Archives de catégorie : climate-debate

How geologic forces are melting southern Greenland ice sheet

by J.E. Kamis, May 25, 2016 in ClimateChangeDispatch


The most plausible scenario for southern Greenland’s surface ice melt is related to geologically induced heat flow and not atmospheric warming for various, well-established reasons. Based on research by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (see here), the top surface of southern Greenland’s ice sheet is currently melting at a high rate and therefore greatly reducing surface ice volume. They attribute this geographically localized melting effect to an unusually persistent and man-made atmospheric high pressure system (a so-called Omega Block) that has remained stationary above southern Greenland during the spring of 2016.

This non-moving high-pressure system has trapped a cell of very warm air above southern Greenland resulting in higher-than-normal surface ice melting rates and volumes. NOAA and the mainstream media are portraying this above-average melting as undeniable proof man-made global warming damaging our planet.

This portrayal is vastly misleading.

That’s because southern Greenland’s surface ice melt is more likely caused by natural, geologically induced heat flow from one of Earth’s largest Deep Ocean crustal plate junctures, the 10,000 mile long Mid-Atlantic Ridge (MAR). The Mid-Atlantic Ridge is “an immensely long mountain chain extending for about 10,000 miles (16,000 km) in a curving path from the Arctic Ocean to near the southern tip of Africa. The ridge is equidistant between the continents on either side of it. The mountains forming the ridge reach a width of 1,000 miles.”

Now 20 years with no trend in ice breakup dates for Western Hudson Bay polar bears

by Polar Bear Science, June  26, 2019


Straight from the horse’s mouth: all polar bear females tagged by researchers around Churchill in Western Hudson Bay last year were still on the ice as of 25 June. With plenty of ice still remaining over the bay, spring breakup will be no earlier this year than it has been since 1999. Contrary to predictions of ever-declining ice cover, the lack of a trend in sea ice breakup dates for Western Hudson Bay is now twenty years long (a hiatus, if you will) and yet these bears are repeatedly claimed to have been seriously harmed in recent years by a loss of sea ice.

 

Adjusted “Unadjusted” Data: NASA Uses The “Magic Wand Of Fudging”, Produces Warming Where There Never Was

by P. Gosselin, June 25, 2019 in NoTricksZone


By Kirye
and Pierre Gosselin

It’s been long known that NASA GISS has been going through its historical temperature data archives and erasing old temperature measurements and replacing them with new, made up figures without any real legitimate reason.

This practice has led to the formation of new datasets called “adjusted” data, with the old datasets being called “V3 unadjusted”. The problem for global warming activists, however, was that when anyone looks at the old “V3 unadjusted” – i.e. untampered data – they often found a downward linear temperature trend. Such negative trends of course are an embarrassment for global warming alarmists, who have been claiming the planet is warming up rapidly.

The adjusted “unadjusted” data

So what to do? Well, it seems that NASA has decided to adjust its “V3 unadjusted datasets” and rename them as “V4 unadjusted”. That’s right, the adjusted data has become the new V4 “unadjusted” data.

And what kind of trend does the new “V4 unadjusted” data show?

You guessed it. The new V4 unadjusted data are now yielding warmed up trends, even at places where a cooling trend once existed.

This is how NASA uses its magic wand of fudging to turn past cooling into (fake) warming.

6 examples of scandalous mischief by NASA

What follows are 6 examples, scattered across the globe and going back decades, which demonstrate this scandalous mischief taking place at NASA.

No. 1

Punta Arenas, Chile. Here we see how a clear cooling trend has been warmed up by NASA to produce a slight cooling trend:

 

giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v3

giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v4

Greenland ice loss projections are clouded by clouds

by Brooks Hays, June 24, 2019 in UPI


June 24 (UPI) — Predicting where, how and how quickly Greenland’s ice will melt is difficult. Projections by the best models are cloudy, and new research suggests clouds are doing the clouding.

