Climate & Climate Change

Hi Jennifer,

Following on from the discussion at ‘Carbon Dioxide versus Temperature’ I have done two plots first is the normalises annual mean CO2 growth rate with annual fossil fuel usage the second is normalised CO2 mean growth rate compared with sea surface mean temperature anomalies.

First FYI the provenance of the data in some the actual data is ftp and current that causes safari to crash the links to actual data are in the page.

For fossil fuel usage: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_glob.htm

For mean annual growth rate of CO2: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

For mean annual sea surface temperature: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/#datdow

The covariance for this is .63. The motivation for comparing annual growth rate with usage is that if there is a relationship the difference if any will be due to what is actually put into the atmosphere this assumes (quite wrongly of course) that all the other sources and sinks are inactive. So the caveat here is there will be much more actually influencing CO2 concentrations and the correlation could well be meaningless or due to common factors if there is indeed a link. Bottom line is that apart from the general trend (which leads to the relatively high covariance) the growth rate varies much more than growth in usage and the CO2 peaks and troughs don’t match and I expect that if the data is detrended the covariance will be much smaller. I don’t have time to check this as I have to finish packing and putting stuff out for council clean up.

This has a better covariance of .73 (correlation is the same) but as I suspected we don’t see any lag. This is because there is a single data point at each year for each series and any lag less than year is likely to be completely obliterated. Since the CO2 levels have an annual cycle superimposed on the long term trend any such lag will be buried in the “noise”. However we do have a physical (chemical) link with partial pressure of atmospheric CO2 and concentration in solution that is also temperature sensitive this needs more work than I have time for at the moment. There is however this http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html . Where he plots concentration versus temperature difference from the vostok ice core, below I plot temperature versus concentration difference which is better I don’t know yet and I did it this way because that’s the way I had the data loaded I’ll look more closely when I get back [from Bellengen].

Looks similar to Jeffry Glasman’s maybe it makes no difference but I’ll have to convince my self of that on.

Cheers,
Jan Pompe

The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change is the first major international conference to focus on issues and questions not answered by advocates of the theory of man-made global warming.

Hundreds of scientists, economists, and public policy experts from around the world will gather on March 2-4, 2008, at the Marriott New York Marquis Hotel on Manhattan’s Time Square, to call attention to widespread dissent in the scientific community to the alleged “consensus” that the modern warming is primarily man-made and is a crisis.

——————————————————————————————————–
UPDATE

I was a delegate at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change, March 2-4, 2008, New York City.
You can read some of my blog posts on the conference at the following links:

March 03, 2008
Climate Change Conference, New York – Day 1, In Review
https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/blog/archives/002809.html

March 04, 2008
Climate Change Conference, New York – Day 2, In Review
https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/blog/archives/002813.html

March 06, 2008
Climate Change Conference, New York – Day 3, In Review
https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/blog/archives/002820.html
—————————————————————————————————————-

The debate over whether human activity is responsible for some or all of the modern warming, and then what to do if our presence on Earth is indeed affecting the global climate, has enormous consequences for everyone in virtually all parts of the globe. Proposals to drive down human greenhouse gas emissions by raising energy costs or imposing draconian caps could dramatically affect the quality of life of people in developed countries, and, due to globalization, the lives of people in less-developed countries too.

The global warming debate that the public and policymakers usually see is one-sided, dominated by government scientists and government organizations agenda-driven to find data that suggest a human impact on climate and to call for immediate government action, if only to fund their own continued research, but often to achieve political agendas entirely unrelated to the science of climate change. There is another side, but in recent years it has been denied a platform from which to speak.

The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change promises to be an exciting event and the point of departure for future conferences, publications, and educational campaigns to present both sides of this important topic.

The goals of the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change are:

1. to bring together the world’s leading scientists, economists, and policy experts to explain the often-neglected “other side” of the climate change debate;

2. to sponsor presentations and papers that make genuine contributions to the global debate over climate change;

3. to share the results of the conference with policymakers, civic and business leaders, and the interested public as an antidote to the one-sided and alarmist bias that pervades much of the current public policy debate; and

4. to set the groundwork for future conferences and publications that can turn the debate toward sound science and economics, and away from hype and political manipulation.

The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change is the first major international conference questioning global warming alarmism, but it will not be the last one. This event is intended to be a catalyst for future meetings, collaboration among scientists, economists, and policy experts, new research, and new publications.

The proceedings will be transcribed, edited, and published as a major contribution to the debate over global warming. Other possible follow-up activities now being discussed include:

1. an event in London in 2009;

2. launch of a new journal devoted to climate change;

3. launch of an association of philanthropists willing to support further research and public education opposing global warming alarmism;

4. support for an International Climate Science Coalition that will act as an alternative voice to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; and

5. expanded cooperation among the scores of organizations currently sponsoring research, publications, and events on the dubious claims in support of the theory of man-made catastrophic global warming.

