• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Tp climate change-101-1
 

Tp climate change-101-1

on

  • 1,616 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,616
Views on SlideShare
1,616
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
51
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • Let me begin with a disclaimer. I am not a climate expert. I am a very interested student in the science of climate change. I am also a scientist who retired after 35 plus years practicing product and application development, predominately focused on the automotive industry. As a scientist, I am a skeptic, as all scientists should be. As a skeptic, I react negatively to justifications based on things other than facts, like claims of consensus, the selective use of data, or inappropriate manipulation of data. Unfortunately, such poor practices are all to common in the current presentation of climate issues. So I have immersed myself into trying to sort out climate fact from fiction.
  • This is the question that I am trying to understand. Unfortunately it is a contentious issue too often morphed into political agendas. My focus in this talk will be on the merits of science arguments. I do not intend to address political or other threads of the current climate change debate. I am also still learning, and this presentation reflects my current understanding. I am fully confident that there are errors in my understanding and that modifications will be required with continued learning and as the science progresses with sound new data. Perhaps you might have insight to help me to better understand aspects of the science, and I welcome your input.
  • Let’s cut this short. Here is the answer! Global warming is caused by the rise in the cost of postage stamps! The correlation is much better than that of temperature and rising CO2! But, of course, correlation is not causation. SOURCES: NCDC global temperatures, Law Dome & Mauna Loa CO2 levels, US postal
  • OK. Perhaps this is a better explanation! See, not all effects of global warming are bad!
  • This is what our President has to say.
  • And this is the position of our Secretary of Energy, Nobel Lauriat Steven Chu.
  • However many prominent scientists disagree.
  • Proponents of human-induced climate change have adopted the phrase “climate change” as their descriptive title. But this title does not accurately reflect their platform. They are really talking about one aspect of climate, that is the warming of the globe. Bur more specifically they are focusing on human elements that might leading to the warming of the earth; in climate lingo this is anthropogenic global warming or AGW. Still AGW does not precisely frame the proponent hypothesis. Most correctly, they are addressing AGW cause by green house gases and specifically the GHGs CO 2 and methane, i.e. CAGW.
  • the total net warming estimate 1850-2000 is 0.6 ± 0.2 °C., IPCC TAR
  • James Hansen of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies, of GISS is perhaps the focal spokesperson for proponents of CAGW. He was labeled as a whistle blower and featured on 60 Minutes and then by the general media as sounding the alarm back in the mid-1990s. Here is his position.
  • Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) by two UN agencies, UNEP (United Nations Environmental Program) and WMO (World Meteorological Organization) Formally, the IPCC summarizes the peer reviewed literature on climate every five years. They publish three volumes, progressively discussing the “what?”, the “so what?” and the “now what?”. The latter two depend on the accuracy of the first, and this talk will only address the physical science basis of CQGW.
  • “ The charge to the IPCC is not simply to summarize, but rather to provide the science with which to support the negotiating process whose aim is to control greenhouse gas levels. This is a political rather than a scientific charge. The primary document that the public associates with the IPCC is not the extensive report prepared by the scientists, but rather the Summary for Policymakers which is written by an assemblage of representative from governments and NGO’s, with only a small scientific representation. The IPCC Summary for Policymakers will selectively cite results to emphasize negative consequences. Thus the summary for Working Group II observes that global warming will result in “Hundreds of millions of people exposed to increased water stress.” This, however, is based on work (Arnell, 2004) which actually shows that by the 2080s the net global population at risk declines by up to 2.1 billion people (depending on which scenario one wants to emphasize)! The IPCC further ignores the capacity to use build reservoirs to alleviate those areas they project as subject to drought.” Lindzen, MIT
  • This statement by Lean and Rind (2008), [ How Natural and Anthropogenic Influences Alter Global and Regional Surface Temperatures: 1989 to 2006, GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 35, L18701] reflects a position typical of CAGW proponents.
  • El Nino, more correctly known as the El Nino Southern Oscillation or ENSO, is know to affect climate, but per Lean & Rind 08, contributing only a slight amount to warming.
  • Per Lean & Rind 08, natural aerosols as from volcanoes cause a slight cooling of the global climate.
  • Lean & Rind08 attribute a noticeable but small warming to solar activity.
  • CAGW proponents recognize no other natural forcing of climate, and thus conclude that the 0.06 O C/decade = 0.6 O C/century rise in the earth’s temperature must be due to human causes. They attribute negative forcing from human aerosols that offset positive forcing from green house gases.
  • On the other side, Richard Lindzen of MIT is one of the most prominent skeptics.
  • Dr. Lindzen is supported by many formally trained in science and technology, including many directly engaged in climate research. The current global warming petition has over 31,000 signatures, including mine I must add.
  • But wait! There’s more! A more centrist position is reflected by Professor Roger Pielke, Sr.
  • “ The US Government has spent more than $79 billion of taxpayers’ money since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, administration, propaganda campaigns, foreign aid, and tax breaks. Exxon‐Mobil Corp is repeatedly attacked for paying a grand total of $23 million to skeptics—less than a thousandth of what the US government has put in, and less than one five‐thousandth of the value of carbon trading in just the single year of 2008. If carbon is a minor player in the global climate as the lack of evidence suggests, the “Climate Change Science Program” (CCSP), “Climate Change Technology Program” (CCTP), and some of the green incentives and tax breaks would have less, little, or no reason to exist. While forecasting the weather and climate is critical, and there are other good reasons to develop alternative energy sources—no one can argue that the thousands of players who received these billions of dollars have any real incentive to “announce” the discovery of the insignificance of carbon’s role.” Joanne Nova, July 2009
  • So, lets begin. I will cover these subjects, more or less in this order.
  • What is Climate?
  • What is Weather?
  • http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=Weather+lake+jackson%2C+tx
  • OK. Let’s really begin, first addressing the multitude of causes for climate change.
  • components of the climate system, their processes and interactions. IPCC 4AR
  • The Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) is designed around three Earth-orbiting satellites: the NASA Earth Radiation Budget Satellite (ERBS), and two NOAA satellites. The data from these satellites is being used to study the energy exchanged between the Sun, the Earth and space. The ERBE instrument aboard ERBS, launched from the Space Shuttle Challenger in October 1984 (STS-41G), had the primary goals of determining, for at least one year: the Earth's average monthly energy budget and its monthly variations, the seasonal movement of energy from the tropics to the poles, and the average daily variation in the energy budget on a regional scale (data every 160 miles).
  • Earth's longwave (infrared) radiation from clouds, atmosphere, and ground, from NASA's Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) , data from April 1985 From Wikipedia
  • The Sun, being much hotter than Earth, emits high energy, shortwave radiation while in response Earth emits long wave radiation. The cooler the portion of the Earth or atmosphere, the lower energy intensity, longer wave radiation is emitted. Note the huge disparity in the amount of energy emitted by the sun (left-hand scale) and the earth (right-hand scale).