Currently, models of Greenland’s melting ice sheet put the greatest emphasis on the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions. But new research, published this week in the journal Nature Climate Change, suggests the microphysics of clouds are equally important.

 

Under high emission scenarios, the uncertainties of Greenland ice sheet models are caused almost entirely by the uncertainties of cloud dynamics.

Cloud cover dictates the ice sheet’s longwave radiation exposure. When clouds over Greenland are thicker, they operate like an insulating blanket, encouraging longwave radiation and surface-level melting.

Climate science’s ‘masking bias’ problem

by Judith Curry, June 22, 2019 in WUWT


How valid conclusions often lay hidden within research reports, masked by plausible but unjustified conclusions reached in those reports.  And how the IPCC institutionalizes such masking errors in climate science.

In the previous post, we discussed the motivated biases of individual climate researchers, stimulated by the paper by Lee Jussim, Joe Duarte and others entitled Interpretations and methods: Towards a more self-correcting social psychology

The Jussim et al. paper provides additional insights that are relevant to the motivated biases in climate change, which become particularly serious and problematic once these biases are institutionalized. Here are additional excerpts from Jussim et al. for the topic I would like to discuss in this post:

<begin quotes>

“In this paper, we consider how valid conclusions often lay hidden within research reports, masked by plausible but unjustified conclusions reached in those reports. These conclusions do not necessarily involve the use of questionable research practices. Invalid conclusions may be reached based, not on failing to report dropped conditions, failed studies, or nonsignificant analyses, but on selective interpretations of data that highlight researchers’ preferred conclusions while masking more valid ones.”

JC comment: This is basically the problem that I have with the IPCC assessment reports. Deep in the chapters, there is much good information that is reliable, although the reports relatively ignore some topics. The problem is with the conclusions that are reached (particularly in the Summary for Policy Makers), and inflated levels of confidence that are ascribed to these conclusions.

Current Solar Cycle Will Be First To Finish Below Normal In 80 Years, Weakest In Close To 200 Years

by F. Bosse & F. Vahrenbolt, June 22, 2019 in NoTricksZone


In May 2019 our sun was below-normal active again. The solar sunspot number (SSN) was 10.1, which is only 52% of the mean value in the evaluated cycle month no. 126 since the start of Cycle No. 24 began in December 2008.

It should be noted that the number of cycles that lasted this long is decreasing. In the previous month we reported on cycles 21, 18, 16, 15, 8 dropping out because they were shorter in total, and now SC 17 is getting added. Next month month SC 7 is will fall as well. The mean value thus becomes less meaningful as the end of the cycle approaches. But out of habit, we want to keep it nevertheless as comparison.

The activity in the past month was shifted very asymmetrically to the solar northern hemisphere, the southern hemisphere was spotless throughout the whole month. The solar north saw spots only on 15 days.

 

Fig. 2: Sunspot activity of the individual cycles since the beginning of cycle 1 in the year 1755. The numbers are computed by adding up the monthly differences of the observed cycles to the mean value, up to the current cycle month no. 126.

 

Sun spotless for 33 days straight – airline travelers getting dosed with up to 70 times more radiation

by A. Watts, June 21, 2019 in WUWT


Are we in a solar grand minimum? We’ve seen this before, but now predictions are for an extremely weak solar cycle ahead.

Today is the summer solstice in the northern hemisphere. The sun has been without a single observable sunspot now for over a month – 33 days according to NOAA and SIDC data.

 

Daily observations of the number of sunspots since 1 January 1977 according to Solar Influences Data Analysis Center (SIDC). The thin blue line indicates the daily sunspot number, while the dark blue line indicates the running annual average. The recent low sunspot activity is clearly reflected in the recent low values for the total solar irradiance. Compare also with the geomagnetic Ap-index. Data source: WDC-SILSO, Royal Observatory of Belgium, Brussels. Last day shown: 31 May 2019. Last diagram update: 1 June 2019 . [Courtesy climate4you.com]

..

