Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

jennifer

The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Consensus

By

“A pervasive myth has taken hold in the public consciousness: That there was a consensus among climate scientists of the 1970s that global cooling or a full-fledged ice age was imminent.”

 

At least that is according to Thomas Peterson, William Connolley and John Fleck writing in the proceedings of the 20th Conference on Climate Variability and Change, held in New Orleans in January this year.    Their paper goes a long way to dispel that myth while at the same time providing a good overview of the development of current global warming theory including key milestones.

 

It did perhaps all begin with the Swedish scientist, Svante Arrhenius, who in 1896 suggested that by doubling atmospheric carbon dioxide global temperature may rise 5-6C.

 

The establishment of the station atop Mauna Loa in the Pacific in 1957 was another key event.  According to Peterson et al by 1965 this data was sufficient to show an unambiguous trend of increasing carbon dioxide and showed an increase that exceeded Arrthenius’s 70-year old estimate. 

 

By 1967 the first seminal modelling results from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory Team were published concluding that a doubling of carbon dioxide would raise the temperature by 2C.  By 1975 based on new modelling results Wallace Broecker asked “Are we on the brink of pronounced global warming?” in a paper published in the journal Science (Vol 189, pgs 460-463).   

 

So, how did the myth of a consensus on global cooling take hold?

 

According to Peterson et al, when the myth of the 1970s global cooling scare arise in contemporary discussion, it is not to citations in the scientific literature but to news and media coverage at that time.  Furthermore they indicate that contemporary quoting of the media articles is often selective and out of context.

 

In their survey of the scientific literature from 1965 to 1983 Peterson et al found only seven articles indicating cooling compared to 42 indicating warming.

 

It is a fascinating little paper, have a read:

http://ams.confex.com/ams/88Annual/techprogram/paper_131047.htm

 

[link from Luke Walker]

Solar Wind At 50-Year Low: NASA

By

WASHINGTON — Data from the Ulysses spacecraft, a joint NASA-European Space Agency mission, show the sun has reduced its output of solar wind to the lowest levels since accurate readings became available. The sun’s current state could reduce the natural shielding that envelops our solar system.”The sun’s million mile-per-hour solar wind inflates a protective bubble, or heliosphere, around the solar system. It influences how things work here on Earth and even out at the boundary of our solar system where it meets the galaxy,” said Dave McComas, Ulysses’ solar wind instrument principal investigator and senior executive director at the Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio. “Ulysses data indicate the solar wind’s global pressure is the lowest we have seen since the beginning of the space age.”

 

The sun’s solar wind plasma is a stream of charged particles ejected from the sun’s upper atmosphere. The solar wind interacts with every planet in our solar system. It also defines the border between our solar system and interstellar space. 

 

This border, called the heliopause, surrounds our solar system where the solar wind’s strength is no longer great enough to push back the wind of other stars. The region around the heliopause also acts as a shield for our solar system, warding off a significant portion of the cosmic rays outside the galaxy.”Galactic cosmic rays carry with them radiation from other parts of our galaxy,” said Ed Smith, NASA’s Ulysses project scientist at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif. “With the solar wind at an all-time low, there is an excellent chance the heliosphere will diminish in size and strength. If that occurs, more galactic cosmic rays will make it into the inner part of our solar system.” 

 

Galactic cosmic rays are of great interest to NASA. Cosmic rays are linked to engineering decisions for unmanned interplanetary spacecraft and exposure limits for astronauts traveling beyond low-Earth orbit.

 

In 2007, Ulysses made its third rapid scan of the solar wind and magnetic field from the sun’s south to north pole. When the results were compared with observations from the previous solar cycle, the strength of the solar wind pressure and the magnetic field embedded in the solar wind were found to have decreased by 20 percent. The field strength near the spacecraft has decreased by 36 percent. 

 

“The sun cycles between periods of great activity and lesser activity,” Smith said. “Right now, we are in a period of minimal activity that has stretched on longer than anyone anticipated.”Ulysses was the first mission to survey the space environment over the sun’s poles. Data Ulysses has returned have forever changed the way scientists view our star and its effects. The venerable spacecraft has lasted more than 18 years, or almost four times its expected mission lifetime. The Ulysses solar wind findings were published in a recent edition of Geophysical Research Letters.

