tirsdag, februar 07, 2017


I have recently aquired a technical report from DMI (Danish Meterological Institute) on air temperatures for several location in Greenland. In response to the fairly clear picture these data present I would like to post some observations for the DMI which I believe a responsible journalist ought to pick up and relay - and maybe even ask some critical questions while they're at it (Who am I kidding?).

The reason I surmise is the following:

There has been no significant warming in Greenland since the 1940'es the data shows, an observation likewise born out by DMI's own statement on their research into sea surface temperatures in Greenland coastal regions, where the conclusion tranlates to:

Generally the sediment cores show, that calving has been extensive not only in the first decade of 21st century but also in the 30'es and 40'es of the 20th century. Both periods have seen relavtively mild air conditions and warmer subsurface, sea temperatures, as well as less sea ice.

This happy news however seem to be somewhat absent from press coverage on the topic: Since today in an article in a danish newspaper I could read this amazing statement:

Til BBC siger seniorforsker Friederikke Otto fra Oxford-universitetets klimaforskningsinstitut, at før industrialderens begyndelse ville en sådan hedebølge have været »ekstremt sjælden« og statistisk set noget i retning af en 1.000 års begivenhed.

Which roughly translates to:

To the BBC senior scientist Friederikke Otto from Oxford-university Climate research center says, that before the industrial age such a heatwave [in the area of svalbard, east of north Greenland] would have been extremely rare - likely a 1.000 year event.

And as for the DMI? Well, Martin Stendel - a climate & polar research scientist at the DMI -  firmly back up this lady's remarkable assesment, that the warmth can only be explained in terms of human influence on the climate.

It has become a rule by now, that a climate scientist can say anything to the press and get it on print as a matter of truth (They are the priests - sorry, experts, after all). Unfortunately for Friedrikke & Martin reality bears no resemblence to their claims (priests rarely are in touch with reality - but they don't care: they get to eat steak), and it can be quite easily demonstrated.

To that purpose we must look at the DATA!

To do that we establish a fairly logical correlation between icecore data, seasurface data and airtemperatures in the north Atlantic. Not surprisingly the data show, that the icecores registers warmth in Greenland as the Atlantic Ocean temperatures go up - the air temperatures
follow the same pattern.

It is thus fairly safe to logically conclude that icecores reflect changes in both sea and air temperatures, and that these temperatures are indicative of heat transported by the ocean waters of the Gulf Stream into the Arctic basins.

Now we can illustrate using the icecores, that the air temperatures on Svalbard are very likely to have been higher at almost any time you care to pick before the industrial era, than they are today.

There are some further conclusions: either the climatologists are incompetent or we are being straight out lied to. It's either that or these people are now so convinced by their own hype, that they've forsaken reality for an oblivious fantasy. You can make your own assumptions about the media, but I think that in general people are becomming aware of the problems with journalists. Unfortunately this is reckless, careless and shamefull misuse of the public trust.

søndag, januar 22, 2012


Recently I stumpled upon this graph on the WUWT Ocean Oscillations refference page:

It's an undetrended AMO (Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation) graph. Normaly, what you get, if you research the AMO on say Wikipedia, is this graphics:

And then you get this definition:

The AMO signal is usually defined from the patterns of SST variability in the North Atlantic once any linear trend has been removed. This detrending is intended to remove the influence of greenhouse gas-induced global warming from the analysis. However, if the global warming signal is significantly non-linear in time (i.e. not just a smooth increase), variations in the forced signal will leak into the AMO definition. Consequently, correlations with the AMO index may alias effects of global warming.

Ever since I first read this, I have been wondering what the abolished trend would look like. However, it can be time consuming in the extreme to hunt these datasets down, and my first attempts failed, until I saw the term on WUWT: not detrended. - That did the job with Google.

So let me show you some graphs I've made or collected, which I firmly believe call into question the premis for this somewhat biased procedure. I got myself an undetrended AMO dataset, calculated the anomalies and made comparisons with some other datasets.

First graph shows the difference between the AMO datasets: detrended & undetrended. The detrended dataset obviously have zero trend (yellow) and the undetrended dataset has a trend of 0.4 degrees C. Is this important? Oh, yes: it's extremely important.

Next graph shows Nasa GISSTemp dataset and the undetrended (what a weird word) AMO anomalies. Normally I would be forced to include a second Y axis, when comparing trends in two very different datasets (One is regional SST, the other global atmosphere). Not in this case though: the  intensities match to a tee.

Notice that while the GISS Temp data depart from the AMO around 1970 the UAH data seem a somewhat better fit during this period. Is this coincidental? Not very likely, no... GISS manipulates the data, and the result is very often a warming trend. Click the right handside image to play an animation, which slides between two GISS U.S. temperature anomaly charts:

The first dataset is from 2007 and the second (PDF, Fig. 6) is from 1999. I know of no reasonable argument, which would justify concistently making the past colder and the present warmer. Nevertheless GISS is relentless.

The AMO matches phases of solar cycle length as well as it matches global temps, U.S. Temps and Nortern Hemisphere temps:

So what's going on? I think it has to do with the fact, that the Atlantic of all the worlds oceans has the only major inlet to the Arctic Ocean; which in the unlikely event, that you did not hear about it, is currently melting it's summer sea ice. In short: it's been warming in the Arctic. Not surprisingly this warming follows the AMO anomaly. Probably the Arctic IS the AMO and by extension 'global' warming caused by the sun. Why is it not co2 warming the Arctic and then warming the Atlantic?
This detrending is intended to remove the influence of greenhouse gas-induced global warming from the analysis. However, if the global warming signal is significantly non-linear in time (i.e. not just a smooth increase), variations in the forced signal will leak into the AMO definition. Consequently, correlations with the AMO index may alias effects of global warming.
This statement makes the rather absurd assumption, that any AMO SST warming beyond 1 degree must be due to co2. Which is arguably false:

Greenland is located right where the AMO is most influential. The GISP II icecore data show plenty of natural variation from a time, where co2 never rose above 280 ppm. Al Gore in the film 'An inconvenient truth' uses Vostock (Antarctic) ice core proxies as global indicators of both temperatures and CO2 reaching 700.000 years back into the Pleiocene to show that the two are correlated. Actually, according to the chart on the left (GISP II, Arctic) temperature and co2, throughout the holocene, seem inversely related.