CARTE BLANCHE : Faut-il céder à l’hystérie climatique?

by Yves Lahaye, 21 juin 2019 in ScienceClimatEnergie


En pleine effervescence sur la question climatique, je reste dubitatif en considérant quelques faits avérés qui ne me paraissent pas aller dans le sens proclamé par la doctrine officielle. Je m’interroge également sur des affirmations qui me paraissent relever davantage de l’idéologie que de la science.

Bien sûr, je ne suis pas scientifique. Pour beaucoup, c’est déjà suffisant pour m’interdire d’exprimer un avis sur le sujet ou, mieux, pour m’interdire de poser des questions. Car bien évidemment, tous les scientifiques, bien plus malins que moi, ne décrètent-ils que la fin du monde est proche ? Je n’aurais donc pas d’autre droit que celui de me conformer à la bonne parole sous peine d’être mis au ban de la société.

Ice Melting In Greenland? That’s What It Does In Summer

by P. Homewood, June 20, 2019 in NotaLotofPeopleKnowThat


The first thing to point out is that this is nothing to do with Greenland’s ice sheet, despite the misleading inference to that effect in the first paragraph. It is in fact fjord ice, which freezes every winter and melts every summer.

This year it is beginning to melt slightly earlier than usual, because of warm air moving up from the south. This is called “weather”, and has nothing to do with “global warming”.

As is noted, such weather is not unprecedented. Indeed, the temperature peak of 17.3C is not even unusual for Qaanaaq, where the record is set at 20C.

 

See also here

If “Greenland is catastrophically melting”, how do alarmists explain NASA’s growing Greenland glacier?

by A. Watts, June19, 2019 in WUWT


It turned out to be a weather event, unrelated to “climate change”. The next year, there was no “insta-melt“.

In fact. we’d not even know about the melting in Greenland before satellites came on the scene. So how many times in the history of the Earth has Greenland has a quick melt spike? I’m guessing hundreds of thousands of times.

Jakobshavn Glacier in western Greenland is notorious for being the world’s fastest-moving glacier. It is also one of the most active, discharging a tremendous amount of ice from the Greenland Ice Sheet into Ilulissat Icefjord and adjacent Disko Bay—with implications for sea level rise. The image above, acquired on June 6, 2019, by the Operational Land Imager (OLI) on Landsat 8, shows a natural-color view of the glacier.

Jakobshavn has spent decades in retreat—that is, until scientists observed an unexpected advance between 2016 and 2017. In addition to growing toward the ocean, the glacier was found to be slowing and thickening. New data collected in March 2019 confirm that the glacier has grown for the third year in a row, and scientists attribute the change to cool ocean waters.

June 6th, 2019 Jakobshavn Glacier in western Greenland . Image acquired on June 6, 2019, by the Operational Land Imager (OLI) on Landsat 8, shows a natural-color view of the glacier.

Consensus? 200+ New 2019 Papers Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarmism

by K. Richard, June17, 2019 in NoTricksZone


In the first 5½ months of 2019, over 200 scientific papers have been published that cast doubt on the position that anthropogenic CO2 emissions function as the climate’s fundamental control knob…or that otherwise serve to question the efficacy of climate models or the related “consensus” positions commonly endorsed by policymakers and ²²²²mainstream media sources.

 

These 200+ new papers affirm the position that there are significant limitations and uncertainties inherent in our understanding of climate and climate changes, emphasizing that climate science is not settled.

More specifically, the papers in this compilation support these four main skeptical positions — categorized here as N(1) – N(4) — which question climate alarm.

Dry Hot North German Summers Were More Common 1000 Years Ago, Scientists Report

by P. Gosselin, June 19, 2019 in NoTricksZone


Dry Summers Like 2018 Were Common in the Middle Ages

THE FUTILITY OF WESTERN DE-CARBONISATION

by Ed. Hoskins, June 18, 2019  in GWPF


It is clear that CO2 emissions are continuing to grow incrementally in the Developing World.  This should be anticipated to continue indefinitely.