James M. Taylor
Senior Fellow
The Heartland Institute

For more information visit: http://www.heartland.org/NewYork08/program.cfm

I will be there.

—————–
UPDATE

I was a delegate at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change, March 2-4, 2008, New York City.
You can read some of my blog posts on the conference at the following links:

February 25, 2008
The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change: I’m off to New York
https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/blog/archives/002787.html

March 03, 2008
Climate Change Conference, New York – Day 1, In Review
https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/blog/archives/002809.html

March 04, 2008
Climate Change Conference, New York – Day 2, In Review
https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/blog/archives/002813.html

March 06, 2008
Climate Change Conference, New York – Day 3, In Review
https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/blog/archives/002820.html

According to Lance Endersbee:

The CO2 levels in the atmosphere are damped by the oceans.

The oceans are a huge source and sink for volatile gases.

The surface area of the oceans is vast in relation to the depth of the oceans and the atmosphere.

Thus we are dealing with a surface phenomenon.

The above chart is an actual experience curve relating actual CO2 levels with actual global average sea surface temperatures.

It is not a time scale, just the simple relation between two physical parameters.

The line is made up of the succession of actual monthly plotted points.

If we have regard to the possible errors of measurement of CO2 and SST, it is remarkably consistent.

The clear relationship is what would be expected from solubility data.

It is only evident in the temperature data from satellite sources.

The 21 year moving average covers the double solar cycle, including the change in solar polarity.

It also covers El Nino and La Nina events. It also recognizes the longer response time of the oceans.

This chart proves that human emissions of CO2 cannot accumulate in the atmosphere.

They are scavenged as they occur.

We can use the chart to predict the decreased levels of CO2 that will result from cooling.

From Joe D’Aleo:

Below is the monthly Hadley land and ocean and UAH MSU LT temperatures over the last decade with the CO2. Note the temperatures have not warmed, something even IPCC’s Pachauri took note of (paraphrasing him – as for the plateauing of temperatures in recent years, we have to see if there are natural factors offsetting greenhouse gases).

Note the correlation with CO2 has vanished the last decade for both data sets.

Updated graph above:

The reasons some years appeared 3 times and some 2 in the originally posted graph was that I inadvertently choose an interval of 5 months instead of 6 months. It is fixed in the new graph.

As for Ian Mott’s comments, I started with 1998 which was 10 years ago to get a decadal plot. The last data point was January 2008 which is why 2008 appears at the end.

Aside from the brief bounce coming out of the moderate/strong La Nina of 1999, there has been no increase despite the steady climb of CO2. If we were nearing that ‘tipping point’ Hansen and Gore love to talk about, surely, a decade is not too short a period to expect some thermal response to CO2 increases.

Joe D’Aleo

The debate over whether there is an observable link between global warming and hurricanes rumbles on.

In this week’s Nature journal there is a comment and reply arising from Nyberg et al, Nature 447, 698-701 (7 June 2007):

Low Atlantic hurricane activity in the 1970s and 1980s compared to the past 270 years:

Hurricane activity in the North Atlantic Ocean has increased significantly since 1995 (refs 1, 2). This trend has been attributed to both anthropogenically induced climate change(3) and natural variability(1), but the primary cause remains uncertain. Changes in the frequency and intensity of hurricanes in the past can provide insights into the factors that influence hurricane activity, but reliable observations of hurricane activity in the North Atlantic only cover the past few decades(2). Here we construct a record of the frequency of major Atlantic hurricanes over the past 270 years using proxy records of vertical wind shear and sea surface temperature (the main controls on the formation of major hurricanes in this region1, 3, 4, 5) from corals and a marine sediment core. The record indicates that the average frequency of major hurricanes decreased gradually from the 1760s until the early 1990s, reaching anomalously low values during the 1970s and 1980s. Furthermore, the phase of enhanced hurricane activity since 1995 is not unusual compared to other periods of high hurricane activity in the record and thus appears to represent a recovery to normal hurricane activity, rather than a direct response to increasing sea surface temperature. Comparison of the record with a reconstruction of vertical wind shear indicates that variability in this parameter primarily controlled the frequency of major hurricanes in the Atlantic over the past 270 years, suggesting that changes in the magnitude of vertical wind shear will have a significant influence on future hurricane activity.

The comment is from Urs Neu: Is recent major hurricane activity normal?

The first paragraph reads:

Arising from: Nyberg et al. Nature 447, 698–701 (2007);

The anomaly of the recent increase in Atlantic major hurricane activity (MHA) is controversial. From a reconstruction of past MHA, Nyberg et al. conclude that the present activity is not unusual by comparison with that of the past 270 years. However, here I estimate the uncertainty of average MHA in the hurricane record before 1945 and show that the reconstruction of Nyberg et al. differs strongly from that record, and probably overestimates past MHA. Owing to this and further reasons, I question whether their reconstruction provides an accurate basis for conclusions about past MHA.