  • Earth’s Annual Global Mean Energy Budget . Over the long term, the amount of incoming solar radiation absorbed by the Earth and atmosphere is balanced by the Earth and Atmosphere releasing the same amount of outgoing longwave radiation. About half of the incoming solar radiation is absorbed by the Earth’s surface. This energy is transferred to the atmosphere by warming the air in contact with the surface (thermals), by evapo-transpiration, and by longwave radiation that is absorbed by clouds and greenhouse gases. The atmosphere in turn radiates longwave energy back to Earth as well as out to space. Source: Kiehl and Trenberth (1997). Adapted from IPCC 4TAR, Climate Change 2007; The Physical Science Basis
  • Carbon dioxide ( ) is one of the greenhouse gases. It consists of one carbon atom with an oxygen atom bonded to each side. When its atoms are bonded tightly together, the carbon dioxide molecule can absorb infrared radiation and the molecule starts to vibrate. Eventually, the vibrating molecule will emit the radiation again, and it will likely be absorbed by yet another greenhouse gas molecule. This absorption-emission-absorption cycle serves to keep the heat near the surface, effectively insulating the surface from the cold of space. Carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane, nitorus oxide, and a few other gases are greenhouse gases. They all are molecules composed of more than two component atoms, bound loosely enough together to be able to vibrate with the absorption of heat. The major components of the atmosphere ( O 2 and N 2 ) are two-atom molecules too tightly bound together to vibrate and thus they do not absorb heat and contribute to the greenhouse effect. http://www.ucar.edu/learn/1_3_1.htm
  • We can thank green house gases for making our planet livable.
  • Here are two views of the earth’s radiation, the first in the visible band. Note the reflectance of clouds. The second shows long wave or infrared radiation emissions.
  • Let us do a little test. Each of you, without consultation with your neighbor, write down the number one, two, and three most significant green house gas.
  • By far and away, water, in vapor form or as clouds, account for over 90% of the green house effect. Then we have 10% left for carbon dioxide and the ubiquitous “other” GHGs.” Junk Science, August, 2007. But less than 1.5% of the GHG in the atmosphere can be traced to human origin; of this carbon dioxide dominates, followed by methane.
  • What’s the primary source of CO2 emissions?
  • According to MIT, at least these experts at MIT, it is transportation. But these experts got it wrong. Why?
  • Because NATURE is the source of some 96.5% of the CO 2 annually emitted. Recall the carbon cycle that we learned (or should have learned) in high school general science. The media, and most often governments, constantly omit the adjective “anthropogenic” when reporting. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s press release before her spring 2009 trip to China claimed that the US and China were responsible for 45% of the world’s CO2 emissions. You can see the inaccuracy of this claim. Look at all of that CO2 coming from the oceans. Any idea why?
  • One source of ocean CO 2 is out-gasing as the water warms. Think of this as the Coke Fizz effect.
  • The CO2 in the world’s oceans is not uniform, because the ocean temperatures are not uniform. Note the higher CO2 concentrations around Antarctica and the lower concentrations in tropical waters. I also highlight Mauna Loa, Hawaii because this is the location of a very important monitoring station to track atmospheric CO2. Map from Wikipedia
  • Source: Roy Spencer
  • OK. So anthropogenic CO2 contributes but a minor amount of annual CO2 emissions. But of this, what do you think is the major source?
  • No, it is not cars. Rather power generation is the largest source of human-induced CO2 emissions, followed by industry and individual households. All of transportation, of which automobiles are but a portion, account for 17% of anthropogenic CO2 annually emitted.
  • Impact sources Aerosols, IPCC 4TR and Myhre, Science , July 10, 2009 1% change in albedo (Earth's reflectivity) can yield over 1 °C change in expected mean temperature . Junk Science, 4Aug09 Saturation chamber experiments with carbon dioxide tell us that, all other things being equal , doubling pre-Industrial Revolution CO2 levels should yield about 1.2 °C warming . Junk Science 4ug09 CO2: 4Wm-2 from Dr. Steve Ackerman SteveA@ssec.wisc.edu
  • FAQ 6.1, Figure 1. Schematic of the Earth’s orbital changes (Milankovitch cycles) that drive the ice age cycles. ‘T’ denotes changes in the tilt (or obliquity) of the Earth’s axis, ‘E’ denotes changes in the eccentricity of the orbit (due to variations in the minor axis of the ellipse), and ‘P’ denotes precession, that is, changes in the direction of the axis tilt at a given point of the orbit. Source: Rahmstorf and Schellnhuber (2006). Copied from http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter6.pdf, page 449 When the orbit is highly elliptcal, one hemisphere will have hot summers and cold winters; the other hemisphere will have warm summers and cool winters. When the orbit is nearly circular, both hemispheres will have similar seasonal contrasts in temperature. The change in radiation from E is less than 0.2%, but this is enough to affect ice sheets. Today, the tilt is 23.5 O , it varies between21.6 O and 24.5 O .
  • The Earth's orbital path varies in the degree to which it is circular. This change in its "eccentricity" varies between 0.00 and 0.06 on a 100,000 year cycle. When the eccentricity equals 0.00 the orbital path is circular and when it is 0.06 the orbital path is slightly elliptical. The current value is 0.0167. These are caused primarily by the gravitational influences of the larger planets, such as Jupiter and Saturn, which pull and tug on the Earth in slightly different ways over periods of thousands of years.”
  • Over the past 750,000 years of Earth's history, Ice Ages have occurred at regular intervals, of approximately 100,000 years each. Courtesy of Illinois State Museum 18 O refers to the stable oxygen isotope, which exists at ~0.2% in nature. Because it is heavier that the predominately abundant 16 O, less of it is evaporated, and this separation is enhanced during hot weather. Hence, tropical moisture carried toward the poles and deposited to form ice sheets reflects global temperature, having a lower 18 O to 16 O ratio during warmer weather. Conversely, 18 O levels in tropical marine plankton will be elevated during warmer climates.
  • The World 18,000 Years Ago Before "global warming" started 18,000 years ago most of the earth was a frozen and arid wasteland. Over half of earth 's surface was covered by glaciers or extreme desert. Forests were rare. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html.
  • From http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
  • “ It was warmer again not long after the last ice age ended. Sea level was 2 metres higher than it is today. Since the Holocene Optimum about eight thousand years ago, we have been in long term temperature decline at about 0.25 degrees per thousand years.” David Archibald International Conference on Climate Change March, 2008
  • Basic Geology Part 3 – Sea Level Rises During Interglacial Periods, Guest post by Steven Goddard From 15,000 years ago to 8,000 years ago, sea level rose about 14mm/year – which is more than four times faster than the current rise rate of 3.3mm/year.  During the last ice age, sea level was so low that people were able to walk from Siberia to Alaska across the Bering Strait.  In 2002, the BBC reported that a submerged city was found off the coast of India, 36 meters below sea level.   It is quite likely that low lying coastal areas will continue to get submerged, just as they have been for the last 20,000 years
  • WUWT 6Mar09 Basic Geology Part 3 – Sea Level Rises During Interglacial Periods, Guest post by Steven Goddard “ The main reason why sea level rises is because the equilibrium between glacial ice and temperature is out of balance, and has been for the last 20,000 years.”
  • Basic Geology Part 3 – Sea Level Rises During Interglacial Periods, Guest post by Steven Goddard The IPCC has stated that sea level may rise two meters this century, which would be a rate of 22mm/year, nearly seven times faster than current rates. Do we see such an acceleration?  The simple answer is no.  There has been very little change in sea level rise rates over the last 100 years, certainly nothing close to the immediate 7X acceleration which would be required to hit 2 meters. the rate of SLR is slow relative to how fast populations can strengthen coastal defenses and/or relocate;
  • NASA agrees with the 0.17 cm or 1.7 mm rise rate per year over the last century. Since the mid 1990s NASA claims that the rise of sea level has accelerated to 3.3 mm/year.