2018 Global CO2 emissions

The following calculations and graphics are based on information on worldwide CO2 emissions published by BP in June 2019 for the period from 1965 up until the end of 2018.

The pie diagram above shows the proportion of CO2 emissions as of the end of 2018.

The previous post for the end of 2017 is available here

The data showing the progress of CO2 emissions by 2018 in the Developed and Developing worlds can be summarised as follows:

Earth system models underestimate carbon fixation by plants in the high latitudes

by From Nature Communications, June 18 in WUWT


Abstract

Most Earth system models agree that land will continue to store carbon due to the physiological effects of rising CO2 concentration and climatic changes favoring plant growth in temperature-limited regions. But they largely disagree on the amount of carbon uptake. The historical CO2 increase has resulted in enhanced photosynthetic carbon fixation (Gross Primary Production, GPP), as can be evidenced from atmospheric CO2 concentration and satellite leaf area index measurements. Here, we use leaf area sensitivity to ambient COfrom the past 36 years of satellite measurements to obtain an Emergent Constraint (EC) estimate of GPP enhancement in the northern high latitudes at two-times the pre-industrial CO2 concentration (3.4 ± 0.2 Pg C yr−1). We derive three independent comparable estimates from CO2 measurements and atmospheric inversions. Our EC estimate is 60% larger than the conventionally used multi-model average (44% higher at the global scale). This suggests that most models largely underestimate photosynthetic carbon fixation and therefore likely overestimate future atmospheric CO2 abundance and ensuing climate change, though not proportionately.

CO2, GLOBAL WARMING, CLIMATE AND ENERGY

by Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., P.Eng., June 2019 in WUWT


ABSTRACT

Global warming alarmism, which falsely assumes that increasing atmospheric CO2 causes catastrophic global warming, is disproved – essentially, it assumes that the future is causing the past. In reality, atmospheric CO2 changes lag global temperature changes at all measured time scales.

Nino34 Area Sea Surface Temperature changes, then tropical humidity changes, then atmospheric temperature changes, then CO2 changes.

The velocity dCO2/dt changes ~contemporaneously with global temperature changes and CO2 changes occur ~9 months later (MacRae 2008).

The process that causes the ~9-month average lag of CO2 changes after temperature changes is hypothesized and supported by observations.

The ~9-month lag, +/- several months, averages 1/4 of the full-period duration of the variable global temperature cycle, which averages ~3 years.

Based on the above observations, global temperatures drive atmospheric CO2 concentrations much more than CO2 drives temperature.

Climate sensitivity to increasing atmospheric CO2 must be very low, less than ~1C/(2*CO2) and probably much less.

There will be no catastrophic warming and no significant increase in chaotic weather due to increasing CO2 concentrations.

Increasing atmospheric CO2 clearly causes significantly improved crop yields, and may cause minor, beneficial global warming.

Atmospheric CO2 is not alarmingly high, it is too low for optimal plant growth and alarmingly low for the survival of carbon-based terrestrial life.

Other factors such as fossil fuel combustion, deforestation, etc may also increase atmospheric CO2. The increase of CO2 is clearly beneficial.

“Green energy” schemes are not green and produce little useful (dispatchable) energy, primarily because of the fatal flaw of intermittency.

There is no widely-available, cost-effective means of solving the flaw of intermittency in grid-connected wind and solar power generation.

Electric grids have been destabilized, electricity costs have soared and Excess Winter Deaths have increased due to green energy schemes.

HYPOTHESIS AND CONCLUSIONS

Fig.1a – The very close relationship of dCO2/dt (red) vs global temperature (blue) is clearly apparent. Major volcanoes disrupt the relationship.