 

The Ulysses spacecraft was carried into Earth orbit aboard space shuttle Discovery on Oct. 6, 1990. From Earth orbit it was propelled toward Jupiter, passing the planet on Feb. 8, 1992. Jupiter’s immense gravity bent the spacecraft’s flight path downward and away from the plane of the planets’ orbits. This placed Ulysses into a final orbit around the sun that would take it over its north and south poles. 

 

********************* 

 

Researchers at the Danish National Space Centre claim cosmic rays can influence the Earth’s climate through their effect on cloud formation.   Earlier this year I reported on a lecture that I attended given by Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen, the Centre’s Director.

Why Do Most Climate Skeptics Accept ‘The Consensus’ that Humans are the Principal Source of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Levels? (Part 1)

By

 

WE have all heard about the rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide.   Along with most people, I have accepted that this is mostly due to the burning of fossil fuels.  After-all, this is the accepted view, even for most so-called climate change skeptics.

 

But there is evidence indicating that most of the increase in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide could be from natural sources.    

So, asks Alan Siddons from Holden, Massachusetts, why do most climate skeptics tacitly and even explicitly accept that man is the culprit?  

Let’s consider some of the available evidence. 

1.  Carbon dioxide concentrations have been measured at Mauna Loa in the Pacific Ocean since 1957 and over this period have shown a general increase.

 

2.  Over this period there has been a general increase in global temperatures.

 

3.  The change in carbon dioxide concentration with time correlates better with temperature change than with change in human carbon dioxide emissions (see Figures 2 and 3 @ Roy Spencer on how Oceans are Driving Carbon Dioxide,  Watts Up with That, January 25, 2008).

 

4.  Large interannual fluctuations in Mauna Loa-derived carbon dioxide “emissions” roughly coincide with El Nino and La Nina events (see Figure 3, ibid)

 

5.  There is a clear and strong relationship between levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and long-term average sea-surface temperatures as would be expected from the solubility curves for carbon dioxide in water at various temperatures and pressures (see Figure 1 @ Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Levels Follow Sea Surface Temperatures, Jennifer Marohasy.com/blog, September 16, 2007)

 

6.   Current carbon cycle flux estimates indicate that the annual carbon dioxide exchange between the surface and the atmosphere amounts to 20% to 30% of the total amount in the atmosphere. 

 

7.   Natural processes remove an order of magnitude more than the annual increase in carbon dioxide each year, then put it back again.

 

8.    Human generated carbon dioxide is around 3% of the total carbon dioxide flux.

 

9.  The isotope ratio difference between ‘natural’ carbon dioxide and carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels is small and not a reliable indication of the source of an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (see Spencer Part2: More CO2 Peculiarities – The C13/C12 Isotope Ratio, Watts Up With That? January 28, 2008)

 

***********************

The above nine points are drawn in part from posts by Roy Spencer at blog site ‘Watt’s Up with That?’ on January 25 and 28, 2008 and also a post by Lance Endersbee at JenniferMarohasy.com/blog on September 16, 2007.

Thanks to Alan Siddons for the discussion and the slide, which is from a Lord Monckton lecture. 

Bankrupt Lehman Brothers Promoted ‘Global Warming’ (Part 2)

By

 

The now bankrupt investment bank Lehman Brothers invested heavily in the politics of global warming and were hoping to make millions out of emissions trading.   In an earlier blog post entitled ‘Bankrupt Lehman Brothers Promoted Global Warming’ I suggested this was part of their undoing.   According to Graham Young the issue is not specific to Lehman Brothers, or global warming, but rather systemic, and it has everything to do with computers and modelling.

“In the real estate investment and development industry computer models never really took over. Valuation practice meant that valuers had to check their calculations by using at least two, and preferably three methods for comparison. Cost of construction and direct market comparisons didn’t negate computerised discounted cashflow models, but they did mean banks wouldn’t lend to you on the digital blue-sky valuations. The models might be right, but few lenders were prepared to risk their shirts on them.

 

“I know I soon realised that if it didn’t work on the back of an envelope, then making it work with a computer program was very dangerous.

 

“The same thing can’t be said for equity and credit markets, where asset pricing models for risk have taken over at the large ticket end of things. Which brings us to the sub-prime mess.