All this being true, it is then either wrong, deceptive or both to argue that virtually any rising SST trend in the North Atlantic region for the last 155 years must be caused by human industri. - I can't stress enough, how genuinely weird that claim is! - It amounts to denial...

Do we see anything untowards or in any way unusual in the icecore data? The answer must be a very firm: abolutely not! Right up until 1993 there's not a trace of warming, which might not be absolutely natural. Actually the trends for the last one thousand years show a full degree of average cooling and placing the 1940'es in a warmer place than the early 1990'es. - Where have I seen that before...?

But what about the warming since 1780: is it not incredibly unnatural - and to die from? No, it is completely within the bounds of natural variabillity and has been repeated too many times to count throughout the holocene, where at times temperatures were 1,5 degrees C hotter.

As we have seen: since 1993 Arctic temperatures went up by an average degree C. By the same token: at the present rate of decline temperatures could be back to 1993, which also happens to be 1978, levels in 6 years. To top it off: under a global warming scenario, where you have got to detrend the AMO, because it must be under the influence, you would expect the Southern Ocean encircling Antarctica to show some warming as well. It does not:

It seems to me quite obvious then, that instead of changing sound data, to accomplish nothing but obscuring facts, it is much simpler to assume that the state of the Arctic is generally derived from North Atlantic SST or vice versa, and manifests itself in 'global' temperature products.  Both of which coincidentaly follows the phases of solar cycle length rather neatly.

From the Danish Meterological Institutes survay of glacier melt in east Greenland: 
Overordnet viser sedimentkernen, at kælvningen har været stor ikke alene i 00'erne, men også midt i forrige århundrede omkring 30'erne og 40'erne. Det er begge perioder, hvor der også var relativt varmt i både luften og de dybere vandlag samt relativ mindre havis end normalt.
The text translates to:
Generally the sediment cores show, that calving has been extensive not only in the first decade of 21st century but also in the 30'es and 40'es of the 20th century. Both periods have seen relavtively mild air conditions and warmer subsurface, sea temperatures, as well as less sea ice.
Many times on this blog I have also quoted these statements of times passed:

Warming Arctic Climate Melting Glaciers Faster, Raising Ocean Level, Scientist Says - “A mysterious warming of the climate is slowly manifesting itself in the Arctic, engendering a “serious international problem,” Dr. Hans Ahlmann, noted Swedish geophysicist, said today. - New York Times, May 30, 1937.

The United States and the Soviet Union are mounting large-scale investigations to determine why the Arctic climate is becoming more frigid, why parts of the Arctic sea ice have recently become ominously thicker and whether the extent of that ice cover contributes to the onset of ice ages.” - New York Times, July 18, 1970 

Arctic warming has become so dramatic that the North Pole may melt this summer (2008), report scientists studying the effects of climate change in the field. “We’re actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time [in history],” David Barber, of the University of Manitoba, told National Geographic News aboard the C.C.G.S. Amundsen, a Canadian research icebreaker. - National Geographic News, June 20, 2008.

There is yet another ocean which shares the same latitudes as the North Atlantic, and that would be the North Pacific. As it happens that ocean also undergo drastic climatic change on decadal time scales. This Pacific climate variabillty is reffered to as the PDO:
Updated standardized values for the PDO index, derived as the leading PC of monthly SST anomalies in the North Pacific Ocean, poleward of 20N. The monthly mean global average SST anomalies are removed to separate this pattern of variability from any "global warming" signal that may be present in the data.
In other words: We assume (no argument) that the PDO cannot be the cause of "global warming", so we detrend by subtracting the "global" average mean... This biased top -> down approach eliminates from the outset any possibility that "global warming" could be a regional phenomenon which in time propagates, possibly through both the physical and mathematical universe, to become "global warming". For instance it cannot due to this axiom be assumed, that for reasons as of yet unknown the Atlantic Ocean responds to some aspect of solar cycle properties which modulate Arctic climate in turn influencing the North Pacific.

The graph on the right handside is the result of an experiment: I scaled PDO data to 1/6 and added AMO data. Remember that the PDO is essentially detrended by the global SST mean, which has a rising linear trend, so the PDO/6+AMO is probably too warm in the past and too cold in the present. However, do not fail to concider another likely contributing source to the descrepancy: GISS adjustments. Adjustments have at least two purposes: 1) increase trend to overstate warming and 2) eliminate variation, because models cannot simulate them. This produce two distinct signatures: 1) early datapoints are adjusted negative, late datapoints are adjusted positive and 2) 40'es warm episode and 70'es cold episode are flattened. The second graph on the right is provided from Hansen et al. 1981 (PDF) for comparison.

Bearing all this in mind: the fit to GISSTemp is nevertheless striking. Note: NH is short for Northern Hemisphere.

Curriously specific items can be located in bulk at the same lattitudes as the North Pacific and North Atlantic: the majority of the worlds thermometers. Actual instruments make readings in a local setting, any subsequent  manouvers (methods) are nothing but abstractions, which in the end ensures that the 'regions' excibiting variation become 'global' phenomena?

In information theory we would term the global temperature anomaly products: a loss of information; we loose a lot to gain a little. That 'gain', having little intrinsic scientific value, lies mainly in the message department: clear, simple and visual. Waging an information war with as little information as possible is ironically the sign and predicament of 'the information age' - which started long before the 1980'es: back then it was termed propaganda.

Probability theory will tell you that rolling a die should result in one particular side showing face up every 1 in 6 rolls. However, anyone who actually rolls dice on a regular basis will know, that real dice do not conform to this theoretical prescription. Does that make probability theory useless? No, but you sure as hell better understand its limitation (it's an abstraction) before you walk into a casino with your life savings. Or in the case of the western world: the money you borrowed in China.