Polar bear habitat update at mid-June: more than enough for survival

by Polar Bear Science, June 16, 2019


Here we are at the middle of June, when most polar bears are pretty much done with hunting seals for the season. And despite hand-wringing from some quarters, sea ice extent is down only marginally from average at this time of year and certainly not enough to impact polar bear survival.

Given the large expanse of open water in the Southern Beaufort so early in the season, one resident pessimist insists those polar bears are “challenged” by the lack of ice. If he is right, there should be reports of dozens upon dozens of skinny and dying bears along the coast of Alaska this summer. If not, he will pretend he never suggested any such thing.

So far, despite the early loss of ice in some regions, there have been no reports of polar bears ashore unusually early. Hudson Bay still has lots of thick first year ice, so despite the overall reduced Arctic ice coverage, none of the three Hudson Bay polar bear populations are facing the earlier-than-usual sea ice breakup this year as we keep being promised will show up. In fact, there hasn’t been a significantly early breakup in Western Hudson Bay since 2010 (see previous posts here and here).

Extremes

by Judith Curry, June14, 2019 in WUWT


Politics versus science in attributing extreme weather events to manmade global warming.

If you follow me on twitter, you may have noticed that I was scheduled to testify before the House Oversight and Reform Committee on Jun 12 [link].  The subject of the Hearing is Contending with Natural Disasters in the Wake of Climate Change.

Late on Jun 10, I received an email telling me that the Hearing is postponed (as yet unscheduled).  Apparently the Committee finds it more urgent to have a Hearing related to holding the Attorney General and Secretary of Commerce in contempt of Congress [link].  Interesting to ponder that Congressional procedural issues are deemed to be more important than Climate Change.

So I spent all last week working on my testimony (which is why there have been no new blog posts).  I hope the Hearing will eventually happen (Michael Mann is also scheduled to testify).

Hurricanes and climate change constitute a major portion of my testimony.  You may recall my recent series  on Hurricanes & climate change [link].  Specifically with regards to detection and attribution, my bottom line conclusion was:

“In summary, the trend signal in hurricane activity has not yet had time to rise above the background variability of natural processes. Manmade climate change may have caused changes in hurricane activity that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of these changes compared to estimated natural variability, or due to observational limitations. But at this point, there is no convincing evidence that manmade global warming has caused a change in hurricane activity.”

La croissance du CO2 dans l’atmosphère est-elle exclusivement anthropique? (1/2) et Effet Suess

by J.C. Maurin, 13 juin 2019 in ScienceClimatEnergie


Une croissance du COatmosphérique qui serait exclusivement anthropique est contradictoire avec les observations du carbone 13 dans l’atmosphère (ici). Cet article en 2 parties va montrer qu’il existe également des contradictions avec les observations du carbone 14. Celui-ci  est utilisé à des fins de datation jusqu’à 50 000 ans BP  (Before Present)et on dispose de nombreuses études (pour calibration) sur son évolution dans l’atmosphère.  


La première partie s’intéresse, non pas aux datations, mais à la dilution du carbone 14 que provoque l’ajout de COanthropique (effet SUESS)  avant les essais thermonucléaires de 1952-1963.
Dans la seconde partie nous verrons que l’évolution du carbone 14 après 1963 est aussi en contradiction avec une croissance du COexclusivement anthropique.

1. Le carbone dans l’atmosphère [1] [5]

Le carbone existe habituellement sous 3 formes isotopiques : 12C pour ≈ 98.9% , 13C pour ≈ 1.1 % et 14C à l’état de traces (Fig. 1a).

Figure 1a.  La seule différence entre COanthropique et COatmosphérique réside dans les proportions du mélange des isotopes: le COanthropique est appauvri en 13C et 14C.  L’ajout de COanthropique va modifier, au fil des années, les proportions du mélange isotopique dans l’atmosphère.

Study: Cattle Methane is a moooot point in global climate

by Anthony Watts, June 12, 2019 in WUWT


Via No Tricks Zone: Agrobiologist and scientific researcher Dr. Albrecht Glatzle, author of over 100 scientific papers and two textbooks, has published research that shows:

“…there is no scientific evidence, whatsoever, that domestic livestock could represent a risk for the Earth’s climate” and the “warming potential of anthropogenic GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions has been exaggerated.”

Glatzle, 2018

Domestic Livestock and ItsAlleged Role in Climate Change

Abstract:

“Our key conclusion is there is no need for anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs), and even less so for livestock-born emissions, to explain climate change. Climate has always been changing, and even the present warming is most likely driven by natural factors.

The warming potential of anthropogenic GHG emissions has been exaggerated, and the beneficial impacts of manmade CO2 emissions for nature, agriculture, and global food security have been systematically suppressed, ignored, or at least downplayed by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and other UN (United Nations) agencies.

Furthermore, we expose important methodological deficiencies in IPCC and FAO (Food Agriculture Organization) instructions and applications for the quantification of the manmade part of non-CO2-GHG emissions from agro-ecosystems.

However, so far, these fatal errors inexorably propagated through the scientific literature.

Finally, we could not find a clear domestic livestock fingerprint, neither in the geographical methane distribution nor in the historical evolution of mean atmospheric methane concentration.”

Ouragans en Atlantique : prévisions pour la saison 2019

by Regis Crepet, 2 juin 2019 in LaChaîneMétéo


Ces deux dernières années ont été marquées par une activité cyclonique supérieure aux moyennes statistiques en Atlantique Nord, notamment en 2017 avec des phénomènes puissants tels Irma et Maria dans les Caraïbes. Cette année, alors que la saison démarre officiellement le 1er juin, nos prévisions sont plus rassurantes avec la perspective d’une activité cyclonique légèrement plus faible que la moyenne.

 

En ce début d’été météorologique, la saison cyclonique débute dans l’Atlantique nord (les ouragans). Cette saison s’étend officiellement du 1er juin au 30 novembre, avec un pic d’activité d’août à octobre. Il est donc l’heure pour les différents organismes météo de la planète et les météorologues et climatologues de La Chaîne Météo de se pencher sur les prévisions de cette saison à venir.

En 2017, la saison dans l’océan Atlantique nord a figuré parmi les plus actives depuis le début des relevés, avec des phénomènes dévastateurs (Harvey, Irma ou encore Maria dans les Caraïbes). Comme 2017, la saison 2018 s’est située au-dessus des moyennes (calculées par la NOAA d’après la période 1981/2010). Cette dernière saison a présenté, pour l’Atlantique nord, 15 phénomènes cycloniques, avec 8 ouragans dont 2 qui ont atteint la catégorie 3 sur 5, qualifiés alors de “majeurs”.

Ending Fossil Fuels Would Bring The World Back To The Dark Ages

by Washington Times, June11, 2019 in ClimateChange Dispatch


German engineering, as good as it is, has not been able to eliminate the effect of “green” politics, which would replace fossil and nuclear power with renewables. The result is 172,000 localized blackouts in Germany in 2017.

Poverty was a constant companion of humanity until modern times. The proportion of people worldwide living in poverty was cut in half between 1990 and 2010, according to the World Bank, an achievement unprecedented in human history.

It was the result of a rapid boost in global energy production — up 43 percent during that period, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Nearly 81 percent of that power was generated by fossil fuels, such as oil and gas.

A billion people around the globe still suffer extreme energy poverty, with no access to electricity. Everyone gets a hint of what that means when storms knock out the power, and everything in the house stops.

Fumbling occasionally for candles is a mere inconvenience, but life beyond carbon — entirely dependent on sunshine and a breeze — would be insanity.

Why Climate Models Can’t Predict The Future (And Never Have)

by Jay Lehr, June 11, 2019 in Climate ChangeDispatch


SEE ALSO: Climate Models Of Incompetence

Consider the following: we do not know all the variables that control our climate, but we are quite sure they are likely in the hundreds.