Nyberg et al reply:

Neu suggests that the reconstruction of Atlantic major hurricane activity (MHA) (that is, frequency) in Nyberg et al. overestimates past MHA because it differs significantly from the known observational records of tropical storms and MHA before 1945 and overestimates the influence of vertical windshear |Vz|.

Nyberg et al point out that:

“Neu’s record shows a sudden rise in MHA around 1944, coincident with the start of aircraft reconnaissance, which allowed much better monitoring of tropical cyclones. Also, according to ref. 4, the undercount bias is up to six tropical cyclones per year between 1851 and 1885, and up to four per year between 1886 and 1910. These biases are higher than the ones Neu(1) uses in his record of major hurricane numbers. Furthermore, to quote from ref. 4, ‘‘conclusions from this paper on the number of missed tropical cyclones are likely conservative’’. Moreover, MHA shows a stronger variability, closely correlated to [Vz](ref. 2), than tropical storms and non-major hurricanes in the reliable record(1–3), indicating a varying MHA/tropical storm ratio back in time.”

and conclude:

“The proxies used in ref. 2 reflect the region where almost all Atlantic major hurricanes form (see Fig. 2 of ref. 2), and the nonlinear solution(2) allows for varying MHAin response to [Vz] and other influences such as SSTs. Absolute MHA values may change slightly given different model calibrations, but the proxies(2) still indicate a declining trend in MHA until the early 1990s superimposed on decadal and multi-decadal variability and that the conclusions in Nyberg et al(2) remain.”

1. Neu, U. Is recent major hurricane activity normal? Nature 451, doi: 10.1038/
nature06576 (2008).
2. Nyberg, J. et al. Low Atlantic hurricane activity in the 1970s and 1980s compared to
the past 270 years. Nature 447, 698–701 (2007).
2. Best track data of the NOAA National Hurricane Center (HURDAT). Æhttp://
www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/Data_Storm.htmlæ (data used as published 11 June
2007). (Hurricane Research Division, US National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration.)
4. Landsea, C. W. Counting Atlantic tropical cyclones back to 1900. Eos 18, 197–208
(2007).
5. Landsea, C. W. et al. in Hurricanes and Typhoons: Past, Present and Future (eds
Murname, R. J. & Liu, K.-B.) 177–221 (Columbia Univ. Press, New York, 2004).
6. Swanson, K. L. Impact of scaling behavior on tropical cyclone intensities. Geophys. Res.
Lett. 34, L18815 (2007).
7. Miller, D. L. et al. Tree-ring isotope records of tropical cyclone activity. Proc. Natl Acad.
Sci. USA 103, 14294–14297 (2006).
8. George, S. E. & Saunders, M. A. North Atlantic oscillation impact on tropical north
Atlantic winter atmospheric variability. Geophys. Res. Lett. 28, 1015–1018 (2001).
9. Aiyyer, A. R. & Thorncroft, T. Climatology of vertical wind shear over the tropical
Atlantic. J. Clim. 19, 2969–2983 (2006).
10. Giannini, A., Cane, M. A. & Kushnir, Y. Interdecadal changes in the ENSO
teleconnection to the Caribbean region and the North Atlantic Oscillation. J. Clim. 14,
2867–2879 (2001).
11. Jury, M., Malmgren, B. A. & Winter, A. Subregional precipitation climate of the
Caribbean and relationships with ENSO and NAO. J. Geophys. Res. 112, D16107
(2007).
12. Hoerling, M. P., Hurrell, J. W. & Xu, T. Tropical origins for recent North Atlantic
climate change. Science 292, 90–92 (2001).
13. Osborn, T. N. et al. Evaluation of the North Atlantic oscillation as simulated by a
coupled climate model. Clim. Dyn. 15, 685–702 (1999).

A subscription to Nature is required in order to view the complete comment, reply and original article.

UPDATE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – February 21, 2008

*** NEWS FROM NOAA ***
NATIONAL OCEANIC & ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE WASHINGTON, DC
Contact: Dennis Feltgen, NOAA 305-229-4404

Increased Hurricane Losses Due to More People, Wealth Along Coastlines, Not Stronger Storms, New Study Says
A team of scientists have found that the economic damages from hurricanes have increased in the U.S. over time due to greater population, infrastructure, and wealth on the U.S. coastlines, and not to any spike in the number or intensity of hurricanes.

“We found that although some decades were quieter and less damaging in the U.S. and others had more land-falling hurricanes and more damage, the economic costs of land-falling hurricanes have steadily increased over time,” said Chris Landsea, one of the researchers as well as the science and operations officer at NOAA’s National Hurricane Center in Miami. “There is nothing in the U.S. hurricane damage record that indicates global warming has caused a significant increase in destruction along our coasts.”