As an aside, the psycological analysis is equally damning: The prophets of doom are vastly more interested in the moral implications than in the scientific ones: When you need to control someone - any righteuos preacher will know this - there's no greater enemy than knowledge and no more effective a tool than guild, which entails the need for payment and sacrifice in order to evade almighty wrath. Organized religion has preyed upon this (insecure) human need for absolution throughout history - it's the precursor of all psycologically incarnated power.

For all our rational and scientific aspirations we fail these concepts misserably: had we any other prospect we would humbly admit to our innermost desires and walk into this religious trap at the very least with our eyes open. But that would spoil the emmotional effect, and we would then emmidiately start looking for a substitute outlet: how to build yet another virtual pyramid on the backs of the poor, while enscribing those scientific tombs with monumental 'rationalisations' concerning our good will towards men - and our oh so selfless desire to save them from themselves.


tirsdag, december 13, 2011

Predictions II

So, it's been nine days since I reflected on atmospheric pressure observations some 4 km aloft, which indicated predictive skills: possibly as much as 14 days in advance.

Meanwhile I've reached a few conclusions: It seems to me, that it is indeed possible to predict, at least in sketch, stormtrack behaviour from examining lofty pressure. I believe the limit is probably 10 days. Since the data is published 5 days late of it's conception, that might give me a lead of 5 days. It's very difficult however to say anything precise about the behaviour on the ground: low pressure systems can easily develop below the high pressure umbrella.

However, there may be a theme to those developments: they seem to cause more wind than precipitation and they die quickly. Why exactly, that would be, if it is true, I don't know, but I can venture a guess: If low pressure systems cannot send winds aloft due to higher pressure above it would inhibit the adiabatic lapse rate. That is: expansion is limited by the inhibited ability to condense water wapour by ascend to higher altitude. The air is recycled lower in the atmosphere and remains moist. This may result in higher wind speeds, lower precipitation rates and higher temperature - though I might be wrong about this.

About predictive skills, I'll try to give an example:

Several things from the animation above should be noticed: First the movement of high pressure into the scandinavian area; remember that this is in a height of 4 km and would not be emmediately felt on the ground (this is the predictive skill foundation). Second thing to notice is the low pressure area emmanating from the labrador sea (NE America). Normally in a NAO+ scenario (which we have), this would move towards iceland, but is deflected by the pressure cell aloft in the North Atlantic towards Southern Europe and North Africa.

This is classic NAO- behaviour, but it is not reflected on the ground (not yet). This low pressure deflection aloft happened between the 1st and the 9th of december. now let's look at ECMWF model for the comming week. These are the start conditions (note: these pick will change every twelve hours and soon be outdated):

The deflection may not yet seem apparent, but there is an opportunistic component to this: As low pressure systems are spawned by the evaporating ocean low in the atmosphere, they  prey on preexisting low pressure conditions higher in the atmosphere to grow by condensing water wapour aloft. This is what we call jetstreams.

By cooling the oceans through evaporation the atmosphere grows warmer and expands due to condensation, and these hotspots of condensation cirkulates the globe doing work on other airmasses, while they penetrate high into the atmosphere draining themselves of water. Probably this convective process of cooling is what renders the greenhouse effect almost mute, because it does not rely on radiation, but mecanical work: any co2 effect simply becomes part of the convective forces and speeds them up by a tiny fraction.

Later the model seems to pick up on the opportunities and lacks thereof provided by the upper atmosphere:

This is about a week from events aloft. There is discrepancy in latitude by maybe as much as 10 degrees or even beyond. I suspect, that implies the faster movement of air aloft, which schews the atmospheric vertical column.

In the Norwegian Sea and Scandinavia low pressure conditions at low altitude is still prevalant and may stay so, since SST's are anomalously high:

Also the high altitude high pressure block seems to be fading fast, and it's possibly these high SST's, that are wasting it. Never the less: at very high altitude, it's much colder than normal:

As warmth gradually moves out of the Scandinavian region into Siberia, colder conditions may descend on the region and gradually cool those SST's. This would cause snowfall, but I think mostly in the Norwegian mountains.

Thus far, above scandinavia, low pressure has been dominant with prevalant intermitant high pressure and occasional storminess. This seems to agree with the scenario framework outlined above. Colder conditions may descend on Scandinavia within the month. This could either mean more storms or more winter - I'm guessing: a little bit of both.


søndag, december 04, 2011


Today I noticed something for real, which I was probably only dimly aware of - if at all. Maybe it's nothing, maybe it's significant... I don't pretend to know.

The animation to the left is part of an MJO predictor toolbox provided by NOAA. I have long studied it with curiosity, since it is usefull for understanding the polar vortex behaviour.

Now I've noticed something, which truely intriques me. I will first provide you with still images from a Java Animation (Bottom screen), which displays the beginning and end images of an ECMWF model run from 4th of December to 8th of December:

Notice the rather steady low pressure over Scandinavia... Now study this model state on the 11th December:

This is called blocking or an Arctic breakout. It's still not NAO- for a host of reasons, which are irrelevant to this discussion. What is relevant however: Look to the date on the NOAA tool (Fig. 1); it ends on the 30th of November, but it clearly shows the blocking move in the North Atlantic. This, however, is 14 days prior to the actual event as weather on the ground - that is: if we trust the ECMWF model, which in this case I think I do. It will play out differently from current predictions, but the breakout will happen.

I'll be making more comparisons between NOAA's observations of the atmosphere and the model predictions in the future. I mean: this could be a powerfull predictive tool. DMI now locally predict -10 degrees C in Copenhagen around December 13th, but this was not in the cards 48 hours ago. It will possibly turn out to be overestimation by 2 - 3 degrees C. That would be typical of this model: first it underestimates (24 hours ago), and then it overestimates, accuracy is never achieved beyond 72 hours. By the same token precipitation estimates can only be described as weird.

