Other topics touched upon:
- !!!–> For Fukushima, Hanford & other nuclear-related blogposts of mine, see HERE.
- !–> For some of my paintings, see HERE.
- For my other blogposts related to climate & weather events, see the list included on my METEO page.
-> In this blogpost I’ll look at:
- My climate change opinion in a nutshell;
- Some examples of the hostile anti-skepticism anti-global-warming (socio-political) activist climate, which remains strangely immune to an ongoing lack of global annual average warming, as seen in
- !-> Atmospheric temperature anomalies; which is odd given
- the skyrocketing CO2 content.
- But perhaps not so odd when not discarding the Sun’s indirect (other than mere irradiance) effect on climate. Before I get to that in more detail, I pretend the IPCC is not a bunch of ideologically driven zealots and ponder the ‘warming pause’ (a model-biased term to begin with) as a possible result of:
- added Ocean Heat Content lurking in the deep (?),
- or whether stratospheric aerosols could be causing cooling? (to then get to what I find most fascinating:
- !!!–> The possible climate significance of Solar Cycles (which spells GLOBAL COOLING (likely within a decade);
- to conclude with a recap/re-evaluation of what I personally expect (as far as climate change in the near future), which, like everything else I present, is about as amateuristic, absolutely non-credentialed, and non-peer-reviewed as it gets. Enjoy.
(But – be forewarned: If you want a more UN-acceptable mainstream ‘expert’ opinion, I suggest the warmista herd’s entertaining fine grass in this pasture.)
- Noteworthy additional science finds re. solar activity and climate will be added at the end of this blogpost.
……….. ……… ……… ………..
DISCLAIMER — This is intended to be my last blogpost about the physical realities and politics surrounding climate change for the next 4 years.
Unless a global average temperature drop becomes apparent sooner, of course (with which I mean that the barely cooling current “warming pauze” (-0.02 C/decade) turns to massive sudden cooling (@ -0.3 C /decade or worse), as determined by satellites and presented by NOAA or by UAH. I do not expect to return to this topic due to suddenly more obvious ‘global cooling’, until the end of this decade. (I have two friendly bets running due in 2018). But I do consider near-future (next 2 decades) cooling of the global average annual temperature of the lower troposphere more likely than warming.
Until then, tóch nog even doorbomen. ;-)
Most of this blog post was written over the New Moon (June 26, 27, 28 – 2014) in a Herent attic situated in the lower troposphere (50° 54′ NB, 4° 40′ OL ), [+ Edited here and there throughout July 2014, with a few additions and rearrangement done during the first half of August 2014. DISCLAIMER]
Elevation Herent: 25 m (82 ft.) above sea level (NGI) — Background Radiation @ Zaventem: 0.112 µSv/hr (normal- FANC), albeit with worsening frequent country-wide radioactivity measurement gaps. No idea what’s up with that. Medcom Geiger Counter (@ Herent, attic, 24 hour average): 41.23 CPM (normal) — June 28, 2014’s weather & prediction for next few days:
!-> DISCLAIMER. <-!
First ‘a little rant & ramble’ before presenting some hard-to-argue-with data…
Since various extreme weather events continue to be framed as illustrations of UNSTOPPABLE CATASTROPHIC MANMADE GLOBAL WARMING (Insert screaming, HERE), I took some time to take a fresh look at views I’ve held on this topic.
The current 12-year-and-counting warming pause calls for pondering thoughts… thoughts which some extremely-convinced-of-being-right folks strangely still consider akin to Holocaust denial (some quotes illustrating that follow below).
Other more outspoken skeptics are now (added: Aug 2, 2014) even pointing out that the raw satellite data show no warming trend for what is now nearly 18 years (!). I stick with the conservative NOAA data set.
No way discussing climate change without being confronted with the highly politicized discussion climate surrounding it. It’s been like that for well over a decade now. The heated politics have obscured the actual science to such a degree that I’ve frankly become allergic to global warming hyperbole. Hence I start off with sketching this hostility towards those who don’t simply accept something just because of some so-called “scientific consensus” was announced in the mainstream media.
– There has been significant warming since 1850 (the end of “the Little Ice Age”, and especially in the period 1950-2002 (which coincides with massive increases in industrial CO2 emissions, as well as an unusually active Sun.)
– Since 2002 (or several years before, depending on how you process the satellite data), it has been (above 20th century average) wárm, but for 12+ years now: there has been no warming. (data below). (So, local/regional warm temperature records may continue to be broken for as long as this “warm plateau” continues globally, but they are not indicative of continued global warming (although it continues to be reported as such).
– Whether this warming has been natural or mostly man-made, or how much of each, is – at the current stage of data gathering and understanding – simply impossible to clarify due to too many variables in an extremely complex interactive open system.
– Many actions proposed to “battle climate change” would better be reframed into means to reduce pollution, reduce toxic waste, and increase ecologically-harmless regional energy self-sufficiency.
– Climate change is real and has an extremely big effect on the prosperity and wellbeing of communities the world over.
– Predictions for warming or cooling and how that might play itself out are very important for avoiding agricultural catastrophies.
– Significant cooling is by far a worse scenario for food- and energy security and overall prosperity in general than the rate of warming seen in the past couple decades.
– I suspect solar-inactivity-induced significant global cooling, to begin “just about now” (period 2014-2018) and become impossible to ignore by 2024).
– IF such a significant cooling would ensue, I have not the slightest clue how long that could last. Due to vast uncertainties and multi-century long-term trends, I cannot rule out plunging into a full-on real ice age before 2100.
– When the unfortunate sudden cooling kicks in, IPCC-aligned climatologists ought to admit they were simply mistaken in their assessment of certainty about their dire warming predictions and be “given amnesty” when proven wrong by no-longer-spinable data, as -bottom line- I think they just got carried away a little with a (not completely ridiculous) theory, due to emotionally-amplified yet genuine concerns for mankind and kin.
– I have no idea what will happen. Please read my disclaimer if my opinion upsets you.