  • We have yet to reach the height of the sea that was attained during the last interglacial (LIG) about 100,000 years ago. Rostami et al, 2000, Muhs et al, 2002. Greenland ice cores “indicate that the Greenland Summit region remained ice-covered during the LIG.” The IPCC speculates that this higher sea level had to come from some melting of the Antarctic ice sheet. The term "eustatic" refers to global changes in the sea level due to water mass added (or removed from) the oceans (e.g. melting of ice sheets ).
  • Robinson, et al, “Envieonmental Effects of Incerased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide”, Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, (2007) Global sea level measured by surface gauges between 1807 and 2002 (24) and by satellite between 1993 and 2006 (25). Satellite measurements are shown in gray and agree with tide gauge measurements. The overall trend is an increase of 7 inches per century. Intermediate trends are 9, 0, 12, 0, and 12 inches per century, respectively. This trend lags the temperature increase, so it predates the increase in hydrocarbon use even more than is shown. It is unaffected by the very large increase in hydrocarbon use.
  • But, of course, there may be other factors besides melting ice sheets that are contributing to a rising sea level…..
  • It is agreed by both proponents and skeptics of CAGW that the sun also has a shorter term impact on climate. The SOHO space craft helps to measure solar activity. Note that we have entered a period of especially low activity. SOHO photo from WUWT 3Aug09 Spacecraft illustration -- SOHO was launched in December 1995 by an Atlas Centaur rocket and became operational in March 1996. SOHO weighs about two tons and with its solar panels extended stands about 25 feet across. It was launched in December, 1995. (Image credit: Alex Lutkus)
  • Huge sunspot group -- Active region 9393 as seen by MDI hosted the largest sunspot group observed so far during the current solar cycle. On 30 March 2001, the sunspot area within the group spanned an area more than 13 times the entire surface of the Earth!  It was the source of numerous flares and coronal mass ejections, including the largest flare recorded in 25 years on 2 April 2001. Caused by intense magnetic fields emerging from the interior, a sunspot appears to be dark only when contrasted against the rest of the solar surface, because it is slightly cooler than the unmarked regions. NASA’s Solar and Heliospheric Observatory
  • From a 2006 NASA News article - In red, David Hathaway's predictions for the next two solar cycles and, in pink, Mausumi Dikpati's prediction for cycle 24, and the expected "low" cycle Taken from WUWT 1Aug09 Solar Cycles are distinguished from each other by a number of things, including the magnetic polarity of sun spots. If high-latitude sunspots were to start forming with polarity opposite to that of Cycle 24 sunspots, then they would have to be considered Cycle 25 spots
  • The Argonist, or Numerian, 3, Aug, 2009 Galileo was the first scientist to systematically observe and chart sunspots in 1611. Since then, there has been a steady observation of these phenomena, with a more precise monitoring process established around 1750 that is known as the modern era. What this observation revealed is that sunspots appear in different intensities according to a cycle that averages 10.7 years, but ranges from as short as 7 years to as long as 16 years. At the start of the cycle there are very few sunspots – this is known as the solar minimum - and then sunspot production increases for about 5.5 years to reach a solar maximum. In an average cycle, 40,000 to 50,000 sunspots can occur, with 150 occurring at any one time.
  • An even more interesting minimum production occurred from 1650 to 1725, known as the Maunder Minimum. The lack of sunspots during the Maunder Minimum is not the result of fewer people looking at the sun during the pre-modern era of observations. Scientists today have confirmed through other measures of solar activity on earth, such as tree samples or deep ice samples, that the sun was remarkably quiet during this period. Summers were much shorter and cooler, and winters longer and more severe. Around 1640, no sunspots occurred at all, and this corresponds to the coldest recorded temperatures during what is known as the Little Ice Age. The Argonist or Numerian, 3Aug09 * Pollack et al . (1998) citing borehole data
  • And the Little Ice Age was the last time period when the Thames froze over.
  • Here we can see the very strong correlation of sunspot activity with temperature, in this case the temperature history of the United States from historical thermometer readings. But of course, correlation is not causation. Chart from Robinson, et al, “Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide”, Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, (2007)
  • Solar cycles also have a strong correlation with the rate of sea level rise. I find it interesting that the higher rise rate starting in the mid 1990s correlates well with the more intense solar activity of solar cycle 23. Graph from “Using the Oceans as a Calorimeter to Quantify the Solar Radiative Forcing”, Nir J. Shaviv Racah Institute of Physics, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Giv’at Ram, Jerusalem 91904, Israel
  • The solar radiation variation throughout the solar cycle is not large, and thus has been dismissed by CAGW proponents as having any significant effect on global temperature. To do so, an amplifier is needed. One possible amplifier, cosmic radiation, has been proposed by Henrik Svensmark . Solar winds affect cosmic rays, which affect low level cloud formation.
  • Very small differences in clouds may produce large feedbacks. An increase in high, thin clouds would further increase the warming. This is because high, thin clouds are relatively effective in trapping infrared radiation (heat) while allowing the Sun’s energy to pass through.
  • Thick low-level clouds (right) may cool the Earth by reflecting sunlight. “ The latest results from ERBE indicate that in the global mean, clouds reduce the radiative heating of the planet. This cooling is a function of season and ranges from approximately -13 to -21 Wm -2 . While these values may seem small, they should be compared with the 4 Wm-2 heating predicted by a doubling of carbon dioxide concentration. The longwave and shortwave cloud forcing tend to balance each other in the winter hemisphere. In the summer hemisphere, the negative shortwave cloud forcing dominates the positive longwave cloud forcing, and the clouds result in a cooling. “Dr. Steve Ackerman SteveA@ssec.wisc.edu
  • The amount of solar energy the Earth receives depends on the Earth's albedo, or reflectivity. The greater the albedo, the more sunlight is reflected and the less solar energy is absorbed by the Earth. Project "Earthshine" being done at the Big Bear Solar Observatory measures the Earth's albedo by observing the amount of sunlight reflected by the Earth to the dark side of the Moon and back to Earth. Ken Gregory, Climate Change Science, 6Sept09 from a posting by Anthony Watts, 17Oct07.
  • “ The Earth’s Albedo has risen in the past few years, and by doing reconstructions of the past albedo, it appears that there was a significant reduction in Earth’s albedo leading up to a lull in 1997. 1998 has been touted as one of the warmest years on record, and the time lag may have had to do with the thermal inertia of the oceans. Then the albedo increased, making the earth more reflective. Clouds have the greatest potential for changing albedo on a  short time scale.” Anthony Watts, 17Oct07 in WUWT
  • The Sun’s magnetic field and releases of plasma directly affect Earth and the rest of the solar system. Solar wind shapes the Earth’s magnetosphere and magnetic storms are illustrated here as approaching Earth. These storms, which occur frequently, can disrupt communications and navigational equipment, damage satellites, and even cause blackouts. The white lines represent the solar wind; the purple line is the bow shock line; and the blue lines surrounding the Earth represent its protective magnetosphere. The flairs are also called coronal mass ejection (CME)
  • Auroral storms light up the night sky repeatedly at high latitudes as the streams move past, driving mega-ampere electrical currents about 75 miles above Earth’s surface. All that energy heats and expands the upper atmosphere. This expansion pushes denser air higher, slowing down satellites and causing them to drop to lower altitudes. Although the current solar minimum has fewer sunspots than any minimum in 75 years, the Sun’s effect on Earth’s outer radiation belt, as measured by electron fluxes, was more than three times greater last year than in 1996. Observations this year [2009] show that the winds have finally slowed, almost two years after sunspots reached the levels of last cycle’s minimum.