Last year pretty much the same cirkulation (Eastern Siberia & North America heating up) resulted in some 30 cm of snow and -9 degrees for christmas, which is a very rare event here. If this keeps happening - it hasn't been a regular phenomena for 20 years, now - I'll take it as a sign of a cooling North Atlantic in response to the negativ PDO.


mandag, november 07, 2011

State of climate - an update

It's been some time since I wrote my piece on the state of climate and I've hopefully grown wiser ever since. I would like to share some simple observations first.

In the state of climate article I showed you this sketch from a National Geographic article from the mid 70's (I don't trust the modern products all too much, so it's nice with some counterbalance from a time, when people still had respect for 'objective' science).

I've now superimposed my graph of solar cycle length on that sketch (That would be the red line). And you may notice that they seem somewhat in tune. Now have a look at this graph:

If you click on the images you'll get an enlargement. Please note the dates of polynomic intersection between the AMO (North Atlantic) and the PDO (North Pasific). I get 1934, 1968 and 1998. I also believe, that if the data had reached further back in time you would have been able to locate an intersection around 1900-1910. 

There's some history to this: The Titanic sunk by ice berg 1915, 1934 warmest year in the US thermal record, 1976 marked the year of the great pacific climate shift (changing PDO), the great El Nino of that previous year made 1998 the hottest year on the global record, and scared the easily scared alarmists out of their wits. Compare with the modern global temperature scare product (on the left) and viola, how could anybody miss these striking 'coincidences'. Well the answer is: it takes an enormous amount of bias.  Compare the steep climb of late thermometer record with the satellites gentle hump:

Check also the previously mentioned years of AMO/PDO intersections with some Arctic history: 

Warming Arctic Climate Melting Glaciers Faster, Raising Ocean Level, Scientist Says - “A mysterious warming of the climate is slowly manifesting itself in the Arctic, engendering a “serious international problem,” Dr. Hans Ahlmann, noted Swedish geophysicist, said today. - New York Times, May 30, 1937

“The United States and the Soviet Union are mounting large-scale investigations to determine why the Arctic climate is becoming more frigid, why parts of the Arctic sea ice have recently become ominously thicker and whether the extent of that ice cover contributes to the onset of ice ages.” - New York Times, July 18, 1970  

Arctic warming has become so dramatic that the North Pole may melt this summer (2008), report scientists studying the effects of climate change in the field. “We’re actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time [in history],” David Barber, of the University of Manitoba, told National Geographic News aboard the C.C.G.S. Amundsen, a Canadian research icebreaker. - National Geographic News, June 20, 2008 

Of course the North Pole is not melting catastrofically and it is now reported, that sea ice has been refreezing at 40% the average rate (Sat history rate that is) during  this October.

Idealised sketch showing typical areas of low pressure 
thermal expansion, as well as high pressure migration routes 
out of the arctic.

As the pole heats up due to the warmer waters arriving in the region (forced by solar insolation in the tropics and possibly modulated by cloud and galactic cosmic rays), convective expansion pushes cold airmasses to the south over the continents (colder winters warmer summers in the interior). Eventually the cooler drier northern airmasses reaches tropical waters as they move south east where they fascilitate an enhanced Hadley circulation and upwelling regime. The northern warming cools the southern regions. As the south gets colder so, eventualy, do the hot waters which are pushed to the poles at the western plate boundaries. Eventually the north cools. Possibly solar forcing and magnetic fields (both the Suns and the Earths) modulate the polar atmosphere in various ways: cloud, moisture, temps.

The water temperature in the four regions marked in red  determines the level of thermal expansion around the region. In combination with the state of the polar cells pressure/temperature this determines where Arctic breakouts happen (blue arrows) and how intense the events. The PDO and AMO patterns are characteristics of this combined ocean/atmosphere behaviour and is actually an expression of a comprehensive northern hemosphere climate state which modulates the route of the northern jet stream. It defines the polar vortex and the meandering of high pressure systems. As this system feeds back on itself it oscillates between the phases shown in figure 2. The keen observer may notice, that the AMO seems to warm and cool with the cycles of the sun. While the PDO seems to respond to the AMO. And the PDO seems to 'regulate' global temperature. So there's a delay of about 15 years from the warming AMO until the Pasific starts cooling 'way down', which in turn starts cooling the AMO. The 'global' cooling is setting in right about now.

The danish meterological institute has a Java animation (Bottom of the page) simulating atmospheric circulation for the next week. Running this regularly, you can study the high pressure migration, and  the thermal expansion (low pressure) areas and the interaction between them. 
As the North Atlantic atmosperic thermal expansion becomes stronger than the Pasific thermal expansion cold air is pushed between them and the Atlantic wins: the tropical Pasific cools because cooler drier anticyclones enhances Hadley circulation and cold water upwelling. This drives hot water masses north (and south) at the west Pasific plate boundaries: the North Pasific warms. Eventualy the North Pasific will start pushing cold air masses into the North Atlantic creating blocking and cooling. The two oceans move in phase. During the next 20 years a warming North Pasific will graduately cool the North Atlantic.

Obviously this is a highly idealised schematic: a multitude of parameters most of them probably unknown modulate the highly complex climate system. Nothing is for sure!

Ocean temperature anomalies presented by NOAA as of October 26, 2011. 
Showing a cold PDO and a positive NAO.

As I see it, we seem to be in a somewhat simular situation as around World War II, where Hitlers armies perished in Russia due to extremely cold winters, and Scandinavia was hit by severe ice winters. While at the same time the Arctic was melting.

When we look at solar cycle length, it would seem that the recent warming in the 90's was somewhat stronger than the warming in the 30's. However, the present solar cycle lengths should provide a strong cooling effect... all in all we will probably be somewhere near 70's temperatures in roughly 25 years - somewhere around 2035. A cycle length of 60 years. By then we should have a good grasp on what the real effect of co2 looks like.

Oh I should mention, the colder, drier polar airmasses moving on the tropics should generate a lot of downpour. This would spell true in the North as well, as the thermal expansion areas (d)rain away. All this work will remove heat from the oceans, cool the planet and grow the glaciers by a small amount.


onsdag, oktober 26, 2011

Denne kniv er enestående

Jeg hørte engang historien om ekspedienten der hamrede en kniv i en træplade, stillede den i et tomt udstillingsvindue og hængte et skilt over med skriften: Denne kniv er enestående!