Introduction: A hostile political climate…
The (Catastrophic Antropogenic Global Warming (CAGW)) warmist propaganda has gotten so bad (For some examples, see here), that I now consider people who still promote it akin to GroupThinking cult members.
In order to reduce the amount of utter nonsense in my social media (and reduce supperficial interactions in general), I’ve exorcized those who still actively promote the UN IPCC’s doomsday warming scenario (think ThinkProgress‘ fantasy land, to the followers of 350.org gospel, or het gezever van mensen die dwepen met (op zich soms best wel oké uitspraken van) Jill Peeters, & cohorts), as well as those who don’t seem to mind that people like myself are verbally assaulted for merely having a different point of view. Most of that is old news. Yet very little has changed.
After a decade of attempts to engage some cultist zealots (of what other skeptics have dubbed “the Church of Climatology“), I’ve become to think that they are truly unwilling to have an honest debate (mainly through declaring the “debate is over“, “the science is settled” and other propagandistic nonsense).
It appears that those who most passionately believe Al Gore, James Hansen, Bill McKibben & cohorts clearly don’t grasp the most rudimentary essential of extremely complex multidisciplinary science: vast uncertainties. As I see it, their arrogance of certainty utterly undermines their scientific credibility. I don’t care how popular or credentialed they are. I’m not buying it.
One of the most ‘heretical’ stances that outspoken ‘warmistas’ will lump into what they call “climate denialism” is suggesting that perhaps the Sun may play a much bigger role that the UN’s IPCC estimates.
In calling people “climate deniers”, warmistas make no differentiation between the couple nutballs who may claim that climate hasn’t changed (which is truly absurd on a planet with an always-changing climate…) and those who question the amount of attribution ascribed with high certainty to man-made (anthropogenic) industrial emissions (= scientists skeptical of other scientists, and then people like me who find some of thóse scientists’ arguments hard to dismiss).
I’ll get back to this after presenting temperature data, but just to put some of these quotes in context: Solar Activity has been unusually high during the period that saw significant warming (see graph, below), and this solar activity has begun a steep decline that coincides with a sudden (since at least 2002) lack of global warming. Solar Physicist’ models that aim to predict future solar activity all seem to agree on one thing: the Sun is heading into a very quiet period, fast. Because warmistas are só loud (and now also well-represented in mainstream media), many may not heed their warnings on what this could mean for climate change SOON.
Added Aug 6, 2014: (h/t WUWT): “While many, including the IPCC, suggest the modern Grand Maximum of solar activity from 1950-2009 has nothing to do with the 0.4C global warming measured over that time frame, it does seem to be unique in the last three millennia. From CO2 Science: A 3,000-Year Record of Solar Activity […]”
Check out this new reconstruction (and keep in mind solar activity is predicted to dive in to the ‘minimum’, possibly as soon as within a decade (!):
A new model that ignores CO2 and bases its climate predictions solely on a solar activity proxy is linked to at the end of this blogpost.
!–> In a 2011 blogpost, I already shared my views on climate change, and specifically Why I Question the CO2-driven Global Warming “Scientific Consensus”. I don’t have all that much to add. I’m just revisiting the same topic.
Now, take in this illustration of how people who doubt the UN IPCC’s conclusion are framed through a typical ad hominem attack (through false association, in this case with ‘flat earthers’):
CT: What do you think about the small but vocal group of doubters still out there?
RP: “There is, even today, a Flat Earth Society that meets every year to say the Earth is flat. The science about climate change is very clear. There really is no room for doubt at this point.”
— Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman of the United Nations (UN) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in Blunt answers about risks of global warming’, Chicago Tribune, August 03, 2008.
Note: Speaking of “Flat Earthers”, check of these prominent NASA signatories (from Mission Control to astonauts to rocket scientists), HERE, who disagree with those propagandists. (If link doesn’t work, try here.).
– I’d dare to BET…
Anyhow, back in February 2012, I shared, “Chased by Extreme Weather – I still have a chance to win my Global Cooling bet…“, in which I wrote of my 2008 bet with a friend:
“SO… what’s happing to the temperature of the planet? It is still too early to tell (give it another 6 years, perhaps?), but I’m calling the onset of global cooling… I stand by a bet I made with a friend in Brussels in 2008 […]. I really don’t know, but… I betted that global lower atmospheric temperatures, as based on satellite records, will be THE SAME OR LOWER in the period 2008-2018 (averaged) compared to the previous decade 1998-2008 (averaged). My friend betted it would be WARMER.”
Well, we’re 6 years later, and a look at the global temperature shows: Looks like a good chance that I’ll lose the bet because of how we framed the wording, but (!) a hot-plateau pause hás emerged in global warming (data shown further below).
Summers are clearly still warming on average, while winters have been cooling, and the average is apparently a flat-lining of global warming, beginning to show signs of a slow decline, although that’s still too early to tell And there’s a lot more to it.
- A few more lovely quotes and a couple cartoons to illustrate the tone of some of the people who strongly express their far more holy “consensus” views…
I include this is because it is the social climate in which this appears. If it were to get any bit worse, it would actually become dangerous to express these views.
Personal context: For many years (mostly in the late 1990s), I was very active in the radical environmental movement (including treesitting in the redwoods with Earth First! and others, mainly towards ancient forest preservation and against nefarious neoliberal policies (some of which I paid for dearly: case 433-434). This past isn’t really relevant, except for the fact that when I expressed doubts (now already a decade ago) about the significance given to manmade greenhouse gasses’ effect on climate change (both in as far as amount of attribution as well as the certainty about that), the outright hostility I encountered from people with whom I had shared campaigns, people I considered friends, was shocking. Mainly because of this, I’ve distanced myself from the so-called environmental movement since 2010.
To recall a memorable (and painfully representative) Oct. 2010 email “conversation” with another environmental activist, in which part of what I had emailed pointed at,
“[…] My opinion is closer to this one, to give an example: http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar […]”
This was preceded by an email of mine that mentioned,
“I’m forwarding this link below to a few folks who I think value the importance of sticking to scientific methods when it comes to actual physical science, and who may be interested in the legal action aspect. It’s regarding climate change, and it’s a “civil investigative demand” filed “against” (so to speak) the University of Virginia, related to the so-called “ClimateGate”.
I may very well be wrong, but I think it’s significant because ‘Dr. Michael Mann’ is one of the key scientists in the IPCC’s AR4 (particularly the “scientific basis” part), also famous for his used-out-of-context (and well-debunked since) hokey-stick graph. Anyhow, i hope you find this somewhat amusing too:
One of the environmental lawyers (whom I thought was an ally for truth) made it crystal clear how mistaken I was: My noncomformist skeptical views were not appreciated:
“no, nitwit, you’re not being a skeptic […] fuck off. […] and yeah, it’s real science. and no, I’m not gonna debate you. Fucking Lomborg gets it. You can read. go piss up a rope. […] put it this way – you just took the side of the Pope against Galileo. […] go gaze up your navel, dweezil.”
You get the idea. Anyhow…
I’m not one bit less concerned about the wellbeing of the biosphere as before, though. Pollution remains as urgent of an issue to be tackled.
(And, were there any confusion: CO2 is NOT a pollutant. A whole lot of other byproducts of hydrocarbon-burning ARE, but not CO2. It’s a minor greenhouse trace gas, yes, and essential to life as we’ve known it for millions of years, yes, but ‘a pollutant’? No. If you want to regulate it, which may be a good idea for other reasons, you’d have to regulate it differently than as a dangerous toxin. My two cents on that one.)
Anyhow, in any case, I’m actually far more radical (in the etymological sense of ‘going to the root of the matter’) than some so-called “environmentalists”. In my perception of this modernist mess, the modern scientific paradigm is failing to sense the depth of this crisis of human evolution: To reduce what’s most problematic about the metabolism of the technosphere to merely its emission of carbondioxide and methane comes across as ridiculously myopic. The challenge we’re faced with lies in transmuting the underlying dynamics of the whole metabolism of the technosphere, from its destruction and sweeping alteration of the biosphere, to the financial apparatus and bedazzling ‘perception management’ embedded in it. (One blogpost where I touched on that was, May 14, 2011, “All that Glisters is not Gold…”). Trying to regulate this massive global corporate machine by an attempt to regulate its farts, so to speak, seems beyond silly to me.
The mainstream green stance of late reduces this broad and multidimensional crisis to what begs for merely ‘a technological fix’: an infrastructure rearrangement, different cleaner technologies, financial incentives to boost ‘green’ innovation. Same thing with a different coating, basically. And with the rather similar mechanistic mindset as those they campaign against, many environmental activists have fallen into a stark us-versus-them mentality (adversarial dynamics), with name-calling and opponent-demonizing; and going as far as suggesting that the planet would be better off if people like me would be dead. (Meanwhile they too use the same technologies as I do… completely plugged in to the conveniences of modern society… Talk about hypocrisy!)…
I have witnessed statements to that effect on (now former-) friends’ Facebook walls (see one benign example I took a screenshot off back then, right).
No one I knew in the larger community ever called the more aggressive ones out on their rhetoric, and over the years it grew as disturbing as some of these below quotes illustrate. I’m just mentioning them, ’cause it remains a challenge for anyone who cares about this planet and at same time questions ANY and ALL beliefs.
In the following quotes, the problematic use of the term ‘denier’ is discussed here.
“Man-made climate change happens. Man-made climate change kills a lot of people. It’s going to kill a lot more. We have laws on the books to punish anyone whose lies contribute to people’s deaths. It’s time to punish the climate-change liars.” — Adam Weinstein, Gawker.com, 2014
“It’s about the climate-change “denial industry”, …we should have war crimes trials for these bastards – some sort of climate Nuremberg.” —– David Roberts, Grist Magazine, 2006
“Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers.” — Ellen Goodman, Boston Globe, 2007
“I think these people are anti-science flat-earthers. …They are every bit as dangerous as Holocaust deniers.” — Guy Keleny, The Independent, 2013
!–> The above grotesque quotes also remind me of the dangerous eco-fascist mindset, so clearly illustrated by the 10-10 “no pressure” video (2010 – must watch!), in which those who don’t tackle climate change, or not enough, are simply killed in cold blood at the push of a button…
Anyhow. Not much has changed for hysterical warmistas, from what I can tell…
Still über-convinced, still no room for acknowledging vast uncertainties, nor willing to debate, still not considering that the Sun’s activity, cosmoclimatological amplifying mechanisms and natural ocean cycles may play a larger role than their computer model tells them… and still apparently needing the fabricated “climate science scientific consensus” (nonsense) to push for changes that have plenty of sound reasons to advocate for already (clean air, better health, ecological sustainability,…). But whatever… Just like I’ve taken long breaks writing about the physical intricacies regarding the (ongoing!) Fukushima nuclear crisis, I’m aiming to take a long break from writing about climate too. (Similarly, please forgive me, I might relapse a few more times on this topic too…).
The very people who (or so I fathomed…) also deeply care about humanity and all our relations sharing in this biosphere and beyond (not necessarily even excluding the seemingly opportunistic power-seeking big oil mouth-pieces stuck in the modernist paradigm), appear to be the least interested in the ever-humbling undertaking of seeking scientific truths. They appear to be every bit as opportunistic as big oil: primarily invested in furthering an agenda, and as such sabotaging open-minded inquiry. To not submit to this cult-like GroupThink, one has little other choice than to turn one’s back on this eco-fascist phenomenon.
Sadly, the warmistas have made it pretty difficult for themselves to change their minds without losing face badly. (I admit it when evidence shows I was clearly mistaken, but not everyone’s like that…) Maybe they will open up to the idea if it really gets colder globally. 12 years of no warming seems to have no effect, though. I certainly might re-consider my views (again) if it won’t cool by 2025, at the latest.)
In a nutshell: this blogpost is just a stepping stone towards voluntarily shutting up about this topic altogether. Rolling…
Atmospheric Warming on hold? Apparently so…
Very much in contradiction to the dire predictions of many UN-respected scientists, -I’m not making this up:- planet Earth is now in her 12th year of zero warming (NOAA data of the Earth’s atmosphere: global, annual average, Land and Ocean combined):
In the most recent decade of the graph, the shown black trend line for 2002-2013 is scientific and NOAA’s: -0.02 C/decade (statistically irrelevant cooling). No one is debating this. (Well, no scientist that I know of is calling NOAA’s data into question, at least.)
The debate (whether global warming has truly paused when ALL factors are taken into account) has mainly shifted to the ocean heat content. Did CO2-trapped heat get zapped into the deep ocean? It is possible that “the missing heat,” as some refer to this IPCC-model-induced puzzle, is now being stored in the oceans rather than in the lower atmosphere where the added CO2 was supposed to keep it… (or so we were told). CO2 is at a record high and still increasing rapidly as our collective carbon-spewing civilization’s madness marches on. How come the extra CO2 in the air suddenly doesn’t trap more heat in the air? Or if it did, it mysteriously sends that extra heat… deep underwater perhaps? But no longer in the air?? How does thát work? (It’s actually an interesting puzzle. I’ll get back to that, further below.)
Now, first a look at the atmosphere… In the above graph, the light green lines, including the steeper down-slowed one extending into the future (with “Global Cooling?’ question) is purely my ongoing imagination, which I’ll share more about towards the end of this blogpost as well.
This observed atmospheric 12-year ‘warming pause’ was not and has not been predicted by the IPCC (the United Nation’s agenda-driven politicized ‘Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’, which considers the role of atmospheric CO2, a minor greenhouse gas compared to water vapor, somehow the #1 driver of climate change, responsible for most of the 20th century warming, MORE important than all differences in solar irradiance, changes in ozone concentrations, multi-decadal ocean cycles, land use, urbanization, climate modification experiments, geothermal factors, and even cosmic ray flux and its effects on cloud formation COMBINED).
Given CO2 reached its highest atmospheric concentration in 800,000 years (see National Geographic, May 2013: Climate Milestone: Earth’s CO2 Level Passes 400 ppm):
This is the highest since the Pliocene, when sea levels were higher and the Earth was warmer), it seems a bit odd that there hasn’t been an average global warming in the atmosphere for over a decade. How do you get a delay on the said effect of CO2? Does it hold on to more heat one decade, but not another? [sarc.]
The recent news, that May 2014 (and June 2014 as well) globally turned out to be ‘the hottest on record’ is like a heaven-sent for Antropogenic Global Warming (AGW) activists, who are having a harder time convincing people of their ‘truth’ after many cold winter extremes across the planet in the past 5 years. (Side-note: A funny website that specializes in cherry-picking cooling and cold weather news is http://iceagenow.info/. One of the many that does the same, but for warming is http://www.dailykos.com/news/Climate).
Here’s the record for all previous months of May (and further below for all previous Februaries) since 1880, with their decade-trends:
During the annual-global-average ‘pause’ (2002-2014-…), the speed of the warming of months of May has decreased, compared to the preceding decades of more rapid warming. Odd no? There’s a lot more CO2 now. Wasn’t atmospheric warming said to be accelerating?
Some data sets put that fact of an unusually hot May in more context by providing all months together on the same graph, which again also clearly shows the same decade+ of no warming, which I accentuated with the green box and dotted line here, below, as well:
Note: The anomaly values (in the above NOAA and UAH graphs) are different because they use different averaged periods to compare against, but the gist is the same.
Now, in the “thát didn’t make the news”-category, have a look at the comparison for all Februaries in the same period (1880-2014), in the NOAA-NCDC data, with 12-year trend line at the end:
For Februaries (and winters in general), a cooling apparently began at the very beginning of the 21st century; so much that even the 20-year (1994-2014) trend (for Februaries) comes out FLAT (on average no winter warming in 2 decades… not exactly what was predicted either).
The combination of all months, though, averaged per year, as shown in the above graphs, has flatlined for over a decade, even beginning to hint of a cooling, as is best visible in the top NOAA graph.
That Antarctica set a new Sea Ice extent MAXIMUM record in July (2014) didn’t gather much headlines, either:
And if the Arctic Sea Ice extent anomaly were to rise into the positive for the first time in a decade (which I personally predict will be the case no later than by 2018, and possibly already within the coming year…), it is sure to be spun into some sort of sign of “climate unpredictability”, undoubtedly framed as “due to manmade greenhouse gasses”…
These oddities and my non-expert dreamy predictions aside, IF I were to pretend to believe the hypothesis that that 0.01% of extra CO2 content added to the atmosphere in the past 150 years were to somehow still cause ‘unprecedented’ warming, then the puzzle is: since its hypothesized extra trapped heat is no longer accumulating in the Lower Troposphere, where did the theorized-yet-presented-as-fact ‘extra heat’ go to? If one is not allowed to question the premise of the AGW theory, one has to find a way around this so-called “missing heat”… Where could it be? Some possibilities:
- A look at temperature anomalies of Lower- and Middle-Troposphere, and Stratosphere.
Is the extra heat hiding somewhere in a more remote region of Atmospheria? If the lower Troposphere isn’t warming anymore, where is that extra CO2 sending its extra ‘trapped heat’ then? How about the Mid-Troposhere or the Stratosphere?
Graphing the satellite data since 1979 (annual global average), from the UAH Microwave Sounding Unit Temperature Anomalies page of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/msu/global/lt/dec/ytd, with a couple annotations added by me, as well as the corresponding RSS (Remote Sensing Systems, another widely cited data source, when available)) :
- The same temperature anomaly graph as the UAH graph above (Lower Troposphere), but showing just the global annual averages:
- The UAH temperature anomaly graph for the Mid-Troposphere‘s global annual averages:
- The UAH temperature anomaly graph for the Stratosphere‘s global annual averages:
The idea that the mid-troposphere wasn’t warming, and perhaps even cooling, and that the stratosphere was cooling significantly, was explained in the climate change literature that this was because lower-troposphere industry-emitted CO2 (as well as NH4 and some others, but primarily CO2) was holding on to more heat, causing the Earth to radiate less upward into the higher layers of the atmosphere and into space. Makes sense. For both to pretty much flatline (very small barely warming and very small barely cooling) means the theorized suspected increasing heat content, supposedly trapped by the extra greenhouse trace gasses, if this heat content is still accumulating as expected by the IPCC, can thus only be going… down into the oceans…
So, to recall ‘the record’, the official global average surface temperature change, straight from the UN’s IPCC AR4 publication, “Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007“: “The global average surface temperature has increased, especially since about 1950″:
- The 100-year warming trend (1906–2005) is +0.74°C ± 0.18°C (= max. +0.92 °C warming in this 1 century)
- The rate of warming averaged over the last 50 years is +0.13°C ± 0.03°C / decade, nearly twice that for the last 100 years. (= max. + 0.8 °C in half a century; the AGW stance is that most of that, so over +0.4 °C warming was due to the extra greenhouse gasses pumped into the air by mankind’s industrial hydrocarbon burning.)
In short: the extra CO2-“trapped heat” (or better the energy equivalent stored as heat), which would have added perhaps over +0.10 °C in the past decade alone… was -somehow- not added to the CO2-enriched lower troposphere, and did not escape upwards into the higher layers of the atmosphere or space, either… thus “the extra heat MUST be in the ocean.”
(Unless, of course, the foundation of the AGW theory, namely that CO2 is responsible for most warming in the 20th century is incorrect and natural climate variability plays a larger role…. Suggesting that is said to be a sign of ‘climate denial’, on par with ‘Holocaust denial’, part of a variety of scientific-dissent-suppressing suggestions shared by Al Gore, James Hansen, George Monbiot, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Lawrence Torcello, etc… (What’s next? Blame witches again? Anyhow…)) Let’s look at that heat content…
- A look at Ocean Heat Content
There’s a lot of good reasons why “surface temperature anomaly” isn’t the best indicator of climate change to begin with. But it’s where the CO2 was trapping the heat. Or so I thought I heard somewhere… rather often. Anyhow. ‘Inconvenient’ for some scientists and activists who’ve been so very certain about their ‘final truth’ they did not see this coming, but if their hypothesis, the famous ‘global consensus’ one presented as ‘truth’, has any merit left to it, then that pesky carbon dioxide has apparently dispatched its newly caught heat elsewhere, by mechanisms not yet understood… (Note: There are also some serious uncertainties associated with reducing an entire planet’s local temperatures to a simple “global average temperature”, but that’s another uncertainty-raising issue – yet – averaged out over years, it does seem useful to monitor large-scale changes, so I won’t go into that.)
Surface temperatures are obviously important, since it most palpably affects the weather & climate we experience, but for understanding the climate system as a whole, ‘heat content’ is a better indicator. Oceans store and move much more energy as heat than the air does. If the heat for an air temperature increase of a 0.4 °C came from the oceans, it would barely make a measurable dent in the ocean’s overall heat content. The Air Vents’ 2011, “Global Temperatures and Incomplete Rationale of My Own Skepticism” makes some read-worthy observations in that regard, and WUWT’s 2011, “Energy content, the heat is on: atmosphere -vs- ocean” explores it some more. From the latter this image, below, that puts the heat capacity of Earth’s air and oceans in perspective:
IF the extra heat trapped by CO2 in the lower troposphere is moving into the ocean…, then I would think that the surface of the ocean would remain warmer longer and probably be the first place where we’d observe a more pronounced continued warming. So, from the same NOAA data page (NOAA-NCDC data page), you can choose graphs specifically for Ocean and Land. From looking at both, see below, we can see that warming over land has slowed dramatically, while the ocean surface has begun to cool (trend 2002-2013 @ -0.04°C / decade).
LAND surface (global annual average temperature anomaly):
OCEAN surface ((global annual average temperature anomaly):
But, if I’m interpreting this correctly, clearly some heat is moving down, away from the surface, because: heat content data shows no pause, see graph below. The heat content of the oceans (total of all oceans) is still rising in the 0 – 700 meter depth range, according to this below NOAA-NCDC graph (my emphasis and annotations added). While the ocean surface’s warming is on hold, and suggesting the onset of a cooling period, the overall heat content of the top 700 meters is still rising, albeit at a significantly slower speed in the past decade compared to the previous (that too makes little sense; if the heat is now all going down, the heat content ought to rise more rapidly – not the case:):
Not the surface of the ocean, so deeper then? Does it add up?
(On a side-note, this situation illustrated with the above two graphs can’t go on for very long (and theoretically not at all, unless internal ocean variability plays a greater role, or very active ‘heat sinks’ are identified; but all that would shoot the IPCC claims down as well, as it would make ALL climate change more likely just flukes of natural variability… – but that aside), since the heat being added due to more greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere can’t just skip a layer of ocean to arrive somewhere deeper. (A thermodynamic impossibility, soon to be explained away by a consensus of UN quantum physicists…? [sarc.])
In the April 2014 National Geographic article, “Behind the “Global Warming Pause” – The ocean appears to be absorbing excess heat.“, 3 possible explanations are given, each with some merit, a lot of uncertainties, one contradicting the other, and all raising more questions. The deep ocean heat theory has most potential, in my opinion. Reliable planetary-wide deep ocean data is limited to the past decade and a half max. only. They seem to be just ‘wondering out loud’ why-oh-why the warming trend may be “partially obscured by the ocean,” theorized to be “likely absorbing the excess heat.” (Sounds to me that they’re basically just guessing too at this point.) Here’s more information on National Geographic’s three possible causes mentioned for this current ‘warming pause’:
1) A paper published in Nature (Aug.2013) by staff of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, who suggest the extra heat has been absorbed by the surface waters of the Pacific Ocean, falls apart upon scrutiny. I only looked at some more graphs and don’t see a hint of this being likely. See the ocean surface cooling (2 graphs back), for starters. More scrutiny and detail complexities can be found at other blogs such as the skeptical science blog WUWT, (also search by key words there, and definitely check out his Ocean Data page), Bob Tisdale, etc.). Can’t vouch for anyone, and dislike the pro-oil and/or pro-nuclear industry slant that accompanies some fellow skeptics (perhaps opportunism runs in all opinion factions), but as far as the scientific arguments go, there’s a lot of valid points being made by skeptical bloggers, imo. More speculative and extremely uncertain, but at least possible is the second idea:
2) The extra heat has been absorbed by the deep, cold ocean. That’s what the folks at National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder wrote in 2011, in “DEEP OCEANS CAN MASK GLOBAL WARMING FOR DECADE-LONG PERIODS” (my emphasis in bold):
“[…] Yet emissions of greenhouse gases continued to climb during the 2000s, and satellite measurements showed that the discrepancy between incoming sunshine and outgoing radiation from Earth actually increased. This implied that heat was building up somewhere on Earth [unless, of course, part of “the discrepancy” is more reflection, as noted in the third suggestion and albedo data, see further below. – mvb], according to a 2010 study published in Science by NCAR researchers Kevin Trenberth and John Fasullo. The two scientists, who are coauthors on the new study, suggested that the oceans might be storing some of the heat that would otherwise go toward other processes, such as warming the atmosphere or land, or melting more ice and snow. Observations from a global network of buoys showed some warming in the upper ocean, but not enough to account for the global build-up of heat. Although scientists suspected the deep oceans were playing a role, few measurements were available to confirm that hypothesis. […]”
!–> The best article I’ve found about this is, ‘Ocean Heat Content Uncertainties’ (Jan. 2014), by Climatology Professor Judith Curry, Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Packed with information, Dr. Curry very academically points out that a lot is still to be learned (my emphasis in bold):
“[…] Roger Pielke Sr. has often stated that ocean heat content is a much better metric for climate change than surface temperature. I don’t prefer one over the other as an intrinsic metric (they provide two different pieces of information), but I find the ocean heat content data to be a much less mature data set than the surface temperature data set. The sampling particularly of the mid to deep ocean is very sparse prior to 2000. And the oceanographic community is still debating the calibration of MBT and XBT profiles. There is substantial disagreement among the various OHC climatologies, and there are no OHC climatologies prior to 1950. Global sea level trend data suggests substantial thermal expansion in the earlier part of the 20th century, which is an issue that seems insufficiently explored. Ocean reanalyses can potentially provide new insights into global OHC variations, but ocean reanalysis is in its infancy. […]” (More)
3) National Geographic’s third suggestion: Maybe 15 % of the global warming pause could be attributed to the impact of active volcanoes, which spew ash and gas that can reflect the sun’s heat back into space. They cite (pay-wall-blocked) NATURE GEOSCIENCE’s (Nov. 2013) “Volcanic contribution to decadal changes in tropospheric temperature,” which lumps a bunch of science papers together and focusses on the volcanic factor. In its abstract, it starts out with considering giving more weight to all kinds of (internal & external) mostly all natural climate variability factors, from overlooked modest volcanic eruptions, to a still-unexplained increase over the past decade of stratospheric aerosols, as well as changes in stratospheric water vapour, lower total solar irradiance, and so on (my emphasis):
“Despite continued growth in atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases, global mean surface and tropospheric temperatures have shown slower warming since 1998 than previously. Possible explanations for the slow-down include internal climate variability, external cooling influences and observational errors. [An incredible admission if you consider that these are the very factors AGW-skeptics have been raising for decades… -mvb] Several recent modelling studies have examined the contribution of early twenty-first-century volcanic eruptions to the muted surface warming. […] In two simulations with more realistic volcanic influences following the 1991 Pinatubo eruption, differences between simulated and observed tropospheric temperature trends over the period 1998 to 2012 are up to 15% smaller, with large uncertainties in the magnitude of the effect. […]”
Being more visually inclined, I searched and found a couple graphs with related info, yet unfortunately not all showing the last several years yet. Nevertheless, the papers I plucked them from are quite interesting (but delving much deeper into this would be a book, and I don’t feel like writing one today. A ridiculously long blogpost is enough.):
If stratospheric aerosol from volcanoes plays a role in the 2002-2014 warming pause, my kombucha-sipping armchair estimation is that it’s much more likely to an extremely minor one… (I wonder if the statistical scientific uncertainly ascribed to that “15%” is so high to make the guess… just a guess.):
Now, an indicator of a lot more than stratospheric aerosols (including ice & snow cover, cloud cover, etc.), the albedo factor, long in decline “due to undeniable catastrophic manmade global warming”, interestingly enough has made a bounce… This graph shows the planet’s overall Albedo effect (reflective quality of the atmosphere): Over a five-year period, scientists found that albedo did increase slightly again…
A much more in-depth analysis, with some more data and graphs to devour, I found in ‘Advances in Understanding Top-of- Atmosphere Radiation Variability from Satellite Observations’ (2006), which includes the graph, below, showing a decade of fluctuating ups and downs with no clear trend being obvious yet. This graph spans part of the length of ‘the warming pause’ period, except -bummer- for the last half decade:
I did not find albedo data graphed into 2014. But in any case, none of these ideas explain the lack of warming with certainty. Some good ideas, but so much uncertainty, all one can really conclude is: we don’t know.
- What about GeoEngineering? Stepping beyond the suggestions mentioned in that National Geographic article, its last above-mentioned suggestion (of a cooling by a mysterious increase in stratospheric aerosols) begs the question if geoengineering experiments may play a role in this as well, it it were a factor… It would not be outside the realm of possibilities (a realm even vaster than anyone’s current reality!) that the mysterious increase, however small, over the past decade in stratospheric aerosols, may be due to geo-engineering ideas being tried out in the field.
After all, adding stratospheric aerosols is one of the main mitigation strategies proposed for reducing the warming of the globe: see Royal Society – An overview of geoengineering of climate, using stratospheric sulphate aerosols (2008), which states:
“We provide an overview of geoengineering by stratospheric sulphate aerosols. The state of understanding about this topic as of early 2008 is reviewed, summarizing the past 30 years of work in the area, highlighting some very recent studies using climate models, and discussing methods used to deliver sulphur species to the stratosphere. The studies reviewed here suggest that sulphate aerosols can counteract the globally averaged temperature increase associated with increasing greenhouse gases, and reduce changes to some other components of the Earth system. […]”
According to Rosalind Peterson (agriculturedefensecoalition.org/), such programs are already being carried out experimentally by private and government weather and climate modification programs, according to this presentation she gave at a 2007 UN Session on Global Warming, in which she claims exactly thát, and urges more caution with such climate change mitigation efforts, because of their alleged unintended negative effects on crop production. See also Wikipedia’s entries on Stratospheric sulfate aerosols (geoengineering) and List of proposed geoengineering schemes.
It’s a speculation as solid as effects from a minor volcanic activity uptick, or atmospheric heat hiding out deep in the oceans, and doesn’t quite cut it either, in my estimation. Anything else?
- The Sun? There are likely many more, but there’s for sure at least one more possibility, “last but not least”: the idea that perhaps manmade greenhouse gasses are NOT the main driver of climate change, and that another mechanism, namely a Solar-influenced climate-changing set of factors, from interplanetary magnetism effects, to effects on ozone, impacts on cosmic ray flux into the Lower Troposphere, and their role in cloud formation, and so on. (That this was barely given a platform to be included fairly in UN IPCC assessment rounds was the very reason I became skeptical of IPCC conclusions in the first place).
The little Sun… could it affect the climate móre than giant humanity? [sarc]
Sun Changes & Climate
The UN’s IPCC-promoted greenhouse-gas driven manmade gobal warming theory has a some merit, but also a lot of giant holes in it (CO2 only being only 0.04% of the atmosphere and the model requiring positive feedback mechanisms with water vapor, which have not been observed or lab-confirmed, for it to arrive at its alarming model predictions is only one of ‘m). The best part of the IPCC Assessment Rounds is their extensive documentation of climate changes. (At least the biologists can be proud of their contributions). But the UN didn’t have to narrow down the cause (the attribution, as its called in science), to primarily and with highest confidence manmade industrial emissions, mostly CO2 (carbon dioxide) and NH4 (methane).
This chart, below, for the IPCC AR5 (via Real Climate, thé blog-to-be for alarmist consensus dogma) shows the various attributions and their estimated warming and/or cooling ability in relation to each other, with an addition (my heretical doubt…) inserted by me.
Solar Irradiance is given an extremely small significance (and they’re “medium-confident” about that…), but much more striking is that other highly likely effects of solar activity, some indirect and not directly tied to solar irradiance itself, aren’t even mentioned in this UN presentation. Again. Nor did they give any weight to possible effects of multi-decadal ocean cycles (on the heat content balance of the atmosphere, for instance); nor a mention of possible interplanetary geomagnetic influences, or ionospheric manipulations (by such research centers as HAARP was, for instance). I added a comment (green bar & purple box) to point out this glaring incompleteness:
[Click on the links for additional insight into what these scientists are saying:] One such solar mechanism that didn’t make this chart is the well-documented Cosmoclimatology mechanism described by Henrik Svensmark, physicist and professor in the Division of Solar System Physics at the National Space Institute (DTU Space), one of the few places where the connection between solar activity and climatic changes on Earth are investigated. (Though, sadly, they seem to have taken their focus mostly elsewhere…) See also contributions by Nir Shaviv, Physics Professor and astrophysics and climate science researcher at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and Jan Veizer, an isotope geochemist and Professor Emeritus of Earth Sciences
at the University of Ottawa, whose paper, “The role of water in the fate of carbon: implications for the climate system“ I found interesting as well. (image, right)
There’s many more. Kirkby, Ferguson, Bond, Kromer, Beer,… Nicola Scafetta. Also noteworthy is the thermodynamic analysis of the “popular conjecture” seen in “Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics” by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner. Etc.
I don’t really want to delve back into this topic, which for me, a non-expert non-affiliated amateur, this is a side thingy, not a job or cause. I already shared plenty on this before in my 2011 blogpost, “Why I Question the CO2-driven Global Warming “Scientific Consensus”“, so… Just a quick rehash:
Warmistas (AGW alarmed or just concerned citizens and scientists) tend to reduce the role of the sun to the direct effect of solar irradiance (the brightness of the sun). As NATURAL ‘Radiative Forcing’ (RF) the IPCC shows ‘Solar Irradiance’ in comparison to the CO2 and other anthropogenic RFs:
Borrowing heavily from the 2011 blogpost (Why I question)…
I mentioned that already way back in 1996, researchers Henrik Svensmark and Eigil-Friis-Christensen had written ‘Variation of Cosmic Ray Flux and Global Cloud Coverage – a Missing Link in Solar-Climate Relationships’ in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics [see here].
The reason I found this so fascinating is because of the interesting correlation between a period completely devoid of sunspots (the 70-year long ‘Maunder Minimum’ (1645 to 1715)), and some of the coldest years in the frigid period known as ‘The Little Ice Age’ (approximately 1550 to 1850, with various warmer periods in that, but with many unusually cold years, especially cold winters), which has long made many researchers trying to find out a causation mechanism for this.
! –> The most exciting part of this search for the truth (the truth of what actually causes climate change throughout the ages, without which it’s impossible to even know if something abnormal is even happening right now), was the emergence of Svensmark’s ‘cosmoclimatology‘ theory. Many years in the making since the 1990s, with experimental evidence pointing to a strong likelihood is was a significant factor, the theory finally broke through to the mainstream in 2007 [if they had cared…] with the publication of the very accessible (highly recommended) article: !–> ‘Cosmoclimatology – a new theory emerges‘ <–! in Astronomy & Geophysics Volume 48, Issue 1, pages 1.18–1.24, February 2007. READ IT!
The gist of the findings is that galactic cosmic rays play a role in the formation of clouds at lower altitude. More cosmic rays, more clouds. Except in polar regions, clouds have a clearly significant cooling effect. More clouds, it gets cooler. Ponder it on a hot sunny summer day: “is it really cooler in the shade?”… Now, the magnetic field activity of the sun, for which sunspots are an indicator, “shields” cosmic rays, in the sense that when the sun gets more active, less cosmic rays reach the earth… less clouds form… it gets warmer. That’s the basics.
Before cosmoclimatology, many studies looked only at solar irradiance (sun’s brightness) or other slight changes in the sun’s energy output, such as UV changes, and that is not disputed anywhere I know: solar irradiance variance alone can’t explain recent warming, nor periods of cooling in the past. It can still serve as a handy proxy for related parameters in climate modeling, though.
The IPCC, of course, only makes it very clear that ‘Solar Irradiance’ is not a significant factor. What the IPCC failed to do, many assessment rounds in a row now, is to give equal weight to Svensmark & Co’s ‘Cosmoclimatology‘ theory, which very well might explain the climate changes as well, likely much better than the computer models that were built around mainly CO2-levels.
Looking into the IPCC, it’s obvious to me they never tried to make a model to resemble how climate actually works, but always started out from the conclusion that greenhouse gas emissions were the main driver. They built their model around those assumptions and found it matched reality good enough to convince the rest of the world of its merits. (Note: To really understand the scientific arguments that industrial CO2 may have been overestimated in its share of the attribution to global warming, you really have to click through the various links I provide and actually read that with an open mind as well.)
When cosmoclimatology (see HERE), combined with multi-decadal ocean cycle knowledge (see HERE (article) and HERE (pdf)) is incorporated, it’s more than a bit likely that the IPCC’s trace-gas-based model, and likely the reputation of those who spent their lives promoting it as gospel, would all end up in the garbage. That’s still not “climate change denial”, that’s ‘computer model questioning’.
To learn more about where the research is at, check with the Center for Sun-Climate Research at the Danish Space Research Institute.
The UN’s IPCC did mention (in AR4) that solar-earth research was being done, but only acknowledged, “Cloud feedbacks are the primary source of inter-model differences in equilibrium climate sensitivity, with low clouds being the largest contributor”, yet the discovered ‘cosmoclimatology’ mechanism, namely that cosmic rays may influence the Earth’s climate through the formation of low-lying clouds…, was -how convenient- left out.
Fast forward to more recent findings, a delay between solar irradiance and temperature changes has been discovered. This is not to say that the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) is the cause of the temperature changes, but apparently an indicator that’s strongly correlated with much larger factors or feedback mechanisms (incl. some causal mechanism, like the cosmic ray effect on cloud formation).
Notch-Delay Solar Theory
A blogpost series by Australian (molecular biologist turned climate-obsessed skeptic) Joanne Nova (http://joannenova.com.au/ ‘Skeptical Science for Dissident Thinkers’) delves into it:
The home page for the entire notch-delay solar theory is here. It includes links to all these blog posts, with summaries.
- Part I: New Solar climate model
- Part II: A mysterious notch filter found in the climate
- Part III: The notch means a delay
- Part IV: What could cause the solar delay?
- Part V: Modeling the escaping heat.
- Part VI: The parts of solar climate model
- Part VII — Hindcasting
- !!!—> Part VIII: BIG NEWS: New solar theory predicts imminent global cooling
And related (Also from JoNova):
- The Solar Model finds a big fall in TSI data that few seem to know about (with great data sources)
- Likely to be continued and reported on by JoNova, as well as on the (now world-famous skeptical science blog) WUWT (with great Reference Pages).
Some images from the JoNova series (Part 8 especially):
If the model holds more merit than the IPCC model, then the warming pauze not predicted by the IPCC should turn into a full-on cooling period within a decade, likely to begin before 2020
If other factors remains roughly the same, then the next decade might confirm or devalue the hypothesis that solar activity plays a larger role, by far, than the IPCC modeled for. If no cooling becomes apparent, the truth might lie more somewhere in the middle.
In any case, it is incredibly interesting what is happening with the Sun:
- I still have no need for ‘manmade climate change alarmism’ to feel that we must shift to less- or (if possible) non-harming forms of energy production and transportation.
- Even if CO2 & NH4 were truly as important of a radiative forcing as claimed by the alarmist UN-IPCC, a (by now then inevitable) warming of several degrees, as well as CO2 levels many times higher, with all the habitat shifts and sea level changes, etc… all this would remain roughly within the mind-bogglingly broad natural variability of climate change on this planet, and thus creative adaptation and cooperation remains the most called for, not carbon taxes and carbon trading schemes.
- The likelihood that the Sun, as well as multi-decade ocean cycles, play a larger role in recent and current climate change, compared to the impact of industrialized mankind remains far more convincing to me. Given the drop in TSI and some modeled suggestions of its implication, I would be surprised if “the pauze” did not become a more pronounced ‘cooling’ in the next half decade. In fact, I’m more concerned (which isn’t very concerned, but just a bit more than that Flanders will end up below sea level in my friends’ children’s lifetimes, for instance)… more concerned that – before this decade is through – global cooling will wreak havoc with more extreme weather, especially more extreme winter & spring cold spells, more droughts, and serious energy & food supply disruptions, potentially contributing to further geopolitical destabilization.
- DO NOT move to glaciation regions: ;-)
“Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.” – Quote from ‘1984’, a novel by George Orwell
[Except for minor changes, Last Edited: August 7, 2014]
—- —- —- —- —- —- —-
- ‘Unexpected link between solar activity and climate change’ found in Greenland ice (= h/t WUWT, Aug 20, 2014): “Lund University have published a reconstruction of solar activity vs snow accumulation in Greenland, which indicates a strong correlation between solar minima and a colder climate.
‘The study shows an unexpected link between solar activity and climate change,’ Dr Muscheler said in a press release. […]” more