Just take a quick look at ten obviously important factors for which we have limited understanding:

1- Changes in seasonal solar irradiation;

2- Energy flows between ocean and atmosphere;

3- Energy flow between air and land;

4- The balance between Earth’s water, water vapor, and ice;

5- The impacts of clouds;

6- Understanding the planet’s ice;

7- Mass changes between ice sheets, sea level and glaciers;

8- The ability to factor in hurricanes and tornadoes;

9- The impact of vegetation on temperature;

10- Tectonic movement on ocean bottoms.

Yet, today’s modelers believe they can tell you the planet’s climate decades or even a century in the future and want you to manage your economy accordingly.

Dr. Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian astrophysics laboratory once calculated that if we could know all the variables affecting climate and plugged them into the world’s largest computer, it would take 40 years for the computer to reach an answer.

In Coal We Trust: The Need For Coal Power In Asia

by Tilak Doshi, June 7, 2019 in Forbes


The reigning narrative of impending global environmental catastrophe dominates the airwaves and print media. Short of a drastic reduction in the use of fossil fuels, it is asserted, we are fast approaching the “end of days”. The demonization of fossils fuels in general, and coal in particular, has been wrought under pressure from special interests groups and organized lobbies of the climate-industrial complex where aspects of economic reality are caricatured or presented out of context. Complex trade-offs in energy policy are spun into tales of spurious simplicity, leading to misleading conclusions. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the debate over the role of coal-fueled power generation in Asia.

Opposition to the building of coal power plants in the poorer countries has been justified by environmental activists, banks and multilateral development agencies such as the World Bank in two key ways. The first revolves around the claim that climate change mitigation programs carry “co-benefits” for public health in developing countries. The second utilizes the assertion that renewable energy such as solar and wind power are effective substitutes for centralized grid electricity generated by fossil fuels.

Climate change policy does not help the poor

Central Europe temperature constrained by speleothem fluid inclusion water isotopes over the past 14,000 years

by Affolter et al., June 5, 2019 in ScienceAdvance


Abstract

The reasons for the early Holocene temperature discrepancy between northern hemispheric model simulations and paleoclimate reconstructions—known as the Holocene temperature conundrum—remain unclear. Using hydrogen isotopes of fluid inclusion water extracted from stalagmites from the Milandre Cave in Switzerland, we established a mid-latitude European mean annual temperature reconstruction for the past 14,000 years. Our Milandre Cave fluid inclusion temperature record (MC-FIT) resembles Greenland and Mediterranean sea surface temperature trends but differs from recent reconstructions obtained from biogenic proxies and climate models. The water isotopes are further synchronized with tropical precipitation records, stressing the Northern Hemisphere signature. Our results support the existence of a European Holocene Thermal Maximum and data-model temperature discrepancies. Moreover, data-data comparison reveals a significant latitudinal temperature gradient within Europe. Last, the MC-FIT record suggests that seasonal biases in the proxies are not the primary cause of the Holocene temperature conundrum.

Radiation versus Temperature

by Willis Eschenbach, June 8, 2019 in WUWT


Due to the recent posts by Lord Monkton and Nick Stokes, I’ve been thinking about the relationship between radiation and temperature. So I turned to the CERES dataset. Here is a scatterplot of the monthly global average surface temperature versus the monthly global average downwelling total radiation absorbed by the surface. The total radiation is the sum of the net solar radiation at the surface and the downwelling longwave radiation at the surface. I’ve removed the seasonal variations from the data.

Note that 3.7 W/m2 is the increase in downwelling longwave radiation expected from a doubling of CO2 …

When I saw that, I thought well, maybe the increase is small because there’s a lag between the absorption of the radiation and the warming. To see if that was the case, I did a cross-correlation analysis of the relationship.