Hvilket minder mig om denne artikel i Berlingske:

(...) han [Svante Björck] når frem til, at dagens ændringer er de eneste med global udbredelse i 20.000 år.

Jordens klima har ændret sig mange gange, men Svante Björck har ikke fundet data, der afslører at tidligere ændringer har haft global omfang. Koldere og varmere perioder har derimod været regionale fænomener, lyder det fra den svenske forsker fra universitetet i Lund.

Konklusionen: at dagens ændringer er de eneste med global udbredelse i 20.000 år, baserer sig på den implicite tanketorsk, at det 20. århundredes opvarmning foregik ensartet overalt på kloden. Men det gjorde den naturligvis ikke: ligesom Svante Bjørck korrekt kan konstatere, at ingen opvarmning (eller nedkøling for den sags skyld) i fortiden er forekommet ensartet og øjeblikkelig fra den ene ende af verden til den anden, så gælder det naturligvis heller ikke for den moderne opvarmning.

Vi ved fx på baggrund af satellit-data, at den sydlige halvkugle er blevet varmere siden 1978. Til gengæld ved vi også, at den geografiske sydpol TOTALT SET er blevet en smule køligere, og vi ved ligeledes, at områder på Antarktis er blevet varmere, mens andre er blevet køligere. Hvilket helt naturligt afspejler den rige lokale variation.

Og dermed er argumentet faldet til jorden.

Jeg skal gerne skære det ud i pap:

(...) men Svante Björck har ikke fundet data, der afslører at tidligere ændringer har haft global omfang

Altså lige bortset fra, at alt ved klimaet har ændret sig globalt på de bemeldte 20.000 år (adskillige gange endda), og at de mange lokale ændringer som man kan iagttage både i fortiden og i nutiden naturligvis til sammen udgør den over tid endelige og totale klimatiske forandring vi lever med. Hvilket betyder, at planeten totalt set (altså: globalt) er endog væsentligt varmere end den var for 20.000 år siden.

Alle temperaturer er lokale fænomener, men det gennemsnitlige globale produkt over de bemeldte 20.000 år vidner om global opvarmning – færdig basta... Havde emnet været de sidste 6.000 år, så havde vi talt om global nedkøling.

Svante Bjørck kan altså umuligt rationelt nå frem til, at dagens ændringer er de eneste med global udbredelse i 20.000 år. Det er jo en komplet kortslutning: en benægtelse af elementære fakta og en misforståelse af, hvad en global middeltemperatur er for noget: en abstraktion!

At tage Svante Bjørcks “argumentation” alvorligt som den står formuleret i Berlingske er videnskabeligt livsfarligt! Det eneste der sådan set er demonstreret er, at man i de fleste kredse simpelthen ikke forstår klimatisk abstraktion: hverken hvad angår geografisk afgrænsning eller tidshorisont. Dette er naturligvis uheldigt, når man så samtidigt vedholdende insisterer på at propagandere for et helt bestemt synspunkt og kalder det videnskabeligt.

Det mest besynderlige ved Svantes argumentation bliver imidlertid, at han tilsyneladende ikke længere kan argumentere for at tidligere tiders temperaturstigning skyldtes co2, i det det jo bliver påstanden, at den moderne co2 opvarmning er historisk unik ved at være global, mens alle andre klimaforandringer de sidste 20.000 år adskiller sig derfra ved at være regionale, og således ikke kan være forårsaget af co2, der jo forårsager en global opvarmning.

Go'dav mand økseskaft...


torsdag, juli 22, 2010

State of climate

This article will argue the following:
  • The sun and orbiting parameters (PDF) are primarily responsible for climate change. 
  • The magnetic activity of the sun is in all likelihood the primary cause of modern global warming, implicitly rendering statements of 'a discernable human influence' practically null and void, pending the outcome of real world experiments such as CERN's CLOUD project.
  • Arctic melt and freeze episodes are modulated by solar irradiance governed by cloud albedo, as well as snow and ice extend.
  • Mainstream climatology has a good deal of the causality upside down, which bars us from insight into the mechanics of the glacial and interglacial periods, the monsoons and the spawning of tropical cyclones.
  • For the same reasons, we have difficulty understanding the importence of ocean circulation, such as ENSO, PDO and the Golf Stream.
  • We will experience cooling for the next 20 - 30 years.
  • La Nina conditions in the Pacific will likely persist for 3 - 4 years

    In the beginning there was light:

    Recently I stumbled upon an article (PDF) in a paper called Astronomi, where a Norwegian astrophysicist claim to have observed a neat correlation between surface temperatures in Norway and the length of the previous solar cycles:
    Solen varsler et kaldere tiår

    Jan-Erik Solheim, professor (emeritus) ved Institutt for teoretisk astrofysikk, Universitetet i Oslo, har forsket på sammenhengen mellom solflekkperioder og temperaturer i Norge. Denne forskningen er et originalt arbeide som først publiseres i Astronomi.

    Jo lenger en solflekkperiode varer, jo lavere er middeltemperaturen for utvalgte steder i Norge i den neste perioden. Det viser beregninger utført av norsk astrofysiker, som varsler om et kaldere tiår.

    Av Jan-Erik Solheim

    Solheim, means 'sun home' in Norwegian a rather odd coincidence - is it not?

    The article provides us with this table:
    Solar cycles
    Start year
    I was wondering if this supposed correlation would show up on the global scale. So to put this theory to the test, we quite simply plot a graph with the previous cycle length value at each cycle end. To follow the intuitive perception, that the curve should rise and fall with temperatures I inversed the Y-Axis scale, so that the higher the value of the cycle length the lower the curve will go and vice versa. That method should reflect the logic of the argument as I percieve it. I then plotted that graph and the GISS mean global anomalous temperature dataset and added some trend lines.
    This was the result:

    Now, I'm admittedly not a statistician by occupation (or heart - for that matter), but for what it's worth: that seems to me to be a near perfect correlation. Especially, when taking into account the corruption of the GISS dataset.  Probably an artifact of James Hansen's mission to save the world. 