  • Svensmark’s hypothesis is that cosmic rays emitted by our galaxy create seeds for low lying clouds. Recall that clouds are credited with typically reflecting 30 W -2 of incoming solar radiation.
  • “ Svensmark and his collaborators have looked at 26 Forbush events since 1987 (those that were strong according to their impact on the spectrum seen in the low troposphere where it matters); most of them occur close to the solar maxima. The observations …imply that the mass of water stored in clouds decreases by 4 – 7%..... Roughly three billion tons of water droplets suddenly disappear from the atmosphere (they remain there as vapor, which is more likely to warm the air than to cool it down). Lubos Motl, WUWT ~2Aug09 This can raise the global temperature by about 1 O C.
  • At its simplest, the relationship between the solar magnetic field strength and the Earth’s climate is this: lower magnetic field strength means few sunspots, fewer sunspots means less solar wind, less solar wind means more galactic cosmic rays, more galactic cosmic rays means more low level cloud formation, more low level clouds means more sunlight reflected back into space, which in turn means less heating of the Earth’s surface and atmosphere. Climate is not a random walk. If you can find a solar physicist to give you a prediction of solar activity, you can use that to make a prediction of climate. That prediction will be good for perhaps twenty-five years out. David Archibald, March, 2008
  • In the top panel are the inverted Haleakala/Huancayo neutron monitor data (heavy line, dominated by cosmic rays with a primary rigidity cutoff of 12.9 GeV), and the TSI anomaly (TSI - 1366 W/m2, thin line, and based on Lean [2000]). The next panel depicts the net oceanic heat flux, averaged over all the oceans (thin line) and the average heat flux in the Atlantic region (Lon 80W to 30E, thick line), based on Ishii et al. [2006]. The next two panels plot the SLR and SST anomaly. The thin lines are the two variables with their linear trends removed. In the thick lines, the ENSO component is removed as well (such that the cross-correlation with the ENSO signal wil vanish). Nir J. Shaviv, 2009.
  • Orbital period of Sun/Earth around Milky Way ~550Myr. High GCR flux in spiral arms => 140 Myr period. Same period and phase found in benthic sea temperature (4 o C amplitude) and ice age epochs (icehouse/greenhouse) Jasper Kirkby /CERN CERN Colloquium, 4 June 2009 Note that the correlation with proxy-determined CO 2 is not there; also note the extremely high levels of CO 2 a half a million years ago, even during extremely cold epics. Recall Hansen’s “ The atmosphere's current CO 2 concentration is greater than it may have been for tens of millions of years.”
  • Photo from dalewardphotosafari.wordpress.com/2009/05/
  • “ The current understanding of climate change in the industrial age is that it is predominantly caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases, with relatively small natural contributions due to solar irradiance and volcanoes. However, palaeoclimatic reconstructions show that the climate has frequently varied on 100-year time scales during the Holocene (last 10 kyr) by amounts comparable to the present warming – and yet the mechanism or mechanisms are not understood. Some of these reconstructions show clear associations with solar variability, which is recorded in the light radio-isotope archives that measure past variations of cosmic ray intensity.”
  • Should the GCR hypothesis prove to be real, the case for CAGW would have little merit. Thus the inquisition of Svensmark has begun.
  • I science, hypotheses need to be tested to either verify or falsify them. And so Svensmark’s GCR hypothesis will be by a major experiment being constructed by CERN using their accelerator in Geneva. This test will be run in 2010, and its results will have a profound impact on the climate change debate. Simply put, it should indicate if indeed cosmic rays can induce cloud seeds.
  • NASA has announced that we have hit a new record high in Galactic Cosmic Rays, GCR’s. Apparently, Nature is conducting a grand experiment. – Anthony Watts, WUWT 29Sep09 “When cosmic rays hit the atmosphere, they produce an isotope of beryllium, 10Be, which is preserved in polar ice. By examining ice cores, it is possible to estimate cosmic ray fluxes more than a thousand years into the past. Even with the recent surge, cosmic rays today are much weaker than they have been at times in the past millennium.”
  • Low clouds reflect solar radiation and lead to cooling. When the sun is active, the cosmic galactic rays are diffused resulting in less low cloud cover and more short wave solar radiation reaching and warming the ground. We should with these very high levels of cosmic rays be measuring more low clouds and cooling
  • It is, perhaps, a chicken an egg issue; what begets what. Per Roy Spenser…. Journal of Climate , Dr. Roy W. Spencer, University of Alabama in Huntsville, believes the [GCR] work is the first step in demonstrating why climate models produce too much global warming.” http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080611184722.htm
  • There are other hypothesis to explain how the small changes in irradiance during the solar cycle might be amplified to explained the correlated warming and cooling. Meehl et al have proposed that the solar maximum increases ozone, which warms the stratosphere, and that the solar maximum simultaneously heats the seas to increase evaporation, which decreases low level clouds. Both act together to amplify solar warming.
  • The observed SST during DJF for the last 11 peak solar years are shown on the right column, and the precipitation for 3 peak solar years are seen in the right column. Models that fail to consider stratospheric ozone chemistry do not reflect observations. Models that fail to consider the complex air-sea interactions also fail to mimic the real world, But a model that combines both comes within 25% of the actual observed SST and precipitation variations.
  • Here is the correlation of the Meehl hypothesis and observed precipitation.
  • This figure from the IPCC TR4 is their summation of the net effects of radiative forcings. Per the IPCC, “Best estimates and uncertainty ranges can not be obtained by direct addition of individual terms due to the asymmetric uncertainty ranges for some factors.” Note that the uncertainty for cloud albedo is almost as large as the total contribution for CO 2 . Using the Stefan-Boltzman constant, 1 Wm -2  ~0.22 O C. Thus the net 1.6 Wm -2 above indicates a 0.35 O C effect. This chart does not include the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols, nor the cooling effect of falling tropospheric relative and specific humidity. The GCR effect could be considered to be represented above in the uncertainty of cloud albedo.
  • A volcanic eruption may send ash and sulfate gas high into the atmosphere. The sulfate may combine with water to produce tiny droplets (aerosols) of sulfuric acid, which reflect sunlight back into space. Large eruptions reach the middle stratosphere (19 miles or 30 kilometers high). At this altitude, the aerosols can spread around the world. A massive volcanic eruption can cool the Earth for one or two years. The 1982 El Chichon eruption and the 1991 Pinatubo eruption caused the globally averaged surface temperature to cool less than 1°F. Science museum of the National Academy of Sciences.
  • “ Northern tropical Atlantic surface temperatures are sensitive to dust blowing in from North Africa. Regional changes in stratospheric volcanic and tropospheric mineral aerosols (i.e. dust) are responsible for 69% of the upward trend in temperatures over the last 30 years. A joint effort by scientists at the University of Wisconsin and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) concludes that the majority of the sharp temperature rise seen over the past three decades in the tropical Atlantic is due to dust blowing out to sea from the deserts of Northern Africa. The Resilient Earth, 15May09” Other sources say dust storms cool.
  • NASA narrative for this image: A wall of dust stretched from northern Queensland to the southern tip of eastern Australia on the morning of September 23, 2009, when the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) on NASA’s Terra satellite captured this image. The dust is thick enough that the land beneath it is not visible. The storm, the worst in 70 years, led to canceled or delayed flights, traffic problems, and health issues, reported the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) News. The concentration of particles in the air reached 15,000 micrograms per cubic meter in New South Wales during the storm, said ABC News. A normal day sees a particle concentration 10-20 micrograms per cubic meter.
