-day. Geophysical Research Letters 37: 2010GL043185.
Kossobokov, V., Le Mouel, J.-L., and Courtillot, V. 2010. A statistically significant signature of multi-decadal solar activity changes in atmospheric temperatures at three European stations. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 72: 595-606.
Le Mouel, J.-L., Kossobokov, V., and Courtillot, V. 2010b. A solar pattern in the longest temperature series from three stations in Europe. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 72: 62-76.
adapted from the NIPPC Report
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Paper: Many climate science papers misuse statistics
A paper published today in the Journal of Climate finds that "a large fraction" of papers in the climate science literature misuse tests of statistical significance. While the author did not examine any of the repeatedly debunked tests of statistical significance in the hockey stick literature of Michael Mann & coauthors, he
Significance Tests in Climate Science
Maarten H. P. Ambaum, Department of Meteorology, University of Reading, United Kingdom
Abstract: A large fraction of papers in the climate literature includes erroneous uses of significance tests. A Bayesian analysis is presented to highlight the meaning of significance tests and why typical misuse occurs. The significance statistic is not a quantitative measure of how confident we can be of the ‘reality’ of a given result. It is concluded that a significance test very rarely provides useful quantitative information.
See also the article today published in of all places Mother Jones illustrating more flagrant misuses of statistics in the field of climate science.
"tested a recent, randomly selected issue of The Journal of Climate for at least one such misuse of significance tests in each article. The Journal of Climate was not selected because it is prone to include such errors but because it can safely be considered to be one of the top journals in climate science. In that particular issue we observed a misuse of significance tests in 14 out of 19 articles. A randomly selected issue of ten years before showed such misuse of significance tests in 7 out of 13 articles. These two samples perhaps would not pass a traditional significance test, but they do indicate that such errors occur in the best journals with the most careful writing and editing. Indeed, in one of this author’s papers such erroneous use occurred."So, 74% of the articles in a recent issue of a top climate science journal misused tests of statistical significance, compared to only 54% of articles in an issue from 10 years before. Thus, one might surmise that there is a trend of unprecedented, record high misuse of statistics in the field of climate science. As stated by Edward Wegman, PhD in mathematical statistics,
"As statisticians, we were struck by the isolation of communities such as the paleoclimate community that rely heavily on statistical methods, yet do not seem to be interacting with the mainstream statistical community. The public policy implications of this debate are financially staggering and yet no apparently independent statistical expertise was sought or used."And also well stated by the Clive Crook article in Atlantic Monthly,
"Climate scientists lean very heavily on statistical methods, but they are not necessarily statisticians. Some of the correspondents in these emails appear to be out of their depth. This would explain their anxiety about having statisticians, rather than their climate-science buddies, crawl over their work."Wikipedia: "Lies, damned lies, and statistics" is a phrase describing the persuasive power of numbers, particularly the use of statistics to bolster weak arguments...
Significance Tests in Climate Science
Maarten H. P. Ambaum, Department of Meteorology, University of Reading, United Kingdom
Abstract: A large fraction of papers in the climate literature includes erroneous uses of significance tests. A Bayesian analysis is presented to highlight the meaning of significance tests and why typical misuse occurs. The significance statistic is not a quantitative measure of how confident we can be of the ‘reality’ of a given result. It is concluded that a significance test very rarely provides useful quantitative information.
See also the article today published in of all places Mother Jones illustrating more flagrant misuses of statistics in the field of climate science.
Monday, August 23, 2010
Wind Power Won't Cool Down the Planet
Often enough it leads to higher carbon emissions.
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, AUGUST 23, 2010 By ROBERT BRYCE
The wind industry has achieved remarkable growth largely due to the claim that it will provide major reductions in carbon dioxide emissions. There's just one problem: It's not true. A slew of recent studies show that wind-generated electricity likely won't result in any reduction in carbon emissions—or that they'll be so small as to be almost meaningless.
This issue is especially important now that states are mandating that utilities produce arbitrary amounts of their electricity from renewable sources. By 2020, for example, California will require utilities to obtain 33% of their electricity from renewables. About 30 states, including Connecticut, Minnesota and Hawaii, are requiring major increases in the production of renewable electricity over the coming years.
Wind—not solar or geothermal sources—must provide most of this electricity. It's the only renewable source that can rapidly scale up to meet the requirements of the mandates. This means billions more in taxpayer subsidies for the wind industry and higher electricity costs for consumers.
None of it will lead to major cuts in carbon emissions, for two reasons. First, wind blows only intermittently and variably. Second, wind-generated electricity largely displaces power produced by natural gas-fired generators, rather than that from plants burning more carbon-intensive coal.
Because wind blows intermittently, electric utilities must either keep their conventional power plants running all the time to make sure the lights don't go dark, or continually ramp up and down the output from conventional coal- or gas-fired generators (called "cycling"). But coal-fired and gas-fired generators are designed to run continuously, and if they don't, fuel consumption and emissions generally increase. A car analogy helps explain: An automobile that operates at a constant speed—say, 55 miles per hour—will have better fuel efficiency, and emit less pollution per mile traveled, than one that is stuck in stop-and-go traffic.
Recent research strongly suggests how this problem defeats the alleged carbon-reducing virtues of wind power. In April, Bentek Energy, a Colorado-based energy analytics firm, looked at power plant records in Colorado and Texas. (It was commissioned by the Independent Petroleum Association of the Mountain States.) Bentek concluded that despite huge investments, wind-generated electricity "has had minimal, if any, impact on carbon dioxide" emissions.
Bentek found that thanks to the cycling of Colorado's coal-fired plants in 2009, at least 94,000 more pounds of carbon dioxide were generated because of the repeated cycling. In Texas, Bentek estimated that the cycling of power plants due to increased use of wind energy resulted in a slight savings of carbon dioxide (about 600 tons) in 2008 and a slight increase (of about 1,000 tons) in 2009.
The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) has estimated the potential savings from a nationwide 25% renewable electricity standard, a goal included in the Waxman-Markey energy bill that narrowly passed the House last year. Best-case scenario: about 306 million tons less CO2 by 2030. Given that the agency expects annual U.S. carbon emissions to be about 6.2 billion tons in 2030, that expected reduction will only equal about 4.9% of emissions nationwide. That's not much when you consider that the Obama administration wants to cut CO2 emissions 80% by 2050.
Earlier this year, another arm of the Department of Energy, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, released a report whose conclusions were remarkably similar to those of the EIA. This report focused on integrating wind energy into the electric grid in the Eastern U.S., which has about two-thirds of the country's electric load. If wind energy were to meet 20% of electric needs in this region by 2024, according to the report, the likely reduction in carbon emissions would be less than 200 million tons per year. All the scenarios it considered will cost at least $140 billion to implement. And the issue of cycling conventional power plants is only mentioned in passing.
Coal emits about twice as much CO2 during combustion as natural gas. But wind generation mostly displaces natural gas, because natural gas-fired generators are often the most costly form of conventional electricity production. Yet if regulators are truly concerned about reducing carbon emissions and air pollution, they should be encouraging gas-fired generation at the expense of coal. And they should be doing so because U.S. natural gas resources are now likely large enough to meet all of America's natural gas needs for a century.
Meanwhile, the wind industry is pocketing subsidies that dwarf those garnered by the oil and gas sector. The federal government provides a production tax credit of $0.022 for each kilowatt-hour of electricity produced by wind. That amounts to $6.44 per million BTU of energy produced. In 2008, however, the EIA reported subsidies to oil and gas totaled $1.9 billion per year, or about $0.03 per million BTU of energy produced. Wind subsidies are more than 200 times as great as those given to oil and gas on the basis of per-unit-of-energy produced.
Perhaps it comes down to what Kevin Forbes, the director of the Center for the Study of Energy and Environmental Stewardship at Catholic University, told me: "Wind energy gives people a nice warm fuzzy feeling that we're taking action on climate change." Yet when it comes to CO2 emissions, "the reality is that it's not doing much of anything."
Mr. Bryce, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, recently published his fourth book, "Power Hungry: The Myths of 'Green' Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future" (PublicAffairs).
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, AUGUST 23, 2010 By ROBERT BRYCE
The wind industry has achieved remarkable growth largely due to the claim that it will provide major reductions in carbon dioxide emissions. There's just one problem: It's not true. A slew of recent studies show that wind-generated electricity likely won't result in any reduction in carbon emissions—or that they'll be so small as to be almost meaningless.
This issue is especially important now that states are mandating that utilities produce arbitrary amounts of their electricity from renewable sources. By 2020, for example, California will require utilities to obtain 33% of their electricity from renewables. About 30 states, including Connecticut, Minnesota and Hawaii, are requiring major increases in the production of renewable electricity over the coming years.
Wind—not solar or geothermal sources—must provide most of this electricity. It's the only renewable source that can rapidly scale up to meet the requirements of the mandates. This means billions more in taxpayer subsidies for the wind industry and higher electricity costs for consumers.
None of it will lead to major cuts in carbon emissions, for two reasons. First, wind blows only intermittently and variably. Second, wind-generated electricity largely displaces power produced by natural gas-fired generators, rather than that from plants burning more carbon-intensive coal.
Because wind blows intermittently, electric utilities must either keep their conventional power plants running all the time to make sure the lights don't go dark, or continually ramp up and down the output from conventional coal- or gas-fired generators (called "cycling"). But coal-fired and gas-fired generators are designed to run continuously, and if they don't, fuel consumption and emissions generally increase. A car analogy helps explain: An automobile that operates at a constant speed—say, 55 miles per hour—will have better fuel efficiency, and emit less pollution per mile traveled, than one that is stuck in stop-and-go traffic.
Recent research strongly suggests how this problem defeats the alleged carbon-reducing virtues of wind power. In April, Bentek Energy, a Colorado-based energy analytics firm, looked at power plant records in Colorado and Texas. (It was commissioned by the Independent Petroleum Association of the Mountain States.) Bentek concluded that despite huge investments, wind-generated electricity "has had minimal, if any, impact on carbon dioxide" emissions.
Bentek found that thanks to the cycling of Colorado's coal-fired plants in 2009, at least 94,000 more pounds of carbon dioxide were generated because of the repeated cycling. In Texas, Bentek estimated that the cycling of power plants due to increased use of wind energy resulted in a slight savings of carbon dioxide (about 600 tons) in 2008 and a slight increase (of about 1,000 tons) in 2009.
The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) has estimated the potential savings from a nationwide 25% renewable electricity standard, a goal included in the Waxman-Markey energy bill that narrowly passed the House last year. Best-case scenario: about 306 million tons less CO2 by 2030. Given that the agency expects annual U.S. carbon emissions to be about 6.2 billion tons in 2030, that expected reduction will only equal about 4.9% of emissions nationwide. That's not much when you consider that the Obama administration wants to cut CO2 emissions 80% by 2050.
Earlier this year, another arm of the Department of Energy, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, released a report whose conclusions were remarkably similar to those of the EIA. This report focused on integrating wind energy into the electric grid in the Eastern U.S., which has about two-thirds of the country's electric load. If wind energy were to meet 20% of electric needs in this region by 2024, according to the report, the likely reduction in carbon emissions would be less than 200 million tons per year. All the scenarios it considered will cost at least $140 billion to implement. And the issue of cycling conventional power plants is only mentioned in passing.
Coal emits about twice as much CO2 during combustion as natural gas. But wind generation mostly displaces natural gas, because natural gas-fired generators are often the most costly form of conventional electricity production. Yet if regulators are truly concerned about reducing carbon emissions and air pollution, they should be encouraging gas-fired generation at the expense of coal. And they should be doing so because U.S. natural gas resources are now likely large enough to meet all of America's natural gas needs for a century.
Meanwhile, the wind industry is pocketing subsidies that dwarf those garnered by the oil and gas sector. The federal government provides a production tax credit of $0.022 for each kilowatt-hour of electricity produced by wind. That amounts to $6.44 per million BTU of energy produced. In 2008, however, the EIA reported subsidies to oil and gas totaled $1.9 billion per year, or about $0.03 per million BTU of energy produced. Wind subsidies are more than 200 times as great as those given to oil and gas on the basis of per-unit-of-energy produced.
Perhaps it comes down to what Kevin Forbes, the director of the Center for the Study of Energy and Environmental Stewardship at Catholic University, told me: "Wind energy gives people a nice warm fuzzy feeling that we're taking action on climate change." Yet when it comes to CO2 emissions, "the reality is that it's not doing much of anything."
Mr. Bryce, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, recently published his fourth book, "Power Hungry: The Myths of 'Green' Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future" (PublicAffairs).
Paper: Strong Association of Sun with Climate Change
While the IPCC claims solar variability has little if any connection to climate change, the peer-reviewed paper A 2000-Year Context for Modern Day Climate Change by Maasch et al finds a strong, worldwide correlation between proxy records of solar output and climate. Also in contrast to statements of Michael Mann et al, the paper finds strong evidence that the Medieval Warming Period (MWP) and the Little Ice Age (LIA) were global, not local, phenomena, stating "The global distribution of the LIA and MWP and the agreement between climate proxy records and the D14C series over the last 2000 years indicate a strong association between solar variability and globally distributed climate change. This shows that change in the output of the Sun has significant impacts on climate."
Figure shows eight climate proxies distributed from the Arctic to Antarctic showing MWP, LIA, and strong correlations to solar activity. The 2 series shown for each location are the solar and climate proxies.
ABSTRACT: Although considerable attention has been paid to the record of temperature change over the last few centuries, the range and rate of change of atmospheric circulation and hydrology remain elusive. Here, eight latitudinally well-distributed (pole–equator–pole), highly resolved (annual to decadal) climate proxy records are presented that demonstrate major changes in these variables over the last 2000 years. A comparison between atmospheric 14C and these changes in climate demonstrates a first-order relationship between a variable Sun and climate. The relationship is seen on a global scale.
For papers by 860 scientists showing the MWP was a global phenomenon and in most studies hotter than the present, see the Medieval Warming Project
ABSTRACT: Although considerable attention has been paid to the record of temperature change over the last few centuries, the range and rate of change of atmospheric circulation and hydrology remain elusive. Here, eight latitudinally well-distributed (pole–equator–pole), highly resolved (annual to decadal) climate proxy records are presented that demonstrate major changes in these variables over the last 2000 years. A comparison between atmospheric 14C and these changes in climate demonstrates a first-order relationship between a variable Sun and climate. The relationship is seen on a global scale.
For papers by 860 scientists showing the MWP was a global phenomenon and in most studies hotter than the present, see the Medieval Warming Project
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Global Temperatures 1-2°C higher 6000 years ago
Geothermal boreholes provide a useful proxy to reconstruct temperatures of the past. The IPCC only shows borehole data from the past 500 years in AR4 graphs (e.g. figure 6.10b), conveniently leaving out the Medieval Warming Period, even though borehole proxy data is available for the past 20,000 years. Huang et al published worldwide borehole data for the past 20,000 years since the peak of the last major ice age, which shows the "Holocene Climate Optimum" about 6000-7000 years ago was 1-2°C warmer than the present and the Medieval Warming Period ~1000 years ago. This worldwide borehole data as well as ice core data from both Greenland and Antarctica show that the rate and extent of 20th century warming was not unprecedented and that much warmer periods have occurred naturally.
Higher resolution ice core data from Greenland also show cooling of 2-3°C over the past 8,000 years:
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Paper: AGW not responsible for economic losses from disasters
A paper published yesterday in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society finds no evidence to blame so-called 'anthropogenic climate change' [formerly called 'anthropogenic global warming' or AGW] for increasing economic losses from disasters.
Have disaster losses increased due to anthropogenic climate change?
Author: Laurens M. Bouwer, Institute for Environmental Studies, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Capsule summary: Climate change is often seen as the culprit of increasing economic losses from weather disasters. The scientific literature however shows that there are other causes up to now.
Abstract: The increasing impact of natural disasters over recent decades has been well documented, especially the direct economic losses and losses that were insured. Claims are made by some that climate change has caused more losses, but others assert that increasing exposure due to population and economic growth has been a much more important driver. Ambiguity exists today, as the causal link between climate change and disaster losses has not been addressed in a systematic manner by major scientific assessments. Here I present a review and analysis of recent quantitative studies on past increases in weather disaster losses and the role of anthropogenic climate change. Analyses show that although economic losses from weather related hazards have increased, anthropogenic climate change so far did not have a significant impact on losses from natural disasters. The observed loss increase is caused primarily by increasing exposure and value of capital at risk. This finding is of direct importance for studies on impacts from extreme weather and for disaster policy. Studies that project future losses may give a better indication of the potential impact of climate change on disaster losses and needs for adaptation, than the analysis of historical losses.
Have disaster losses increased due to anthropogenic climate change?
Author: Laurens M. Bouwer, Institute for Environmental Studies, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Capsule summary: Climate change is often seen as the culprit of increasing economic losses from weather disasters. The scientific literature however shows that there are other causes up to now.
Abstract: The increasing impact of natural disasters over recent decades has been well documented, especially the direct economic losses and losses that were insured. Claims are made by some that climate change has caused more losses, but others assert that increasing exposure due to population and economic growth has been a much more important driver. Ambiguity exists today, as the causal link between climate change and disaster losses has not been addressed in a systematic manner by major scientific assessments. Here I present a review and analysis of recent quantitative studies on past increases in weather disaster losses and the role of anthropogenic climate change. Analyses show that although economic losses from weather related hazards have increased, anthropogenic climate change so far did not have a significant impact on losses from natural disasters. The observed loss increase is caused primarily by increasing exposure and value of capital at risk. This finding is of direct importance for studies on impacts from extreme weather and for disaster policy. Studies that project future losses may give a better indication of the potential impact of climate change on disaster losses and needs for adaptation, than the analysis of historical losses.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Why Greenhouse Gases Won't Heat the Oceans
Climate scientist Roger Pielke, Sr has noted that land surface temperature records (which comprise the vast majority of temperature records prior to the satellite era (1979-)) are unreliable due to land use changes and urban heat island effects, and that we should therefore look to ocean heat content changes as the most reliable metric for assessing global heating and cooling. The oceans cover 71% of the global surface area and hold at least 1000 times more heat than the atmosphere. Many have claimed that the 'missing heat' from 'anthropogenic global warming' has gone into the oceans, even though the heat seems to be 'missing' from the oceans as well. Recent data from the ARGO network of ~3200 floating robot sensors has shown that since full deployment of the system in ~2003, the ocean heat content has declined despite steadily rising 'greenhouse' CO2 levels:
How could this be? Here are the physical reasons why increasing concentrations of 'greenhouse gases' would not be expected to increase ocean heat content:
1. Infrared radiation from 'greenhouse gases' causes evaporative cooling of the oceans rather than heating
CO2 and other 'greenhouse gases' re-emit radiation to the Earth and space in the long-wave infrared (LWIR) portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. While ultraviolet and visible radiation from the Sun does penetrate the surface of the oceans to cause heating, the energy output of the Sun is relatively stable and obviously not linked to man. However, since the LWIR re-radiation from increasing 'greenhouse gases' is only capable of penetrating a minuscule few microns (millionths of a meter) past the surface and no further, it could therefore only cause evaporation (and thus cooling) of the surface 'skin' of the oceans. Stephen Wilde, LLB (Hons.), Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society explains this in detail, excerpted below:
2. Even if 'greenhouse gases' were capable of heating the oceans, the ocean heat capacity is so immense that there would be no significant change in ocean temperature
The huge mass and heat capacity of the oceans regulates and stabilizes global temperatures to a far greater degree than any possible influence from mankind.
The immense heat capacity of the oceans can be illustrated by assuming the oceans could be heated one-way by all solar energy absorbed by the Earth, and assuming no cooling due to convection, evaporation, or radiation. The oceans hold 1.3 billion cubic km of water. Assuming the density is 1 kg per liter, the mass of the oceans is 1.3 billion billion kg or 1.3 yotta grams. The total solar power absorbed by the Earth in one year is 89 peta Watts (PW):
For a thought experiment, assume all 89 PW are taken up by the oceans and that the oceans don't release any of that heat. That would add 0.67 yotta calories to the 1.3 yotta grams, resulting in an increase in the ocean temperature of only 0.5C after an entire year.
Now, let's also assume that the IPCC is correct that 'greenhouse gases' are causing 1.7 W/m2 'radiative forcing,' and that it is possible for this IR 'back-radiation' to penetrate and heat the ocean (even though we've already shown that is impossible above). The 1.7 W/m2 works out to 850 Tera watts (TW) [or .85 PW] when multiplied by the total Earth surface area of 500 tera square meters. Thus, the IPCC claims that 'greenhouse gases' are preventing .85 PW of energy from leaving the atmosphere to space. This .85 PW is less than the 89 PW from the Sun by a factor of 105 times. Plugging this into our thought experiment above shows that the change in ocean temperature from 'greenhouse forcing' would be 0.5C/105 or .005C in one year or only 0.5C after 105 years, assuming the oceans release none of this added heat! In reality, of course, the oceans would release all or most of this added heat by convection, evaporation, or radiation, leaving at most only a few hundredths of a degree temperature change after 105 years. Thus, it is impossible for 'greenhouse forcing' to raise ocean heat content to any measurable degree, or cause melting of the icecaps from below, or increase sea levels from thermal expansion.
3. The Second Law of Thermodynamics requires heat to flow one-way from hot to cold.
Since the atmosphere is colder (~ -10 C to -18 C) than the ocean surface (~ 17 C), the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that heat can only be transferred one-way from the ocean surface to the atmosphere, not the other way around.
Related:
1. The latest Chilingar et al paper also discusses heat capacity of the atmosphere, which should decrease due to added CO2: "saturation of the atmosphere with carbon dioxide, with all other conditions being equal, results not in an increase but in a decrease of the greenhouse effect and average temperature within the entire layer of planet’s troposphere. This happens despite intense absorption of the heat of radiation by CO2. The physical explanation of this phenomenon is clear: molecular weight of carbon dioxide is 1.5 times higher and its heat-absorbing capacity is 1.2 times lower than those of the Earth’s air. As a result, the adiabatic exponent for a carbon dioxide atmosphere, at the same all other conditions, is about 1.34 times lower than that for a nitrogen–oxygen humid air"
2. Another empirical analysis which finds increased CO2 leads to increased cooling
3. Sea surface temperatures have been on a long-term decline since the Medieval Warming Period (~1000 years ago), Roman Warming Period (~2100 years ago), and Egyptian Warming Period (~3100 years ago):
4. NOAA says the oceans are the drivers of global temperature, not the land surface.
5. Dr. Pielke asks whether James Hansen's GISS model should be rejected as unskillful.
 |
| From Loehle 2009: Cooling of the global ocean since 2003 |
1. Infrared radiation from 'greenhouse gases' causes evaporative cooling of the oceans rather than heating
 |
| LWIR wavelength is ~8-14 microns |
"However the effect of downwelling infrared is always to use up all the infrared in increasing the temperature of the ocean surface molecules whilst leaving nothing in reserve to provide the extra energy required (the latent heat of evaporation) when the change of state occurs from water to vapour. That extra energy requirement is taken from the medium (water or air) in which it is most readily available. If the water is warmer then most will come from the water. If the air is warmer then most will come from the air. However over the Earth as a whole the water is nearly always warmer than the air (due to solar input) so inevitably the average global energy flow is from oceans to air via that latent heat of evaporation in the air and the energy needed is taken from the water. This leads to a thin (1mm deep) layer of cooler water over the oceans worldwide and below the evaporative region that is some 0.3C cooler than the ocean bulk below."The recent paper by Roy Clark, PhD also discusses the physics and concludes, "Application of Beer’s law to the propagation of solar and LWIR [long-wave infrared] flux through the ocean clearly shows that only the solar radiation can penetrate below the ocean surface and heat subsurface ocean layers. It is impossible for a 1.7 W.m−2 increase [predicted by the IPCC due to man-made greenhouse gases] in downward ‘clear sky’ atmospheric LWIR flux to heat the oceans." (p. 196). Increasing levels of IR-active 'greenhouse gases' would instead be expected to cause increased evaporative surface cooling of the oceans. N.B. there is also a negative feedback phenomenon on CO2 levels discussed in a paper published in Nature which shows that the evaporative cooling of the ocean 'skin' from increased downwelling IR allows increased uptake of CO2 due to increased solubility of CO2 at lower temperatures.
2. Even if 'greenhouse gases' were capable of heating the oceans, the ocean heat capacity is so immense that there would be no significant change in ocean temperature
The huge mass and heat capacity of the oceans regulates and stabilizes global temperatures to a far greater degree than any possible influence from mankind.
The immense heat capacity of the oceans can be illustrated by assuming the oceans could be heated one-way by all solar energy absorbed by the Earth, and assuming no cooling due to convection, evaporation, or radiation. The oceans hold 1.3 billion cubic km of water. Assuming the density is 1 kg per liter, the mass of the oceans is 1.3 billion billion kg or 1.3 yotta grams. The total solar power absorbed by the Earth in one year is 89 peta Watts (PW):
Now, let's also assume that the IPCC is correct that 'greenhouse gases' are causing 1.7 W/m2 'radiative forcing,' and that it is possible for this IR 'back-radiation' to penetrate and heat the ocean (even though we've already shown that is impossible above). The 1.7 W/m2 works out to 850 Tera watts (TW) [or .85 PW] when multiplied by the total Earth surface area of 500 tera square meters. Thus, the IPCC claims that 'greenhouse gases' are preventing .85 PW of energy from leaving the atmosphere to space. This .85 PW is less than the 89 PW from the Sun by a factor of 105 times. Plugging this into our thought experiment above shows that the change in ocean temperature from 'greenhouse forcing' would be 0.5C/105 or .005C in one year or only 0.5C after 105 years, assuming the oceans release none of this added heat! In reality, of course, the oceans would release all or most of this added heat by convection, evaporation, or radiation, leaving at most only a few hundredths of a degree temperature change after 105 years. Thus, it is impossible for 'greenhouse forcing' to raise ocean heat content to any measurable degree, or cause melting of the icecaps from below, or increase sea levels from thermal expansion.
3. The Second Law of Thermodynamics requires heat to flow one-way from hot to cold.
Since the atmosphere is colder (~ -10 C to -18 C) than the ocean surface (~ 17 C), the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that heat can only be transferred one-way from the ocean surface to the atmosphere, not the other way around.
Related:
1. The latest Chilingar et al paper also discusses heat capacity of the atmosphere, which should decrease due to added CO2: "saturation of the atmosphere with carbon dioxide, with all other conditions being equal, results not in an increase but in a decrease of the greenhouse effect and average temperature within the entire layer of planet’s troposphere. This happens despite intense absorption of the heat of radiation by CO2. The physical explanation of this phenomenon is clear: molecular weight of carbon dioxide is 1.5 times higher and its heat-absorbing capacity is 1.2 times lower than those of the Earth’s air. As a result, the adiabatic exponent for a carbon dioxide atmosphere, at the same all other conditions, is about 1.34 times lower than that for a nitrogen–oxygen humid air"
2. Another empirical analysis which finds increased CO2 leads to increased cooling
3. Sea surface temperatures have been on a long-term decline since the Medieval Warming Period (~1000 years ago), Roman Warming Period (~2100 years ago), and Egyptian Warming Period (~3100 years ago):
5. Dr. Pielke asks whether James Hansen's GISS model should be rejected as unskillful.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Energy & Environment full special issue available
The British journal Energy & Environment is currently publishing a special issue focusing on paradigms in climate research. The German EIKE site is now hosting a pdf of the entire issue.
The first paper by R. Clark presents the arguments that a further increase of CO2 in the atmosphere may not lead to an enhanced greenhouse effect. Especially the processes of radiation transfer in the atmosphere and the mass- and heat transfer at the surface are being reconsidered. The next paper by W. Eschenbach deals with thermostat hypothesis, that is the regulatory function of weather events.
N. van Andel then further quantifies the effect of wind speed on mass transfer by water vapour and heat transfer by evaporation. In the fourth paper W. Kininmonth notes that current computer models of the climate system appear to underestimate the rate of increase of surface evaporation (and latent heat exchange) with temperature – leading to a gross exaggeration of the surface temperature response to radiative forcing. D. Thoenes then deals with the stabilising effect of the oceans on climate, a topic of major importance based on calculations supported by experience with salt evaporation pools on Bonaire. P. Siegmund comments briefly on the papers by Thoenes and in N. van Andel’s paper this issue is also considered.
The paper by F. Miskolczi explores basic physics and could be subtitled “A new interpretation of weather balloon observations”. It leads the author to deduce new relationships between the energy fluxes in and out of the atmosphere, which has become known as the ‘Miskolczi theory’. W. Gilbert explores the relationship between surface temperature and water vapour concentration and augments the Miskolczi paper with respect to the thermodynamic forces driving the hydrological cycle. The title of the last paper by van Andel expands on the consequences of the Miskolczi Theory.
Some of these papers have already been the subject of posts here, such as those by Miskolczi, Clark, and Rorsch, and there are several additional papers of interest. The Guest Editorial by Rorsch introduces some of the papers in the special issue:
The first paper by R. Clark presents the arguments that a further increase of CO2 in the atmosphere may not lead to an enhanced greenhouse effect. Especially the processes of radiation transfer in the atmosphere and the mass- and heat transfer at the surface are being reconsidered. The next paper by W. Eschenbach deals with thermostat hypothesis, that is the regulatory function of weather events.
N. van Andel then further quantifies the effect of wind speed on mass transfer by water vapour and heat transfer by evaporation. In the fourth paper W. Kininmonth notes that current computer models of the climate system appear to underestimate the rate of increase of surface evaporation (and latent heat exchange) with temperature – leading to a gross exaggeration of the surface temperature response to radiative forcing. D. Thoenes then deals with the stabilising effect of the oceans on climate, a topic of major importance based on calculations supported by experience with salt evaporation pools on Bonaire. P. Siegmund comments briefly on the papers by Thoenes and in N. van Andel’s paper this issue is also considered.
The paper by F. Miskolczi explores basic physics and could be subtitled “A new interpretation of weather balloon observations”. It leads the author to deduce new relationships between the energy fluxes in and out of the atmosphere, which has become known as the ‘Miskolczi theory’. W. Gilbert explores the relationship between surface temperature and water vapour concentration and augments the Miskolczi paper with respect to the thermodynamic forces driving the hydrological cycle. The title of the last paper by van Andel expands on the consequences of the Miskolczi Theory.
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Is the 'Greenhouse Effect' based on a 'cool' Sun?
Most descriptions of the 'greenhouse effect' are similar to that offered by Wikipedia: "If an ideal thermally conductive blackbody was the same distance from the Sun as the Earth, it would have an expected blackbody temperature of 5.3°C. However, since the Earth reflects about 30%... of the incoming sunlight, the planet's actual blackbody temperature is about -18 or -19°C, about 33°C below the actual surface temperature of about 14 °C or 15 °C. The mechanism that produces this difference between the actual temperature and the blackbody temperature is due to the atmosphere and is known as the greenhouse effect."
This calculation is based upon the Stefan-Boltzmann law, radius of the Sun and Earth, distance between the Sun and Earth, and albedo (reflection, mostly from clouds), from which the following equation is derived:
where
Te = Temperature of the Earth surface
Ts = Temperature of the Sun surface
Rs = Radius of the Sun = 6.96x10^8 m
a = Albedo (reflection of incoming solar radiation mostly from clouds) = 0.306
E = IR emissivity of the Earth (assumed to be ~1)
D = the Astronomical Unit = distance between the Sun and Earth = 1.496x10^11 m
If we plug in the value for the temperature of the Sun (5778°K) used by the Wikipedia article, we find that the temperature of the Earth without an atmosphere (setting albedo to 0) should be 278.68°K (5.53°C). This is very close to the 5.3°C ideal blackbody temperature as stated above. If we then set albedo to the commonly used value of 0.306 for Earth with an atmosphere, we find the Te calculation drops to -18.8°C. The 'greenhouse effect' is then calculated from the globally 'averaged' earth surface temperature of 15°C - -18.8 = 33.8°C. Note also the G&T paper has shown that it is not possible to calculate an 'average' Earth surface temperature (p.70-71), which also renders the 'greenhouse effect' calculation moot. In addition, all of these calculations are based on the incorrect assumption that the Earth, atmosphere, and Sun can each behave as ideal blackbodies.
The value for Sun surface temperature used in these calculations (5778°K or 5505°C) is a low estimate and thus biases the calculation to show an enhanced 'greenhouse effect.' The reason why is shown in the graph below of the observed distribution of solar radiation reaching the top of the atmosphere as a function of wavelength (solid black line).
We see that the wavelength at maximum intensity is in the visible spectrum at about .475 microns or 475 nanometers, which is what the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 82nd Edition, CRC Press, 2001 also shows as the maximum 'Solar Spectral Irradiance.' The Wein displacement law can then be used to calculate the Sun surface temperature based upon the maximum irradiance wavelength, resulting in a Sun surface temperature of 6101°K (5828°C). Another source gives an even higher figure, "The Sun's outer visible layer is called the photosphere and has a temperature of 6000°C," which is equivalent to 6273°K.
If we had used the Sun surface temperature of 5778°K assumed by the Wikipedia article, we would find that the Sun emitted more energy than an ideal blackbody throughout the visible spectrum, which is impossible:
If we now use the Sun surface temperature calculated from Wein's displacement law as the input to the equation above, we find the Earth surface temperature without an atmosphere should be 294.26°K or 21.11°C. Since the 'average' Earth surface temperature is commonly cited as 15°C, that means the Earth with a 'greenhouse gas' atmosphere along with the additional factors of convection, evapo-transpiration, and adiabatic effects is colder than an Earth without!
see also the peer-reviewed Chilingar et al paper Cooling of the atmosphere due to CO2
h/t comments by Gord, graph source
This calculation is based upon the Stefan-Boltzmann law, radius of the Sun and Earth, distance between the Sun and Earth, and albedo (reflection, mostly from clouds), from which the following equation is derived:
Te = Temperature of the Earth surface
Ts = Temperature of the Sun surface
Rs = Radius of the Sun = 6.96x10^8 m
a = Albedo (reflection of incoming solar radiation mostly from clouds) = 0.306
E = IR emissivity of the Earth (assumed to be ~1)
D = the Astronomical Unit = distance between the Sun and Earth = 1.496x10^11 m
If we plug in the value for the temperature of the Sun (5778°K) used by the Wikipedia article, we find that the temperature of the Earth without an atmosphere (setting albedo to 0) should be 278.68°K (5.53°C). This is very close to the 5.3°C ideal blackbody temperature as stated above. If we then set albedo to the commonly used value of 0.306 for Earth with an atmosphere, we find the Te calculation drops to -18.8°C. The 'greenhouse effect' is then calculated from the globally 'averaged' earth surface temperature of 15°C - -18.8 = 33.8°C. Note also the G&T paper has shown that it is not possible to calculate an 'average' Earth surface temperature (p.70-71), which also renders the 'greenhouse effect' calculation moot. In addition, all of these calculations are based on the incorrect assumption that the Earth, atmosphere, and Sun can each behave as ideal blackbodies.
The value for Sun surface temperature used in these calculations (5778°K or 5505°C) is a low estimate and thus biases the calculation to show an enhanced 'greenhouse effect.' The reason why is shown in the graph below of the observed distribution of solar radiation reaching the top of the atmosphere as a function of wavelength (solid black line).
 |
| Ts based on wavelength at Max Intensity |
If we had used the Sun surface temperature of 5778°K assumed by the Wikipedia article, we would find that the Sun emitted more energy than an ideal blackbody throughout the visible spectrum, which is impossible:
 | ||
| Solar flux exceeds blackbody Wikipedia Ts | , |
see also the peer-reviewed Chilingar et al paper Cooling of the atmosphere due to CO2
h/t comments by Gord, graph source
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Paper: Sea Level Rise Not Accelerating
A paper published yesterday in the Journal of Geophysical Research - Oceans, confirms other studies of tide gauge records which show that there has been no statistically significant acceleration in sea level rise over the past 100+ years, in contrast to statements of the IPCC and Al Gore. Sea levels have been rising naturally since the peak of the last major ice age 20,000 years ago, and the rate of rise began to decelerate about 8,000 years ago:
JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 115, C08013, 15 PP., 2010
Reconstruction of regional mean sea level anomalies from tide gauges using neural networks
Authors: Manfred Wenzel, Jens Schröter
The 20th century regional and global sea level variations are estimated based on long-term tide gauge records. For this the neural network technique is utilized that connects the coastal sea level with the regional and global mean via a nonlinear empirical relationship. Two major difficulties are overcome this way: the vertical movement of tide gauges over time and the problem of what weighting function to choose for each individual tide gauge record. Neural networks are also used to fill data gaps in the tide gauge records, which is a prerequisite for our analysis technique. A suite of different gap-filling strategies is tested which provides information about stability and variance of the results. The global mean sea level for the period January 1900 to December 2006 is estimated to rise at a rate of 1.56 ± 0.25 mm/yr which is reasonably consistent with earlier estimates, but we do not find significant acceleration. The regional mean sea level of the single ocean basins show mixed long-term behavior. While most of the basins show a sea level rise of varying strength there is an indication for a mean sea level fall in the southern Indian Ocean. Also for the the tropical Indian and the South Atlantic no significant trend can be detected. Nevertheless, the South Atlantic as well as the tropical Atlantic are the only basins that show significant acceleration. On shorter timescales, but longer than the annual cycle, the basins sea level are dominated by oscillations with periods of about 50–75 years and of about 25 years. Consequently, we find high (lagged) correlations between the single basins.
Note: The 1.56 mm/yr non-accelerating rate of sea level rise would result in sea levels 6 inches higher than the present in 100 years. The oscillations noted in this study correspond to the typical full and half-cycle lengths of the natural Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the natural 60-year climate cycle. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation warm phase has been shown to produce a marked temporary rise in global mean sea levels.
 |
| Sea Level Curve in black |
JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 115, C08013, 15 PP., 2010
Reconstruction of regional mean sea level anomalies from tide gauges using neural networks
Authors: Manfred Wenzel, Jens Schröter
The 20th century regional and global sea level variations are estimated based on long-term tide gauge records. For this the neural network technique is utilized that connects the coastal sea level with the regional and global mean via a nonlinear empirical relationship. Two major difficulties are overcome this way: the vertical movement of tide gauges over time and the problem of what weighting function to choose for each individual tide gauge record. Neural networks are also used to fill data gaps in the tide gauge records, which is a prerequisite for our analysis technique. A suite of different gap-filling strategies is tested which provides information about stability and variance of the results. The global mean sea level for the period January 1900 to December 2006 is estimated to rise at a rate of 1.56 ± 0.25 mm/yr which is reasonably consistent with earlier estimates, but we do not find significant acceleration. The regional mean sea level of the single ocean basins show mixed long-term behavior. While most of the basins show a sea level rise of varying strength there is an indication for a mean sea level fall in the southern Indian Ocean. Also for the the tropical Indian and the South Atlantic no significant trend can be detected. Nevertheless, the South Atlantic as well as the tropical Atlantic are the only basins that show significant acceleration. On shorter timescales, but longer than the annual cycle, the basins sea level are dominated by oscillations with periods of about 50–75 years and of about 25 years. Consequently, we find high (lagged) correlations between the single basins.
Note: The 1.56 mm/yr non-accelerating rate of sea level rise would result in sea levels 6 inches higher than the present in 100 years. The oscillations noted in this study correspond to the typical full and half-cycle lengths of the natural Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the natural 60-year climate cycle. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation warm phase has been shown to produce a marked temporary rise in global mean sea levels.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
The Lemur Demur
The alarmist pronouncement today, Biodiversity Hot Spots More Vulnerable to Global Warming Than Thought, turns out to be a very far-fetched hypothesis based on the disproven notion that global warming causes more frequent El Niños, which then might cause more heavy rains in Madagascar, which then might "anecdotally knock fruit off the trees when lactating lemurs need it most, and may even kill trees outright, " and thus might malnurish lemur babies...
To further 'support' this outlandish theory, the article states, "Not only that, cyclones making landfall have a direct negative effect on the fecundity -- or potential reproductive capacity -- of lemurs. The team also discovered that fecundity "was negatively affected when El Niño occurred in the period before conception, perhaps altering ovulation, or during the second six months of life, possibly reducing infant survival during weaning." Note to team: There has been no increase in frequency or magnitude of El Niño events since 1856, and these events have occurred in a normal distribution despite steadily rising CO2 levels, and tropical cyclone activity is at a 30 year low. In addition, global warming has been shown to cause an explosive increase in biodiversity.
This is another study which makes one wonder whether it is possible for scientists to get funding for anything in which the grant proposal does not mention a link to anthropogenic global warming.
ScienceDaily (Aug. 12, 2010) — Global warming may present a threat to animal and plant life even in biodiversity hot spots once thought less likely to suffer from climate change, according to a new study from Rice University.
Research by Amy Dunham, a Rice assistant professor of ecology and evolutionary biology, detailed for the first time a direct correlation between the frequency of El Niño and a threat to life in Madagascar, a tropical island that acts as a refuge for many unique species that exist nowhere else in the world. In this case, the lemur plays the role of the canary in the coal mine.
The study in the journal Global Change Biology is currently available online and will be included in an upcoming print issue.
Dunham said most studies of global warming focus on temperate zones. "We all know about the polar bears and their melting sea ice," [note to Dunham: polar bear populations are up 400%] she said. "But tropical regions are often thought of as refuges during past climate events, so they haven't been given as much attention until recently.
"We're starting to realize that not only are these hot spots of biodiversity facing habitat degradation and other anthropogenic effects, but they're also being affected by the same changes we feel in the temperate zones."
Dunham's interest in lemurs, which began as an undergraduate student at Connecticut College, resulted in a groundbreaking study last year that provided new insight into a long-standing mystery: Why male and female lemurs are the same size.
This time, she set out to learn how El Niño patterns impact rainfall in southeastern Madagascar and how El Niño and cyclones affect the reproductive patterns of the Milne-Edwards' Sifaka lemur.
The lemur's mating habits are well-defined, which makes the animal a good candidate for such a study. Female lemurs are sexually responsive to males for only one day a year in the austral summer months of December or January and give birth six months later.
Dunham's co-authors -- Elizabeth Erhart and Patricia Wright -- have done behavioral studies of lemurs in Ranomafana, a national park in the southeastern rainforest of Madagascar, for 20 years. Erhart is an associate professor and assistant chair of the Department of Anthropology at Texas State University-San Marcos, and Wright is a professor of anthropology at Stony Brook University and director of the Institute for the Conservation of Tropical Environments.
"There aren't many species that have such long-term demographic data that enable us to look at these kinds of questions," Dunham said. "So this was a unique opportunity."
The warming of global sea temperatures may "enhance" El Niño cycles, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Dunham found that in Ranomafana, contrary to expectations, El Niño makes wet seasons wetter. "When it rains heavily, lemurs are not active. They sit there and wait for the rain to stop, huddling for warmth," Dunham said. Anecdotal evidence suggested heavy rains knock fruit off the trees when lactating lemurs need it most, and may even kill trees outright.
Dunham learned from the data that cyclones making landfall have a direct negative effect on the fecundity -- or potential reproductive capacity -- of lemurs. The team also discovered that fecundity "was negatively affected when El Niño occurred in the period before conception, perhaps altering ovulation, or during the second six months of life, possibly reducing infant survival during weaning," they wrote.
"Madagascar's biodiversity is an ecological treasure," Dunham said. "But its flora and fauna already face extinction from rapid deforestation and exploitation of natural resources. The additional negative effects of climate change make conservation concerns even more urgent."
The research was funded by the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the Douroucouli Foundation, the Wenner-Gren Foundation, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the National Geographic Society, the National Science Foundation, the Earthwatch Institute, Conservation International, the Margot Marsh Biodiversity Foundation, Stony Brook University and Rice University.
This is another study which makes one wonder whether it is possible for scientists to get funding for anything in which the grant proposal does not mention a link to anthropogenic global warming.
ScienceDaily (Aug. 12, 2010) — Global warming may present a threat to animal and plant life even in biodiversity hot spots once thought less likely to suffer from climate change, according to a new study from Rice University.
Research by Amy Dunham, a Rice assistant professor of ecology and evolutionary biology, detailed for the first time a direct correlation between the frequency of El Niño and a threat to life in Madagascar, a tropical island that acts as a refuge for many unique species that exist nowhere else in the world. In this case, the lemur plays the role of the canary in the coal mine.
The study in the journal Global Change Biology is currently available online and will be included in an upcoming print issue.
Dunham said most studies of global warming focus on temperate zones. "We all know about the polar bears and their melting sea ice," [note to Dunham: polar bear populations are up 400%] she said. "But tropical regions are often thought of as refuges during past climate events, so they haven't been given as much attention until recently.
"We're starting to realize that not only are these hot spots of biodiversity facing habitat degradation and other anthropogenic effects, but they're also being affected by the same changes we feel in the temperate zones."
Dunham's interest in lemurs, which began as an undergraduate student at Connecticut College, resulted in a groundbreaking study last year that provided new insight into a long-standing mystery: Why male and female lemurs are the same size.
This time, she set out to learn how El Niño patterns impact rainfall in southeastern Madagascar and how El Niño and cyclones affect the reproductive patterns of the Milne-Edwards' Sifaka lemur.
The lemur's mating habits are well-defined, which makes the animal a good candidate for such a study. Female lemurs are sexually responsive to males for only one day a year in the austral summer months of December or January and give birth six months later.
Dunham's co-authors -- Elizabeth Erhart and Patricia Wright -- have done behavioral studies of lemurs in Ranomafana, a national park in the southeastern rainforest of Madagascar, for 20 years. Erhart is an associate professor and assistant chair of the Department of Anthropology at Texas State University-San Marcos, and Wright is a professor of anthropology at Stony Brook University and director of the Institute for the Conservation of Tropical Environments.
"There aren't many species that have such long-term demographic data that enable us to look at these kinds of questions," Dunham said. "So this was a unique opportunity."
The warming of global sea temperatures may "enhance" El Niño cycles, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Dunham found that in Ranomafana, contrary to expectations, El Niño makes wet seasons wetter. "When it rains heavily, lemurs are not active. They sit there and wait for the rain to stop, huddling for warmth," Dunham said. Anecdotal evidence suggested heavy rains knock fruit off the trees when lactating lemurs need it most, and may even kill trees outright.
Dunham learned from the data that cyclones making landfall have a direct negative effect on the fecundity -- or potential reproductive capacity -- of lemurs. The team also discovered that fecundity "was negatively affected when El Niño occurred in the period before conception, perhaps altering ovulation, or during the second six months of life, possibly reducing infant survival during weaning," they wrote.
"Madagascar's biodiversity is an ecological treasure," Dunham said. "But its flora and fauna already face extinction from rapid deforestation and exploitation of natural resources. The additional negative effects of climate change make conservation concerns even more urgent."
The research was funded by the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the Douroucouli Foundation, the Wenner-Gren Foundation, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the National Geographic Society, the National Science Foundation, the Earthwatch Institute, Conservation International, the Margot Marsh Biodiversity Foundation, Stony Brook University and Rice University.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
The Disastrous Inconvenient Truth
The alarmist media are playing up the Russian heat wave and Pakistan floods (now officially "the worst disaster in history") as portents of global warming. Graphs from the World Health Organization International Disaster Database suggest a different conclusion:
Q: since the number of people affected leveled off well before the number of disasters reported, does that indicate a reporting bias as to what constitutes a "disaster?"
UPDATE: from atmospheric scientist Roger Pielke Jr:
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/08/climate-porn-2010.html
"While I have no illusions that the inane debate over causality of specific physical events will continue as long there is weather, there should be no ambiguity in the fact that researchers who have look for a signal of increasing GHGs in increasing disaster losses (whether measured in dollars or in lives) have yet to see such a signal. It would be scientifically incorrect to claim that GHGs have been shown to account for any portion of the damage or suffering resulting from recent events."
UPDATE 2: Global death toll from extreme weather events declining http://www.thegwpf.org/the-observatory/1378-indur-m-goklany-global-death-toll-from-extreme-weather-events-declining.html
 | |
| Deaths from natural disasters 1975-2009 |
 |
| Number of people reported affected by natural disasters 1975-2009 |
 |
| Natural disasters reported 1975-2009 [peaked with the record 1998-1999 El Nino and on decline since] |
UPDATE: from atmospheric scientist Roger Pielke Jr:
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/08/climate-porn-2010.html
"While I have no illusions that the inane debate over causality of specific physical events will continue as long there is weather, there should be no ambiguity in the fact that researchers who have look for a signal of increasing GHGs in increasing disaster losses (whether measured in dollars or in lives) have yet to see such a signal. It would be scientifically incorrect to claim that GHGs have been shown to account for any portion of the damage or suffering resulting from recent events."
UPDATE 2: Global death toll from extreme weather events declining http://www.thegwpf.org/the-observatory/1378-indur-m-goklany-global-death-toll-from-extreme-weather-events-declining.html
Paper: No Increase in El Niño Events since 1856
JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 115, D15111, 6 PP., 2010
El Niño–Southern Oscillation: Magnitudes and asymmetry
By David H. Douglass, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York, USA
Abstract: The alternating warm/cold phenomena in the Pacific, known as El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO), is characterized by large perturbations to the worldwide climate. Indices have been defined to characterize this phenomenon. However, the commonly used indices contain an unwanted effect from the annual cycle that can be reduced by digital filtering. Using a filtered ENSO index NL on data from 1856 to the present allows more accurate calculations of various quantities to be made. New results are (1) the distribution of positive values of NL is Gaussian. Thus, large-magnitude El Niño events come from the tail of this distribution and not from some rare external perturbation. (2) The probability of occurrence of an El Niño of any magnitude can be calculated. A 1997–1998 El Niño will occur once in approximately 70 ± 20 years, while an El Niño 25% larger will occur once in approximately 700 ± 200 years. (3) The distribution of negative values of NL deviates from Gaussian because of a deficiency of large La Niña events. (4) Examination of the 20 largest El Niño events since 1856 shows that there is no increase in the frequency of such events with time.
Monday, August 9, 2010
Paper: Increasing CO2 Cools the Climate & Benefits Agriculture & Reforestation
Physicists G. V. Chilingar, O. G. Sorokhtin, L. Khilyuk and M. V. Gorfunkel, authors of the paper Cooling of the Atmosphere due to CO2, also published the peer-reviewed study Greenhouse gases and greenhouse effect in Environmental Geology, International Journal of Geosciences, providing physical evidence that rising CO2 should result in slight cooling of climate, and is benefitial to agricultural productivity and reforestation. The authors also find that methane accumulation has no significant effect on the climate.
Abstract: Conventional theory of global warming states that heating of the atmosphere occurs as a result of accumulation of CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere. The writers show that rising concentration of CO2 should result in the cooling of climate. The methane accumulation has no essential effect on the Earth’s climate. Even significant releases of the anthropogenic carbon dioxide into the atmosphere do not change average parameters of the Earth’s heat regime and the atmospheric greenhouse effect. Moreover, CO2 concentration increase in the atmosphere results in rising agricultural productivity and improves the conditions for reforestation. Thus, accumulation of small additional amounts of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere as a result of anthropogenic activities has practically no effect on the Earth’s climate.
Introduction: For comprehensive analysis of the influence of increasing concentration of the greenhouse gases on the global temperature of atmosphere, one needs to develop an advanced physicochemical theory of mass—energy redistribution among the Earth’s systems. This advanced theory should include: (1) evolution of the composition of atmosphere, (2) evolution of the geological conditions, (3) data on changing solar radiation, (4) the Earth’s revolution precession, (5) oceanological data, and (6) multiple feedbacks between the atmosphere and ocean.
The authors investigate the greenhouse effect using the adiabatic model, which relates the global temperature of the troposphere to atmospheric pressure and allows one to analyze the temperature changes due to variations in mass and chemical composition of the atmosphere. The existing feedbacks between atmosphere and ocean are intentionally neglected in the article with the focus on the atmospheric temperature changes due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases emission... (read remainder at link above)
Abstract: Conventional theory of global warming states that heating of the atmosphere occurs as a result of accumulation of CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere. The writers show that rising concentration of CO2 should result in the cooling of climate. The methane accumulation has no essential effect on the Earth’s climate. Even significant releases of the anthropogenic carbon dioxide into the atmosphere do not change average parameters of the Earth’s heat regime and the atmospheric greenhouse effect. Moreover, CO2 concentration increase in the atmosphere results in rising agricultural productivity and improves the conditions for reforestation. Thus, accumulation of small additional amounts of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere as a result of anthropogenic activities has practically no effect on the Earth’s climate. Introduction: For comprehensive analysis of the influence of increasing concentration of the greenhouse gases on the global temperature of atmosphere, one needs to develop an advanced physicochemical theory of mass—energy redistribution among the Earth’s systems. This advanced theory should include: (1) evolution of the composition of atmosphere, (2) evolution of the geological conditions, (3) data on changing solar radiation, (4) the Earth’s revolution precession, (5) oceanological data, and (6) multiple feedbacks between the atmosphere and ocean.
The authors investigate the greenhouse effect using the adiabatic model, which relates the global temperature of the troposphere to atmospheric pressure and allows one to analyze the temperature changes due to variations in mass and chemical composition of the atmosphere. The existing feedbacks between atmosphere and ocean are intentionally neglected in the article with the focus on the atmospheric temperature changes due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases emission... (read remainder at link above)
How CRU Cooked the Books on Siberia
We learned in December 2009 from the Russian newspaper RIA Novosti that Hadley CRU had tampered with Russian temperature data by including only 25% of available weather stations in its reports:
*"trick" is defined by Michael Mann as "a clever way to solve a problem"
"Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change...had probably tampered with Russian climate data. The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory.
Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country's territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.
The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.
The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations. On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations. IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.
The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world's land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration."Turns out, not only did HADCRU cook the books by selecting stations with incomplete data and only 25% of the available stations, they used another trick* of selecting 1976 as the base year (at the end of the global cooling scare) to begin their time series for Siberia, even though they had data back to 1936. As reported by an Italian Climate Blog, this resulted in a much more alarming trend line:
*"trick" is defined by Michael Mann as "a clever way to solve a problem"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)