    Please compare the trend with these
    NASA GISS US land temperature anomalies after the adjustments
    (PDF) in 2007:

    While concidering the implications of the graphics, please also review the following reportings of the past:

    Warming Arctic Climate Melting Glaciers Faster, Raising Ocean Level, Scientist Says - “A mysterious warming of the climate is slowly manifesting itself in the Arctic, engendering a “serious international problem,” Dr. Hans Ahlmann, noted Swedish geophysicist, said today. - New York Times, May 30, 1937 

    Then 33 years later:   

     “The United States and the Soviet Union are mounting large-scale investigations to determine why the Arctic climate is becoming more frigid, why parts of the Arctic sea ice have recently become ominously thicker and whether the extent of that ice cover contributes to the onset of ice ages.” - New York Times, July 18, 1970 

    US temperatures according to Hansen et al 1999 (fig 6)

    And then again 38 years later: 

    Arctic warming has become so dramatic that the North Pole may melt this summer (2008), report scientists studying the effects of climate change in the field. “We’re actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time [in history],” David Barber, of the University of Manitoba, told National Geographic News aboard the C.C.G.S. Amundsen, a Canadian research icebreaker. - National Geographic News, June 20, 2008

    Compare that statement to this National Geographics sketch (PDF) 32 years earlier.

    The Arctic has a natural habbit of warming up and cooling down on a decadal timescale, as global temperatures rise and fall. That is: it rises and falls conciderably in the real world, but in a certain branch of climate science it never happened.

    A new dark age:

    And some have been quite busy constructing a very persuasive revisionism, depriving the world of much of what was previously concidered knowledge: a massive campaign effort, which features some of the most Orwellian distortions I have ever laid my eyes on - and in my day, I've seen a few. After the IPCC 1995 report, followed by the 2001 report, history, it would  seem, has been rapidly rewritten: As present temperatures failed to rise, the temperatures of the past went down!

    The infamous hockeystick of IPCC's 2001 report:
    Now, I realise, that science must change it's paradigms once in a while, that just comes with the territory, but I think it evident, that some in our case have gone above and beyond the call of duty. It's the interpretation of data, not the manipulation of data, which should seed new paradigms. But it is - I think - important, that we all realise how tempting it can be to nutch the whole thing a little, so that you can have it your way. This is after all the reason, that we lie: to have it our way. Deception (PDF) is the gray area of our minds, once you venture there, you might find yourself lost, and trapped, inducing a pseudo state of paranoid psychosis: transforming 'abominal' perceptions to fit the concieved 'reality':

    Graph from IPCC's (PDF) report in 1990 (FAR): 

    On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This "double ethical bind" we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both. 

    Stephen Schneider

    You may call it ethics, I call it politics. And in some cases I would even concider it, criminal. There is something deeply flawed at the bottom of all of this, which is revealed in Schneiders line of thought. At the very least it serves to put a perspective on the following observations: 

    In brief, from the age of enlightenment we have emerged into the philosophy of post-modernism which sets aside evidence as the authority and asserts that the ‘truth’ is what you believe – if you believe it, then it is your ‘truth’. Importantly all opinions are to be given equal authority irrespective of where the evidence may lie. These ideas have progressed to what is now called ‘Post Normal Science’. This holds that science is subservient to the story that must be told. The role of science is no longer about discovering new ‘truth’ but supporting the ‘story’ which is perceived to be the truth. This gives rise to the notion of “noble-cause science”, which allows scientists to ignore contrary evidence, or worse, manipulate the evidence, if the cause is noble. We have seen evidence of this in the climate change debate.

    Doug Edmeades 

    Quoted from the article: Closing out dissent - by Bob Carter... a very interesting read.

    One would be blind, if one failed to notice the resemblance to religion in all of this: End of days, soothsaying (PDF), blasphemy, guild, payments and sacrifices to enable the congregation of blessed men - who may yet save the day, and our polluted souls. In it's essence: an anti-science masquerading as science.

    Returning to the subject of the sun:

    I chose the year 2021 for the end of cycle 24. No one knows of course how long it will actually be, but quite ominously it's had a very slow start. Furthermore the length of cycle 23 seems to be somewhat disputed. Here's the closest to an official statement, that I could get:

    May 8, 2009 -- Solar Cycle 24 Prediction Update The Solar Cycle 24 Prediction Panel has reached a consensus decision on the prediction of the next solar cycle (Cycle 24). First, the panel has agreed that solar minimum occurred in December, 2008. This still qualifies as a prediction since the smoothed sunspot number is only valid through September, 2008. The panel has decided that the next solar cycle will be below average in intensity, with a maximum sunspot number of 90. Given the predicted date of solar minimum and the predicted maximum intensity, solar maximum is now expected to occur in May, 2013. Note, this is a consensus opinion, not a unanimous decision. A supermajority of the panel did agree to this prediction .

    Now, compare that with the following statement:

    Dec. 21, 2006: Evidence is mounting: the next solar cycle is going to be a big one.
    Solar cycle 24, due to peak in 2010 or 2011 "looks like its going to be one of the most intense cycles since record-keeping began almost 400 years ago," says solar physicist David Hathaway of the Marshall Space Flight Center. He and colleague Robert Wilson presented this conclusion last week at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco .

    Red in the face? - That can most probably not even begin to describe it...

    Well, researching the subject of solar influence I encountered, this video, with Jasper Kirkby, a declared heretic and sceptic of the global warming gospel, as well as the head of the CERN experiment CLOUD, which results by the way the world needs desperately to hopefully resolve the climate issue, probably much to the disadvantage of the influential elites who have invested heavily in the global warming scare. To what lengths these people will go to protect their valuables (their means of power) I have no clue, but I surely expect it to turn ugly one way or another.