Full paper:

Normalized Hurricane Damage in the United States: 1900–2005

Roger A. Pielke Jr.1; Joel Gratz2; Christopher W. Landsea3; Douglas Collins4; Mark A. Saunders5; and
Rade Musulin6

Releasing his Interim Report in Adelaide [Australia] today, Professor Ross Garnaut who was appointed by the new Labor government to provide policy advice on climate change, said that Australia should
promote strong global action on climate change and be prepared to match the commitments of
other developed nations.

The Executive Summary states:

This Interim Report seeks to provide a flavour of early findings from the work of the Review,
to share ideas on work in progress as a basis for interaction with the Australian community,
and to indicate the scope of the work programme through to the completion of the Review.
There are some important areas of the Review’s work that are barely touched upon in the
Interim Report, which will feature prominently in the final reports. Adaptation to climate
change, energy efficiency and the distribution of the costs of climate change across
households and regions are amongst the prominent omissions from this presentation.
Many views put forward in this Interim Report represent genuinely interim judgements. The
Review looks forward to feedback from interested people before formulating
recommendations for the final reports.

Developments in mainstream scientific opinion on the relationship between emissions
accumulations and climate outcomes, and the Review’s own work on future “business as
usual” global emissions, suggest that the world is moving towards high risks of dangerous
climate change more rapidly than has generally been understood. This makes mitigation
more urgent and more costly. At the same time, it makes the probable effects of unmitigated
climate change more costly, for Australia and for the world.

The largest source of increased urgency is the unexpectedly high growth of the world
economy in the early twenty-first century, combined with unexpectedly high energy intensity
of that growth and continuing reliance on high-emissions fossil fuels as sources of energy.
These developments are associated with strong economic growth in the developing world,
first of all in China. The stronger growth has strong momentum and is likely to continue. It is
neither desirable nor remotely feasible to seek to remove environmental pressures through
diminution of the aspirations of the world’s people for higher material standards of living. The
challenge is to end the linkage between economic growth and emissions of greenhouse
gases.

Australia’s interest lies in the world adopting a strong and effective position on climate
change mitigation. This interest is driven by two realities of Australia’s position relative to
other developed countries: our exceptional sensitivity to climate change: and our exceptional
opportunity to do well in a world of effective global mitigation. Australia playing its full part in
international efforts on climate change can have a positive effect on global outcomes. The
direct effects of Australia’s emissions reduction efforts are of secondary importance.
Australia has an important role to play alongside its international partners in establishing a
realistic approach to global mitigation. Australia can contribute to the development of clear
international understandings on the four components of a successful framework for global
mitigation: setting the right global objectives for reduction of the risk of dangerous climate
change; converting this into a goal for stabilisation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at
a specified level; calculating the amount of additional emissions that can be emitted into the
atmosphere over a specified number of years if stabilisation of atmospheric concentrations is
to be achieved at the desired level; and developing principles for allocating a limited global
emissions budget among countries.

Australia should make firm commitments in 2008, to 2020 and 2050 emissions targets that
embody similar adjustment cost to that accepted by other developed countries. A lead has
been provided by the European Union, and there are reasonable prospects that the United
States will become part of the main international framework after the November 2008
elections. Some version of the current State and Federal targets of 60 per cent reduction by
2050, with appropriate interim targets, would meet these requirements.

Download and read the full report here: http://www.garnautreview.org.au/CA25734E0016A131/pages/reports-and-papers

Philosopher Karl Popper claimed in his book ‘The Logic of Scientific Discovery’ that a hypothesis, proposition or theory is scientific only if it is falsifiable:

“Logically, no number of positive outcomes at the level of experimental testing can confirm a scientific theory, but a single counterexample is logically decisive: it shows the theory, from which the implication is derived, to be false. Popper’s account of the logical asymmetry between verification and falsifiability lies at the heart of his philosophy of science.”

It seems that whatever happens in the climate system is consistent with climate model predictions. Warmer, colder, less ice, more ice, droughts, floods, more hurricanes, less hurricanes, stronger hurricanes, weaker hurricanes, and so on.

An recent example from the media:

Cold wave in India attributed to global warming

Mumbai: The recent cold wave sweeping across Mumbai and other parts of India could be attributed to global warming, experts said on Tuesday here at an environmental conference.

Would the observed mid-troposphere warming of less than the 2 to 3 times increase over surface warming predicted by climate models represent falsification? Or would a prolonged period of global cooling do the job?

So, what event or observation, or series of events/observations over what timescale are required to falsify the climate modelled hypothesis of CO2 driven climate change or global warming?

This post was inspired by a couple of blog posts over at Prometheus:

The Consistent-With Game: On Climate Models and the Scientific Method

Climate Model Predictions and Adaptation

Serious answers to a serious question, please.