  • Boston Globe: Station Fire in Los Angeles in this image taken from NASA's Terra satellite August 30, 2009. (REUTERS/NASA/GSFC/LaRC/JPL, MISR
  • Contrails, which are high in the troposphere, have a heat trapping effect.
  • sulfur dioxide released from ships' smokestacks could be forming sulfate aerosol particles in the atmosphere, which cause the clouds to be more reflective, carry more water and possibly stop precipitating . [4] Wikipedia. This would induce a cooling effect.
  • A new paper in Science reports that a careful study of satellite data show the assumed cooling effect of aerosols in the atmosphere to be significantly less than previously estimated. Myhre argues that since preindustrial times, soot particle concentrations have increased much more than other aerosols. Unlike many other aerosols, which scatter sunlight, soot strongly absorbs solar radiation. At the top of the atmosphere, where the Earth’s energy balance is determined, scattering has a cooling effect, whereas absorption has a warming effect. If soot increases more than scattering aerosols, the overall aerosol cooling effect is smaller than it would be otherwise. According to Dr. Myhre’s work, the correct cooling value is some 40% less than that previously accepted by the IPCC. Doug L. Hoffman on Wed, 07/15/2009
  • This figure from the IPCC TR4 is their summation of the net effects of radiative forcings. Per the IPCC, “Best estimates and uncertainty ranges can not be obtained by direct addition of individual terms due to the asymmetric uncertainty ranges for some factors.” Note that the uncertainty for cloud albedo is almost as large as the total contribution for CO 2 . Using the Stefan-Boltzman constant, 1 Wm -2  ~0.22 O C. Thus the net 1.6 Wm -2 above indicates a 0.35 O C effect. This chart does not include the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols, nor the cooling effect of falling tropospheric relative and specific humidity. The GCR effect could be considered to be represented above in the uncertainty of cloud albedo.
  • Junk Science, “The Real “Inconvenient Truth”. 2006
  • We know there's an annual warming, quite a severe one, in fact and that's the seasonal heating of the hemispheres. Since the Northern Hemisphere contains the greatest proportion of landmass and land heats more than oceans the Northern Hemisphere summer season causes significant increase in the global mean temperature: UAH MSU data tells us the lower troposphere global mean varies somewhat less than near-surface temperature with monthly averages rising and falling approximately 2.3 °C through the year. Junk Science, “The Real “Inconvenient Truth”. 2006
  • ENSO normal state. Normal equatorial winds warm as they flow westward across the Pacific. Cold water is pulled up along west coast of South America. Warming water is pushed toward west side of Pacific. Sea surface is warm in the west. Hot air rises in western Pacific, travels eastward and cool air descends on South America.
  • During La Nina conditions, the Gulf Coast tends to experience somewhat dry conditions.
  • ENSO/ state. Sea surface is warm in central and eastern Pacific. Less cold water is pulled up along west coast of South America. Hot air rises in central Pacific, travels east and west before cooling and descending.
  • The images show sea surface topography from NASA's TOPEX satellite, sea surface temperature's from NOAA's AVHRR satellite sensor and sea temperature below the surface as measured by NOAA's network of TAO moored buoys . The three dimensional relief map shows a sea level rise along the Equator in the eastern Pacific Ocean of up to 34 centimeters with the red colors indicating an associated change in sea surface temperature of up to 5.4 degrees Celsius. The sea temperature below the surface illustrates how the thermocline (the boundary between warm and cold sea water at 20 degrees Celcius) is flattened out by El Niño.These images are beneath Sea Views of sea surface height (represented by the bumps) and sea temperature (represented by the color). Red is 30 degrees C and blue is 8 degrees C . The thermocline is the border between the dark blue at the bottom and the cyan. The thermocline exists at 20 degrees C. Data from 1/1/97 to 3/10/98.    Department of Commerce / National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory / Tropical Atmosphere Ocean Project Disclaimer | Privacy Policy | Feedback: [email_address]
  • And here is the condition of ENSO on September 3, 2009. “The oscillation of hot water in the eastern Pacific Ocean is going to be a let-down, in terms of precipitation over a parched California” per, Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) researcher Bill Patzert. “This El Nino is definitely puny,” Patzert said , adding that this year’s pattern resembles the mild El Nino of 2006-2007, which left California’s snowpack and reservoirs short of what water experts had coveted: an end to five years of drought. Although the jet stream pattern still shows that California might get a wet winter, the likelihood of floods and massive rains is diminishing, the paper quoted climatologists as saying.
  • The rapid cooling in the Pacific in 2006 caused the El Nino winter of 2006/07 rains to fail in California Junk Science, 3Sept09
  • The La Nina that ensued became strong in the late winter and early spring of 2007/08 ……. Junk Science 3Sept09
  • … ..and came back again for a reprise in 2008/09 winter continued to produce sub normal rainfall. Junk science 3Sept09
  • A paper was just released by researchers at Texas A & M that speculates the flu pandemic of 1918-1919 was related to the El Nino of that year and that El Ninos are NOT related to CAGW. This chart, based on historic Southern Oscillation Index (SOI), the barometric pressure difference between Darwin and Tahiti, shows that super El Ninos were occurring way before industrialization.
  • Two main characteristics distinguish PDO from ENSO: first, 20th century PDO "events" persisted for 20-to-30 years, while typical ENSO events persisted for 6 to 18 months; second, the climatic fingerprints of the PDO are most visible in the North Pacific/North American sector, while secondary signatures exist in the tropics - the opposite is true for ENSO. Several independent studies find evidence for just two full PDO cycles in the past century: "cool" PDO regimes prevailed from 1890-1924 and again from 1947-1976, while "warm" PDO regimes dominated from 1925-1946 and from 1977 through (at least) the mid-1990's. Fisheries scientist Steven Hare coined the term "Pacific Decadal Oscillation" (PDO) in 1996 while researching connections between Alaska salmon production cycles and Pacific climate.
  • The Alaskan surface record classically highlighting the effect of the PDO phase shift. There is no plausible means by which accumulating greenhouse gas could effectively act as a major warming agent in one year but not in the preceding or subsequent years. Junk Science, “The Real “Inconvenient Truth”. 2006
  • “ PDO (Hare 1996) is similar to ENSO (temperature anomalies and surface winds), except for long (30 yr) periodicity and primary effect on Pacific NW. PDO transitions coincide with gradient changes of global temperatures. Jasper Kirkby /CERN. PDO may be shifting to negative phase. CERN Colloquium, 4 June 2009 “ It would appear that with the PDO and AMO now both in the cool phase again and this cycle can last up to 20-30 years, we are headed for global cooling. We seem to be in the same climate cycle that we were back in 1964-1976.The last two winters have been very similar to those we had back then with all the extra snow and cold temperatures.” IceCap Guest Post by Matt Vooro 20 April, 2009
  • The basin wide Pacific multidecadal warming and cooling affects the frequency and strength of La Ninas and El Ninos. The cold PDO favoring more, stronger and longer lasting La Ninas and the warm PDO more, stronger and longer lasting El Ninos and fewer briefer, mostly weak La Ninas. The PDO turned cold in 1998 bounced some until 2006 when it began a significant decline. See the blue La Nina frequency increasing like it did when the PDO was last cold from 1947 to 1977. Junk Science, 3Sept09
  • Notes from NOAA: The AMO is an ongoing series of long-duration changes in the sea surface temperature of the North Atlantic Ocean, with cool and warm phases that may last for 20-40 years at a time and a difference of about 1°F between extremes. These changes are natural and have been occurring for at least the last 1,000 years . Studies of palaeoclimate proxies, such as tree rings and ice cores, have shown that oscillations similar to those observed instrumentally have been occurring for at least the last millennium. This is clearly longer than modern man has been affecting climate, so the AMO is probably a natural climate oscillation. In the 20th century, the climate swings of the AMO have alternately camouflaged and exaggerated the effects of [anthropogenic] global warming, and made attribution of global warming more difficult to ascertain.
  • The rise in the North Atlantic OHC anomalies since 1955, as reconstructed by Levitus et al (2009), is strikingly high when compared to Global OHC. As shown in Figure 1, the North Atlantic OHC linear trend is almost three times that of Global OHC. Bob Tisdale 4Oct09
  • The Night Sky Project Bulletin Board. 17Feb09 Art Neuendorffer Feb 17, 2009 Graph source: source: http:// www.euronet.nl/users/e_wesker/atlhur.html
  • Steve McIntyre on August 7th, 2008 Climate Audit John A writes : In general terms, the relative warming of the NH relative to the SH is something that we're aware of, but isn't the strength of the trend in the 30 years of satellite record astonishing? And this is nothing to do with UHI. We're talking 0.75 deg C in 30 years here! Figure 1. TLT 20-80N minus TLT 20-70S. Perhaps this is explained by the coincidental warm PDO and AMO phases of the 1079 to 2006 period.
  • David Smith: August 7th, 2008 at 9:57 pm Here's a comparison of the RSS North-minus-South value and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) index. I used 12-month lagging averages for the plot: The AMO index is basically detrended North Atlantic SST. R-squared using the smoothed values is 0.69 My conjecture is that much of the AMO (detrended North Atlantic SST) effect is at high northern latitudes, where the heat and moisture released by the ocean have a large impact on both Arctic and Northern Asia temperatures.

Tp climate change-101-1 Tp climate change-101-1 Presentation Transcript

  • Man’s Role in Climate Change: A Student’s Understanding Marty Cornell October 26, 2009
  • Does the Science Support Human-Induced Global Warming?
  • Correlation is not causation.
  • Correlation is not causation.
  • “ Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent that combating climate change. The Science is Beyond dispute and the facts are clear .” President-elect Barack Obama, November 19, 2008
  • Steven Chu, US Secretary of Energy, Nobel Prize Physics, 1997 “ Science has unambiguously shown that we’re altering the destiny of our planet” “ The science is clear, we’re boiling our planet” 2009 speech at Tsinghua University, China
  • “ With all due respect Mr. President, that is not true.” +100 PhD Scientists in LA Times Ad, March 30, 2009 “… ..The computer models forecasting rapid temperature change abjectly fail to explain recent climate behavior.”….
  • The Issue: Climate Change Global Warming Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) Carbon-based (CAGW)
  • Two Views on Global Warming Empirical Data Computer model projections Current trend is minor and nothing unusual Driving to tipping point crisis of run-away heat Solar Cycle driven, forcings to be determined CO 2 GHG driven, amplified by H 2 O Earth has warmed 0.6 O C last century Earth has warmed 0.6 O C last century Proponents of Natural Cycles (“skeptics”, “deniers”, “flat earthers”) Proponents of CAGW (“alarmists”, “environmentalists”)
  • James E. Hansen, CAGW Proponent NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) 26 April 2007 testimony to the Select Committee of Energy Independence and Global Warming of the U. S. House of Representatives entitled "Dangerous Human-Made Interference with Climate" Air temperatures of the last quarter-century have been unprecedented for at least the past two thousand years. The atmosphere's current CO 2 concentration is greater than it may have been for tens of millions of years. The earth "is close to dangerous climate change, to tipping points of the system with the potential for irreversible deleterious effects."
  • Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Summarizes the peer reviewed literature on climate every five years What? Physical Science Basis So What? Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability Now What? Mitigation
  • Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Summary for Policy Makers Provide the science to support the need to control greenhouse gas levels. Written by an assemblage of representative from governments and NGO’s, with only a small scientific representation.
  • “ Natural changes cannot account for the significant long-term warming in the historical global surface temperature anomalies.” Lean & Rind, 2008 ENSO = 0.002 O C/decade Aerosols = -0.001 O C/decade Solar = 0.007 O C/decade People = ~ 0.06 O C/decade
  • People = ~ 0.06 O C/decade “ Natural changes cannot account for the significant long-term warming in the historical global surface temperature anomalies.” Lean & Rind, 2008 ENSO = 0.002 O C/decade Aerosols = -0.001 O C/decade Solar = 0.007 O C/decade
  • People = ~ 0.06 O C/decade “ Natural changes cannot account for the significant long-term warming in the historical global surface temperature anomalies.” Lean & Rind, 2008 ENSO = 0.002 O C/decade Aerosols = -0.001 O C/decade Solar = 0.007 O C/decade
  • “ Natural changes cannot account for the significant long-term warming in the historical global surface temperature anomalies.” Lean & Rind, 2008 ENSO = 0.002 O C/decade Aerosols = -0.001 O C/decade Solar = 0.007 O C/decade People = ~ 0.06 O C/decade
  • “ Natural changes cannot account for the significant long-term warming in the historical global surface temperature anomalies.” Lean & Rind, 2008 ENSO = 0.002 O C/decade Aerosols = -0.001 O C/decade Solar = 0.007 O C/decade People = ~ 0.06 O C/decade
  • The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. The fact that the developed world went into hysterics over changes in global mean temperature anomaly of a few tenths of a degree will astound future generations. Such hysteria simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth, and the exploitation of these weaknesses by politicians, environmental promoters, and, after 20 years of media drum beating, many others as well. Richard S. Lindzen, CAGW Skeptic Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, July 26, 2009
  • Global Warming Petition Project 31,478 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs
  • “ The focus on just CO 2 as the dominate human climate forcing is too narrow. Natural variations are still quite important. Human influence is significant, but it involves a diverse range of first-order climate forcings, including, but not limited to the human input of CO 2 . ” Emission of aerosols into the atmosphere, Land management and land cover change. Roger A. Pielke, Both Natural and AGW Senior Research Scientist at CIRES, emeritus professor of the Department of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University, retired.
  • “Climate Money”, Joan Nova, via The Science and Public Policy Institute , July, 2009 $79 Billion so far e.g. carbon sequestration
  • Cap & Trade Cost $1,761 per Household Source: US Treasury
  • What is Climate? What causes climate change? How do we measure climate change? Is the current warming unusual? How much of the current warming is due to man vs. nature? What Does the Science Say?
  • Climate is what you expect.
  • Weather is what you get.
  • Brazoria County Airport Weekly Mean Temperature, O F Annual Precipitation, Inches Wind Speed, mph
  • What is Climate? What causes climate change? What Does the Science Say?
  • Changes in Solar Inputs Changes in the Atmosphere: Composition, Circulation Atmosphere N 2 , O 2 , Ar, H 2 O, CO 2 , CH 4 , N 2 O, O 3 , etc. Aerosols Changes in the Hydrological Cycle Clouds Atmosphere-Biosphere Interaction Biosphere Ice Sheet Land-Atmosphere Interaction Land Surface Soil-Biosphere Interaction Volcanic Activity Glaciers Changes in the Cryosphere: Snow, Frozen Ground, Sea Ice, Ice Sheets, Glaciers Changes in/on the Land Surface:Orography, Land Use, Vegetation, Ecosystems Human Influences Changes in the Ocean: Circulation, Sea Level, Biogeochemistry Hydrosphere: Rivers & Lakes Ice-Ocean Coupling Hydrosphere: Ocean Atmosphere-Ice Interaction Sea Ice Heat Exchange Wind Stress Precipitation Evaporation Terrestrial Radiation Components of the Climate System
  • ERBE Earth Radiation Budget Experiment 3 satellites, 1 st launched in 1984 Measure energy exchanges between sun, earth, & space Albedo (reflectance) OLR (outgoing longwave radiation) Effect of clouds
  •  
  • Emission Spectra of the Sun and Earth JunkScience.com, Updated August 2007
  • 390 Surface Radiation Greenhouse Gases Incoming Solar Radiation 342 Wm -2 Reflected Solar Radiation 107 Wm -2 107 Outgoing Longwave Radiation 235 Wm -2 235 Emitted by Atmosphere 165 30 Reflected by Surface Reflected by Clouds, Aerosol, and Atmospheric Gases 77 Wm -2 77 168 Absorbed by Surface 350 40 40 Atmospheric Window Emitted by clouds 30 67 Absorbed by Atmosphere Latent 78 Heat 78 Evapo-transpiration 24 Thermals 324 Back Radiation 324 Absorbed by Surface
  •  
  • Without greenhouse gases, the earth would be 33 O C (59.4 O F) cooler! i.e. -18 O C instead of +15 O C
  • NASA CERES Satellite 33 Wm -2 Reflected by Clouds 235 Wm -2 Outgoing Longwave Radiation
  • TESTING YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL IQ The # 1 Green House Gas Is: The # 2 Greenhouse Gas Is: The # 3 Greenhouse Gas Is:
  • Contribution of Anthropogenic Greenhouse Gases to the Natural Greenhouse Effect Hans Peter Lenz and Christian Cozzarini, Emissions and Air Quality , SAE, 1999 Water Vapor (60 - 95)% (2 - 10)% Tropospheric Ozone (2 - 10)% Nitrous Oxide (0 - 10)% Stratospheric H 2 O (5 - 25)% Halocarbons (10 - 25)% Methane (35 - 65)% Carbon Dioxide Remaining Greenhouse Gases (5 - 40)% (0.5 - 1.5)% Global Greenhouse Effect Anthropogenic Greenhouse Effect
  • The primary source of CO 2 emissions is…….. TESTING YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL IQ
  • The primary source of CO 2 emissions is: “… ..the transportation sector now accounts for about one third of all CO 2 emissions in the US and road transportation is three quarters of that third.” TESTING YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL IQ Malcom A. Weiss, John B. Heywood, Elizabeth M. Drake, Andreas Schafer, Felix F. AuYeung; ON THE ROAD IN 2020, A life cycle analysis of new automobile technologies , Energy Laboratory Report # MIT EL 00-003, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, October, 2000 MIT got it WRONG!
  • “ The United States and China emit 45% of the world’s greenhouse gases.” Press release prior to her Feb., 2009 trip to China Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton She got it WRONG!
  • Scatter Band of Global Annual CO 2 Emissions (ref. year = 1996) Peter Lenz and Christian Cozzarini, “State of Worldwide Anthropogenic and Natural Emissions Forecast of Traffic Emissions in Western Industrial Countries”, FISITA F98P008 Oceans 43% Vegetation 28% Soil 28% Biomass Burning 1%
  •  
  • ~36,000 Billion Tons Carbon in Oceans Mauna Loa
  • 0.038% (dry air)
  • The #1 source of man made CO 2 is…… TESTING YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL IQ
  • Distribution of Worldwide Annual Anthropogene CO 2 -Emission 32% Cars 33% Trucks 12% Other Traffic 6% Ocean Ships 17% Air Traffic Private Home Heating and Small Consumers 20% Incineration of Biomass 15% Traffic 17% Power Stations 28% Industry 20% 28 Gt/yr.
  • Background  Forcings
  • Climate “Forcings” Change Energy Balance The Sun Clouds (type and amount) Aerosols & Particulates Albedo (reflectivity) Land Use (vegetation, Urban Heat Island) Green House Gas Concentration
  • Milankovitch Cycles Drive Ice Age Cycles 21,000 year cycle elliptical orbit combined with tilt (precession of the equinoxes) 41,000 year cycle of the +/- 1.5 O wobble (tilt) 100,000 year cycle variation of the shape of earth’s elliptical orbit (cycle of eccentricity)
  • Eccentricity of Earth’s Orbit National Academy of Sciences
  • Ice Volume Planktonic Foram 18 O as Proxy 1,000 of Years Ago Del 18 O % More Ice Less Ice Polar Bear Sub-species
  • This map courtesy of Jonathan Adams Note: Sea Level incorrect.
  • This map courtesy of Jonathan Adams
  • The Holocene Optimum
  • http://uk.encarta.msn.com/media_461527006/ice_extent_during_the_last_ice_age.html Oceans ~-120m = ~ -400 feet! During Last Glacial Maximum
  • ~14mm/year Image from GlobalWarmingArt.com
  • Image from GlobalWarmingArt.com 20.2 cm/122 years = ~0.17 cm/year
  • 16.6 years Data via Climate Audit from climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators / Sea Level Change 21 Aug09 54 mm
  • Ice Volume Planktonic Foram O-18 as Proxy 1,000 of Years Ago Del O-18 % More Ice Less Ice “ Eustatic sea level was higher than present during this last interglacial by ~4 to ~6 meters” IPCC 4TAR, Palaeoclimate, p 458
  •  
  •  
  • NASA & ESA’s Solar and Heliospheric Observatory SOHO Spotless Days Current Stretch: 75 days 2009 total: 217 days Since 2004: 728 days Typical Solar Min: 485 days 2009/09/23
  • Faculae
  • 11 Year Cycle of Solar Variability +/- 0.1 Wm -2
  • Sunspot Number
  • Sunspot Number X 100 50 150 100 Little Ice Age ~1.0 O C cooler ~ 50 sunspots over 30 year period, vs. 40,000 to 50,000 sunspots per 30 years in modern times
  • Frozen Thames, 1677
  • Correlation is not causation.
  • Solar Cycle & Sea Level ( via Tide Gauges) Recall the NASA current 3.3 mm/year rise rate since 1994
  • Sun Summary The Sun dominates Earth’s climate. Earth’s orbit eccentricities cause major climate changes: Ice Ages  Interglacials, ~5.5 O C swings in temperature average, Ice ages dominate (70% - 90% of 100,000 yr cycle). Ice Ages decrease vegetation, increase deserts. Sea levels have risen 120 m since the last glacial maximum. Today’s temperatures are not unusual, having been equaled or exceeded at least 3 times since the last glacial maximum. ~11 year solar cycles strongly correlate with climate changes during interglacial periods. Low sunspots  ~ -1 O C. Modern sea level fluctuations highly correlate with solar cycle.