    In the video, Jasper's slide show and indeed Jasper himself states, that cycle 23 was 13,1 years in length. Observing the graph to the left (which has the same origin as the above resolution of the 12,6 number) with a cursory glance, one might actually get the impression, that cycle 23 extends well into 2009. Can someone knowledgeable cast a light on this issue? I find my self at a loss...

    The issue is obviously important, and not nit picking: if the cycle was actualy 13,1 years in length, that puts us close to the Little Ice Age category, which could potentially have devastating consequences, albeit such speculation is completely refereed by the actual state of future events. The experiment is forever ongoing, though, this fundamental scientific guideline seems to have escaped the attention of quite a few of our high and mighty, not to mention the allegedly brightest to the exclusion of some.

    A clouded view on things to come:

    I'll try to make the rest short, so those of you who do not know simple climate science will probably loose track of me here:

    If the CLOUD project is able to illuminate the approximate state of affairs to the advantage of the theory of cosmic rays (and this is where I put my money), that would provide us with a simple trigger for decennial and centennial scale climatic changes and I would then suggest the following idealised causality:

    A reduced cloud cover - as a result of an active sun - in the polar regions will reduce albedo and warm the ocean waters in turn melting more ice and warming more water. This has the effect of lowering the pressure of the polar cell effectively shifting the polar front to the north (south). In the terminology of those supposedly in the know, I believe the concept would be phrased: a weakening of the meridional pressure gradient. As the polar cell retreats, the Ferrel cell in turn moves north (south) raising the tropopause and hence reducing the steepness of the thermocline. In this schematic the obvious consequence will be a lower pressure in the meandering of the polar vortex, which in the inverse scenario would otherwise lend assistance to the Hadley circulation in the tropics. This tiny shift in the meridional pressure gradient, would thus work to weaken the trade winds.

    Following the logic through, this in turn ought to weaken zonal transport dictating the volume of equatorial waters transported to the north at the plate boundaries in the west, as well as the volume of upwelling at the eastern boundaries. All of these schematics produce the net effect of conserving both mass and energy in the tropics, as well as reduce cooling from the upwelling sites. As the polar regions now receive less mass/energy the pressure in turn rises, and the heat in the tropics serve to lower the pressure, producing conditions of the opposite sign. As conditions reverse the polar regions again heat up and the tropics cool.

    Point being: the magnetic activity of the sun could have an indirect modulating effect on the meridional mass/energy transport engine by weakening zonal and hence meridional transport of ocean waters such as the Nino circulation in the Pacific and the Golf Stream in the Atlantic. When the sun relaxes La Nina and positive NAO conditions will be slightly more predominant. If conditions persist over long time scales, the surface waters of the tropics will become much colder as a result of an enhanced upwelling regime, and will have a difficult time raising temperatures and hence lowering pressures in the polar regions. In this state the enforced polar cells acts to drain the system of energy by delivering moisture to glacier areas in the north - spawning glacial events.

    My causality, which should be so glaringly obvious, that it is dumbfounding to realise, it is actually not being popularly proposed, explains rather well the heatings and coolings to the rhythm of the sun. It even explains what happens during ice ages, where the millennial scale radiation modulations are primarily dominated by orbital parameters. Another heat budget modulater is the density conditioning, determined by long gone past events, of the thermocline at the equatorial upwelling sites - an ocean memory interface. In a world where the plates do not interfere with equatorial throughflow, this cannot happen! Which explains rather neatly, why the world started cooling 20 - 10 million years ago, first with the final demise of the ancient Tethys and secondly 3 million years ago (PDF) with the closure of the central American throughflow. I realise that the cooling dates back further, but those episodes do not much relate to the equatorial throughflow (though the Indian plate movement might be an exception), and must be reserved for a future discussion.

    If anyone has ever actually proposed the above causality schematics in short and precise  language, I apologize: I have simply never encountered such an explanation in plain English.

    The quiet ocean:

    While on the subject of La Nina I remembered some data, that I have been looking at. Now this might be interesting, so I'll elaborate a bit further. First let's look at some comparison data for the last decade since the great El Nino in 97:

    This data, to my mind, speaks volumes as to the causality I previously suggested. First: they show correlation between global mean sea surface temperatures and the NINO3.4 region. No other Nino region express this clear correlation - I've checked. Second: while on the average Nino temps have been going down slightly, global temps have been going up slightly since the 3 years long La Nina blew around the beginning of the millennium. In fact they have just cross sectioned, which indicates to me, that the heat has been moved out of the tropics in consistency with a negativ PDO pattern.

    More data on the Nino regions:

    They all show cooling, except for region 4, which has recovered quite a bit since the La Nina 2007 - 2008. As the graf to the left will show you, the cooling is highest in the east in the Nino 1 & 2 regions - by a full average degree.

    Well here's the interesting bit: according to NOAA numbers the anomallous temperatures during last winters El Nino was 0,7 degrees lower, than the El Nino of 97 in the 3.4 region.

    This article (PDF) illuminates the subject of model capabillity in the face of predicting Pacific circulation events, if I may quote: 
    Nino regions:
    Attempts to use fully coupled non-linear GCMs to simulate and/or forecast El Ni˜no have been less successful, unless constrained by sophisticated data assimilation techniques and run for short forecast periods, over which equally sophisticated analysis techniques are used to correct for well-documented “model drift.” This model drift is essentially a reflection of the fact that the coupled GCMs produce a “climate” that is not sufficiently close to reality.

    The article is from 2005. Now, would anyone care to explain to me, how, on the basis of such blatant ignorance, the IPCC finds, that it could by 1995 primarily ascribe the temperature anomalies of the modern age to man? The short and firm answer to my mind should be obvious: They couldn't possibly do so! - They quite simply have little to no clue about the modulating factors of tropical Pacific SST's, so that it is in fact impossible to make statements about the 'discernable influence' of man with any confidence, whatsoever. If the IPCC crew had been real honest scientists of mind, and not politicians by heart, it would have all ended there, with that simple question!