 

“Even though a cursory explanation of how the mortgage packages were structured sounds daft, the models said that they were fine. GIGO (garbage in garbage out) is the technical term for this. And the models were so complex, and the products they were used to produce so opaque, that no-one really knew the full risks of what they were “investing” in.

 

“And at the bottom of the pile, making all of this possible with abstract computerised models, were undoubtedly a lot of physics and maths graduates.

 

Which is pretty much where we are with climate change.”

 

Read more here:

http://ambit-gambit.nationalforum.com.au/archives/003396.html

 

 

*****************

Don’t forget there is a community thread at this blog.  Breaking news over there includes the retirement of Don Burke as chair of the Australian Environment Foundation.

https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/blog/2008/09/don-burke-retires-as-chair-of-the-australian-environment-foundation/

Don Burke Retires as Chair of the Australian Environment Foundation

By

 

Don Burke, best known for his TV program ‘Burke’s Backyard’, recently retired as chair of the Australian Environment Foundation (AEF).  He was at the helm of the organisation for three years and will continue to be a great ambassador for the environment. 

As a practical environmentalist, it is not surprising that as Chair the AEF Don took a particular interest in the issue of woody weeds, visited western NSW on behalf of the AEF and did numerous radio and print media interviews on this topic. 

 

Don also visited Tasmania in support of the pulp mill recognising it represents world’s best practice, spoke in support of waste water recycling for Toowoomba recognising water is precious and recycling sensible for a growing inland city, and of course was an advocate for nuclear power as the only carbon-neutral source of reliable base-load power available at this point in our history.  

 

The moratoria on genetically modified crops were lifted in Victoria and NSW earlier in the year.  Don is a staunch supporter of GM technology and spoke in favour of GM crops and the clear environmental benefits from their use.

 

The AEF may not have made a particularly large splash on any one of these issues, but the organisation and in particular Don’s involvement was another important brick in the wall; progressing a reasoned evidence-based approach on these important issues.

 

I am a founding member and director of the AEF and at a recent board meeting I agreed to take over as Acting Chair. 

 

Our annual conference and AGM is just a few weeks away.  The theme for this year’s AEF conference which will be held in Canberra over the weekend of 11-12 October is ‘A climate for Change’.   Speakers specifically on this topic will include Stewart Franks, Bill Kininmonth, Bob Carter and Don Aitkin.

 

Why not join us and register for the conference http://www.aefweb.info/display/conference.html

 

Cheers,

Will Global Warming go the way of the Subprime Mortgage?

By

 

Canadians go to the polls on October 14, 2008; just before the US federal election.  Climate change was touted as a key election issue, but that was before the financial turmoil of the last couple of weeks. 

 

According to Roger Gibbins writing in the Calgary Herald, Canadians’ resolve on global warming has cooled with the economy.  Gibbins also commented that:  

 

“The bad economic news has been unrelenting in recent weeks and there is no doubt public support for aggressive action on climate change has wilted in the face of this barrage. With ongoing woes across the border, plunging stock markets, escalating fuel costs and growing uncertainty about Canada’s economic prospects, voter support for aggressive climate change action is weakening. It is hard to concentrate on a complex climate change policy debate when financial institutions are collapsing and RRSPs are evaporating.

 

“The argument that aggressive climate change action is essential for Canada’s economic prosperity is not holding in tough economic times. For the most part, Canadians are proving to be fair-weather climate change supporters.”

 

In Australia the Rudd Labor government is planning for the introduction of an emissions trading scheme in 2010.   The idea is to go with emissions trading rather than for example, a carbon tax, as the market is claimed to be the best place to sort out what the price of carbon should ultimately be, etcetera.  

 

But I can’t see how the whole scheme is anything more than a crock, as the carbon market is entirely a creation of government regulation and therefore totally artificial.

 

Sure there will be those who make money as middle men, brokers for schemes where industry pays for permits to emit carbon dioxide at so much a tonne, but it is artificial, perhaps as risky as a sub-prime mortgage?

 

Indeed, according to blogger and Professor Emeritus, Philip Stott:

 

“With a world likely to cool during the next decade, with a world economy set in austere mode, and with the new politics of China, India, Brazil, and the rest, Big Global Warming’s boom days are surely coming to an end.

“Global warming’ is sub-prime science, sub-prime economics, and sub-prime politics, and it could well go down with the sub-prime mortgage.”

Here’s hoping that all this happens, before too much more damage is done.