  • Solar +/- 0.1 Wm -2 not sufficient by itself to cause current warming; need amplifier, forcing feedback. Magnetic field of solar winds Henrik Svensmark on Global Warming, youtube.com Affect cosmic rays reaching Earth’s atmosphere +/- Low level clouds
  • High (6 km) Cirrus Clouds Warm Earth
  • Low Clouds Reflect Sunlight  Cool Earth Photo by Robert Campbell
  • Measuring Earth’s Albedo
  • Observed Earthshine From satellite cloud data From 20 th century GHG Increase Calibration Band
  • Strength of Solar Wind  +/- Magnetic Field  -/+ Cosmic Rays Bow shock line Magnetosphere
  • Illustration by Janet Kozyra with images from NASA, Journal of Geophysical Research – Space Physics. Sun’s Turbulent Magnetic Fields
  • The Cosmos Cosmic Rays Create Seeds of Low-lying Clouds Svensmark Hypothesis Reflect 33 Wm -2
  • A more active Sun decreases the amounts of low-lying clouds, which means that it warms the Earth. The Cosmos Cosmic Rays Creates Seeds of Low-lying Clouds Svensmark Hypothesis Cosmic Rays Since 1987 Implies ~ -5% Cloud H 2 O  ~ +1 O C
  • The Solar – Climate Relationship Lower Magnetic Field Strength Fewer Sunspots Less Solar Wind More Galactic Cosmic Rays More Low Level Cloud Formation More Sunlight Reflected Into Space Earth Becomes Cooler
  • Inverse of Cosmic Rays Solar Flux Ocean Heat Flux Atlantic Ocean Heat Flux Sea Surface Temp. SST w/out ENSO Sea Level Rise
  • Shaviv & Veizer, GSA Today, 2003 Icehouse Greenhouse CO 2 GCR Million Years BP
  • Shaviv & Veizer, GSA Today, 2003 Icehouse Greenhouse CO 2 GCR Million Years BP
  • El Capitan, Guadalupe Mountains Coral reef formed ~260 million years ago…. … ..when atmospheric CO 2 was ~2000 ppm
  • Correlation recently reported between solar/GCR variability and temperature in Siberia from glacial ice core, 30 yr lag (ie. ocean currents may be part of response) Jasper Kirkby /CERN CERN Colloquium, 4 June 2009 Correlation is not causation.
  • Inquisition of Dr. Henrik Svensmark
  • Jasper Kirkby /CERN CERN Colloquium, 4 June 2009
  •  
  • Correlation is not causation.
  • “ When researchers observe natural changes in clouds and temperature, they have traditionally assumed that the temperature change caused the clouds to change, and not the other way around. To the extent that the cloud changes actually cause temperature change, this can ultimately lead to overestimates of how sensitive Earth’s climate is to our greenhouse gas emissions.” Cause?  CLOUDS  Result? and Temperature Dr. Roy W. Spencer, University of Alabama in Huntsville,
  • Atmospheric Solar Heat Amplifier Meehl Hypothesis, Science, 28Aug09 Peak Solar Cycle +0.2 Wm -2 Irradiance Higher UV Radiation More Ozone in Stratosphere Higher Evaporation Less Low Level Cloud Formation +0.1 O C SST = > 0.5 Wm -2 Warmer Stratosphere (Varies by Latitude)
  • Observed Model: no Stratosphere Ozone Chemistry Model: no Air-Sea interaction Coupled Model Sea Surface Temperature Precipitation
  • Model with no Ozone Chemistry Model: no Air-Sea interaction Coupled Model Observations
  • Photo by Andrei Aiordachioaie Cloud Summary High level clouds trap heat. Low level clouds mostly reflect heat Net effect is ~ 33 Wm -2 Sun  GCR hypothesis  + or – cloud seeding  -5% Cloud H 2 O  ~ +1 O C Albedo fluctuation correlated with last two solar cycles. Meehl hypothesis: peak solar  more ozone and more evaporation (less clouds)  ~ +0.1 O C SST.
  • Global Mean Radiative Forcings in 2005 Adapted from IPCC 2007: WG1-AR4, page 32 Cloud Albedo 0 -2 +2 +1 -1 Wm -2
  • Solar  Aerosols
  • Sarychev Peak Eruption 12Jun09, from International Space Station Atmospheric Aerosols & Particulates  Net Cooling of -0.5 Wm -2 (IPCC 4TR) @ 1 Wm -2  0.22 O C, this ~ -0.11 O C
  • Sahara Sand Storm over Atlantic
  •  
  • Station Fire, Los Angeles, 30Aug09
  • Contrails
  • Ship Tracks off North America
  • Black Carbon Absorbs solar radiation Decreases albedo IPCC 4TAR: Aerosol cooling  -0.5 Wm -2 Myhre 2009 “Black Carbon more significant than stated by IPCC,  net aerosol cooling reduced to -0.3 Wm -2
  • Aerosol Summary Particles Multi-Task to Change Climate: Volcanic plumes (sulfates) cool. Dust storms & fires reflect, thus cool. Jet Contrails = high clouds, thus warm. Ship tracks (sulfates, low clouds) cool. Black carbon decreases albedo, thus warm. IPCC net effect  -0.5 Wm -2 (i.e. cooling) Increase in Black Carbon decreases cooling to -0.3 Wm -2 This means IPCC impact of CO 2 is overstated by 0.2 Wm -2 ~ 0.04 O C.
  • Global Mean Radiative Forcings in 2005 Adapted from IPCC 2007: WG1-AR4, page 32 Direct Aerosol Cloud Albedo Linear Contrails 0 -2 +2 +1 -1 Wm -2 No volcanic aerosol effect is included by IPCC
  • Aerosols  Oscillations
  • “ Oscillations” Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere , John Christy UAH Recall 20 th Century net warming of 0.6 O C ~+/- 0.5 O C in north Atlantic 60 to 80 years Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation AMO ?? 1976-77 shift +0.2 O C 20 to 30 years? Pacific Decadal Oscillation PDO +/- 0.4 O C globally 3 to 7 years El Nino Southern Oscillation ENSO 2.3 O C global temp. swing Annually The 4 seasons SFWS
  • J D N O S A J J M A M F Month Temperature, O C 16 11 12 13 14 15 Global Mean Surface Temperature (1961 – 1990) National Climate Data Center 3.8 O C
  • Global Mean 2.3 O C swing NH 9.76 O C swing SH 4.8 O C swing
  • ENSO “Normal” a.k.a La Nina
  •  
  • ENSO El Nino
  • SST and water temperature profile, Equatorial Pacific Ocean, January 1997 NASA GISS Thermocline, 20 O C 30 O C 8 O C La Nina
  • SST and water temperature profile, Equatorial Pacific Ocean, November 1997 NASA GISS Transition
  • SST and water temperature profile, Equatorial Pacific Ocean, March 1998 NASA GISS El Nino
  • Note
  • El Nino
  • La Nina
  • La Nina
  • Nothing unique about super El Nino of 1998
  • The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) Typical wintertime Sea Surface Temperature (colors),  Sea Level Pressure (contours) and surface wind stress (arrows) anomaly patterns during warm and cool phases of PDO   Warm Phase Cool Phase
  • Abrupt PDO Phase Shift
  •  
  •  
  • Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation Aug to Oct: 1948 to 2003: Surface SST
  • North Atlantic Global
  • “ Probably more than half of all satellite- derived "global warming trends" are directly attributable to the 66 year AMO cycle.”
  • Northern Hemisphere Heating Faster Than Southern Hemisphere
  • Correlation is not causation.