    And the authors of this article are not just a bunch of idiots walking in from nowhere. I provide you with a list, for your convienence: 

    William S. Kessler
    James N Moum 
    Daniel L. Rudnick
    Meghan F. Cronin
    Paul S. Schopf
    LuAnne Thompson

    This state of affairs has not been communicated to the general public. Constituting a failure in the medias role as sceptic watch dogs, and probably reflecting, to a certain degree, a popular mindset, which has been instilled ever so thoughroly, as a result of the rapid cooption of the environmental mythology, by influential and fairly ignorant circles, from where it is being preached as indisputable.

    The ages of the ice:

    Recalling the earlier reports on Arctic meltings and freezings  from the years 1937 (melt), 1970 (freeze), 2008 (melt) we may cast a glance on the graphics below:

    Now, we've got to be very carefull with the enterpretation of this graphics, because something lies hidden here and does not immediately leap to mind.

    On the contrary: One might indeed, from a cursory glance, quickly conclude that the freeze and melt is dictated by the cycles of the AMO. But that does not really explain anything - at least not to my mind, and it's not for a lack of trying. All things being equal, why would the Atlantic exhibit these mood swings? I simply couldn't come up with the causality, no matter how much I tried. Also, studying the graphics one might get the idea, that the AO beats to the pulse of the PDO, but this would be equally wrong, for the very same reason: there is no clear causality to explain, why the Pacific would have these wild mood swings.

    But then in a lightening of rare insight it hit me: The AO has to be the driver of this rather well documented behaviour:

    The correlation between the AO index and SST for the period 1900–1998 shows that the AO is related to a coherent large scale Northern Hemisphere SST pattern. High values of the AO index are associated with positive SST anomalies over the central and western part of the North Pacific, the western subtropical North Atlantic and the western coast of Europe, while negative anomalies dominate the entire tropical region, the west coast of North America and southwestern Greenland. Approximatly, regions are significant above the 95% (90%)-confidence level when the correlation exceeds ±0.2(0.15). [G. Lohmann et al.]

    And the same must be true of the Antarctic!

    It should by now be quite apparent, if we look at the graphic from the perspective of the arguments presented in this article, that the Arctic warm episodes are most extreme in the transition to the negative phase of PDO and vice versa. We live in a world, where the seemingly small differences in the pressure gradient between the equator and the poles in times of lessened solar irradiance can send the trade winds into a frenzy (La Nina and NAO+), because the meandering of the polar vortex will be lower in temperature and thus higher in pressure, hence driving the hot tropical waters into the polar regions, where the mass/energy form clouds and is expended as ice melt and precipitation in the form of snow in mountain areas increasing overall albedo, all the while driving cold upwelled waters in their wake cooling the tropics. In the end cooler and cooler waters will reach the poles.

    The solar irradience at the poles is governed by the albedo (snow, ice and clouds) and the orbital parameters. Lowering the irradiance in the north will over long time periods serve to lower the overall heat contents of the world oceans. A higher irradience will tend to slow the trade winds and conserve heat in the tropics (El Nino, NAO-).

    What's more and much worse: Climatologists have now completely fallen prey to the popular perception, that some inept personalities in their own ranks have served to spawn: that the so called Great Thermohaline Conveyor is the apparent blessing of the world.

    But this perception is the child of misconceptions:
    • The conveyor is not driven by density, which only determines stratification. It's driven by wind which creates a pressure differential in the oceans. Think about it: Why would the sinking waters turn south (north)? There can only be one explanation to that question: because water is being displaced by the trade winds in the tropics and must be replaced; the water turns south because it's being dragged by a vacuum (from the perpective of water) - a more accurate description might be dynamo or vortex, though it's admittedly rather more difficult to comprehend, when visualising the Golf Stream.
    • Thus, it is complete nonsence to suggest, that the conveyor should stop operating for any other reason, than that the winds should stop blowing - or reverse, when crossing the equator due to lessened convection at the upwelling sights, generating conditions of higher pressure at the ITCZ (InterTropical Convergence Zone). This is what incidentally drives the monsoons and the tropical cyclones.
    • In and so far salinity acts as a modulator it's precense serves to determine how much mass/energy is delivered to the atmosphere. The higher the salinity of water, the lower the time interval before it's stratified to the depths by mixing and convection, thus the energy/mass exchange with the atmosphere will have a shorter duration (which is just one way of putting it). This in turn modulates the temperature at the upwelling sites in the far distant future.
    • During La Nina conditions water is delivered in the form of precipitation  from the Atlantic to the Pacific serving to increase the salinity of the North Atlantic, thus lowering the  mass/energy exchange with the atmosphere at higher latitudes, where seawater is less salty, in effect strengthening atmospheric pressure but also lowering albedo, as well as warming upper layers of the arctic ocean preserving some sort of delicate pressure balance. As the sun shyes away from the polar regions as a function of orbital parameters it compensates to a lesser degree the tendency toward cooling, spawning more transfer of mass/energy from the tropics as a function of the Vortex meandering lending assistance to Hadley Circulation. If this transfer is not at any given time suffient to make up for the loss of energy from solar irradiance, the process will accelerate producing: colder waters from the upwelling sites in the tropics, thus in effect lowering the temperatures of the waters eventually arriving at the poles. This will also serve to modulate the convective processes in the tropical North Atlantic gyres lowering the mass/energy exchange with the Pacific Cold Tung and hence the salinity contents. As the temperature and salinity differences between the tropical and polar waters narrow, the contact time with the cooling atmosphere is slightly prolonged, producing more clouds, precipitation and cooler ocean waters in time spawning glacial events.
    • Naturally the described processes also serve to modulate CO2 overall uptake and release.

      In the end:

      If I have grasped anything, whatsoever, the polar regions have quickly recovered pressure from a low caused by the 2007 - 2008 La Nina, this is not good news. So if the sun remains the lame horse, that it is at the moment, the La Nina which seems to be evolving in the Pacific all things considered should blow for 3 to 4 years. This will in the short run cause some polar melt - nothing, however, in the magnitude we have witnessed so far - but it will also serve to expend the remaining fumes that we're warmed by at the moment. Much of that expenditure, should go into a substance, which at least will keep the kids happy. :-)

      So, expect to see more of this shortly: