The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Consensus

[gigabite]

Now that I have a little time and I have finished with my prepared presentation, by the way thank you for this opportunity. I will work from your most recent issue to the older ones as I get more time.

1. OK, so we've got an approximately 0.2% variation of Jupiter's distance from the Sun at perihelion (again no indication that there's any change in average distance.)

2. What does that have to do with Earth's climate?

You have developed a fine knack for applying Generally Accepted Accounting Principles to a nonlinear function. I will simplify it for you in a way you might be able to under stand the difference between where Jupiter was in 1975 compared to where Jupiter will be in 2011.

1. It is like adding 93 trillion megatons to the moon or moving the moon 400,000 kilometers closer to earth.

You might be “blue skying” this issue especially once you realize that one of the potential out comes of the pass is a meteor strike like the one in 1975.

2. One needs to just look at the growth of the Labrador Ice sheet to what an increased Earth Sun distance does.

http://home.att.net/~gigabite/perihelionlabradorSST.gif

[gigabite]

OK, so we're looking at a change in aphelion distance of approximately 0.01% (from 1.01673 AU to 1.01664 AU) over two centuries. That's a minuscule change compared to the man-made forcings we're looking at. I think you need to explain why you think this would have any significant impact on global temperature.

Also, I'd note that this expected trend in aphelion distance doesn't mean we have even this much change in average distance. What's the predicted trend during the rest of the Earth's orbit?

According to the current understanding of the greenhouse effect over 209 years that translates to an increase warming of 0.0126 F in the summer, and a increase of cooling of .0126 in the winter. As compared to an increase of 0.76 F increase due to AGW in the summer in the northern hemisphere over the last 100 years as proposed from the assumptions that the 19th century math makes about the temperature of the sun based on ground station measurements.

I concede this point.

[Tampa Bay Hurricane]

I do think higher Heat and SSTs and heat content in the GOM in spring
can lead to much more potent cold front low pressure areas with
stronger severe thunderstorms and higher winds. I am watching excitedly
for any lows that form in the gulf along a cold front. This year the gulf
is not much warmer than average but if we have a very hot
april and may things could get very interesting and I will be stormchasing
bigtime.

[gigabite]

The expansion of the Labrador Ice Shelf could play a role in storm intensification when the AO gets negative, but the snow birds I’ve talked to speak of things like the 19 inches of ice on the lakes in Illinois. The cold, high river flows will keep the 26C close to the surface in the Gulf, and the strong trade winds will shift the storm tracks west more like last year than 1959. The plasma phase has had a chance to erode, so the likelihood of a moist metrological equator is probable. I expect the storms that do form will initiate north of 15.

[gigabite]

http://mdisas.nascom.nasa.gov/temperatu ... opts01.gif

I'm not at all clear on what this would indicate. I think we can all agree that solar iradiance has not increased by over 3% since 1996, which is what a change of 10 degrees Celsius (313 deg. Kelvin to 323 deg. Kelvin) would seem to indicate.

Actually, since we know that approximately 5 degree aphelion/perihelion cycle corresponds to over 6% variance, it seems naively that that 10 degree trend would indicate more like a 12% change. Obviously we know that nothing of the kind has occurred.

So there must be something else going on with that longer term trend. Maybe there's some physical change in how the satellite is configured, I don't know. Anybody have any ideas?[/QUOTE]

This like the tidal swelling in the plasma sphere it is a product of UV radiation. The SOHO satellite is at a Earth Sun libration point out past the moon with no atmosphere as opposed to goes 12 which has to encounter some atmosphere. The SOHO satellite has a thermometer where GOES has a Spectral Irradiance Monitor.

The Spectral Irradiance Monitor is a highly technical state-of-the-art rethink of a 19th century approach to determine the surface temperature of the Sun by calculation instead of simply measuring it. The going around your elbow to get to your thumb technique. It is doable, not efficient. The perfect example of Finagle’s Fourth Law: Once a contraption is fouled up, anything to improve it only makes it worse.

I can’t think of why SOHO system would modulate internal conditions contrary to intuition it seems more like an inverse effect of distance to me.

[Tampa Bay Hurricane]

Thanks gigabyte; so the river flows should keep 26 C isotherms near the
surface of the Gulf of Mexico, meaning lower heat content waters. According to the
trade winds then north of 15 storms could form. Interesting...Each year brings
has unique tropical characteristics..

[gigabite]

...The expansion of the Labrador Ice Shelf could play a role in storm intensification when the AO gets negative...

http://nome.colorado.edu/HARC/Readings/McCabe.pdf

AO index at the end of May

Cold Pool - A region of relatively cold air, represented on a weather map analysis as a relative minimum in temperature surrounded by closed isotherms. Cold pools aloft represent regions of relatively low stability, while surface-based cold pools are regions of relatively stable air.

MCS - Mesoscale Convective System. A complex of thunderstorms which becomes organized on a scale larger than the individual thunderstorms, and normally persists for several hours or more. MCSs may be round or linear in shape, and include systems such as tropical cyclones, squall lines, and MCCs (among others). MCS often is used to describe a cluster of thunderstorms that does not satisfy the size, shape, or duration criteria of an MCC.

assuming a reasonably widespread cloud deck, the top of said cloud deck will radiate heat - just as the ground does under clear skies. The difference being the cloud deck is actually preventing the ground from cooling significantly at night. Thus the top of the cloud deck (and the atmosphere immediately surrounding it) cools while the surface layer remains (relatively) warm. This has the result of increasing the lapse rate. Of course, the other requirements still exist for thunderstorm development.

The other major causes for continental convection at night would obviously be the passage of an upper cold pool, vorticity max or cold front.

Cloud top cooling is one of the major driving factors in large storms like TC's and developing ECL's. Since surface heating is cut off due to the extensive cloud cover associated with such a storm, convection cannot be initiated by surface heating. By cooling the top of the storm, the atmosphere becomes (more) unstable and off we go. It's the reason that TC's tend to intensify overnight (and weaken slightly during the day).

The surface temperature of the ocean varies much less than the ground temperature during the course of a day, and so the surface layer of the atmosphere remains a lot more stable during the day. At night, the atmosphere above the surface layer cools more rapidly than the air below, thus making the atmosphere potentially unstable. Thus maritime convection is usually at a peak in the early hours of the morning than in the late afternoon.

[Ed Mahmoud]

No comment, and no, I don't understand it all, and I know contrarian views aren't appreciated, but an interesting read nonetheless


http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf

[gigabite]

Thanks Mr Mahmoud,

At least the paper recognizes the effect of perturbations on the climate model. The paper still addresses irradiance as an aspect metric for planet heat budget, which I is ludicrous, because it attempts to scale temperature across 1.5x10^8 kilometers, and it is a composite metric that doesn’t isolate the heating bandwidths.

Anthropogenic CO2 has increased the greenhouse multiplier, but accurate metrics of the effect just aren’t available, because of the irradiance equation failure to balance the heat budget.

In any event the study of AGW will be put to good use to either cool off a warming planet warm up a cooling planet.

I think that a UV radiation or temperature metric will help end the AGW debate. For my part I think the latitude of the first snowfall in fall 2008 will cinch it.

[x-y-no]

No comment, and no, I don't understand it all, and I know contrarian views aren't appreciated, but an interesting read nonetheless


http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf

A persecution complex is never seemly.

Contrarian views are fine if they are backed up by something real. What is not appreciated (by me at least) is the endless repetition of baseless or debunked assertions.

So why don't you elaborate? What is interesting (and/or contrarian) about the paper you linked?

[Ed Mahmoud]

No comment, and no, I don't understand it all, and I know contrarian views aren't appreciated, but an interesting read nonetheless


http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf

A persecution complex is never seemly.

Contrarian views are fine if they are backed up by something real. What is not appreciated (by me at least) is the endless repetition of baseless or debunked assertions.

So why don't you elaborate? What is interesting (and/or contrarian) about the paper you linked?

The gist, from what I've seen, is that the climate reacts faster to peturbations than originally believed, on the order of 6-10 years, and most of the warming that would be caused by the CO2 emissions of the last century has already occured, and further, from this, the climates sensitivity to CO2 changes is half, or less, than the current concensus. It doens't say CO2 doesn't contribute to warming, just on a smaller scale than originally believed. But that is just my reading of one paper, from a seemingly respected source, and my BS is in petroleum engineering, the study of multi-phase fluid flow in homogenous media, not climatology. Although there appear to be similarities in the math.


Persecution complex? I, as a rule, don't send angry PMs to board members over perceived slights.

But I am an easy going guy.

Hey, Miami almost closed the gap on Texas. And they beat Duke earlier this season in ACC play. Never be my favorite team, but ya gotta respect the way they played.

[x-y-no]

The gist, from what I've seen, is that the climate reacts faster to peturbations than originally believed, on the order of 6-10 years, and most of the warming that would be caused by the CO2 emissions of the last century has already occured, and further, from this, the climates sensitivity to CO2 changes is half, or less, than the current concensus. It doens't say CO2 doesn't contribute to warming, just on a smaller scale than originally believed. But that is just my reading of one paper, from a seemingly respected source, and my BS is in petroleum engineering, the study of multi-phase fluid flow in homogenous media, not climatology. Although there appear to be similarities in the math.

That's a fair enough summary, except it leaves out the extremely preliminary nature of this effort and the very simplified model employed. As Dr. Schwartz writes in the conclusion:

Finally, as the present analysis rests on a simple single-compartment energy balance model, the question must inevitably arise whether the rather obdurate climate system might be amenable to determination of its key properties through empirical analysis based on such a simple model. In response to that question it might have to be said that it remains to be seen. In this context it is hoped that the present study might stimulate further work along these lines with more complex models.

In particular, Schwartz assumes that time series of global temperature can be modeled as a linear trend, plus a one-dimensional first-order autoregressive process.

Realclimate had a discussion of this paper last September. They ran some simulations of what the response ought to look like if this assumption is correct and got this result:



Not very promising for Schwartz' model, to say the least. That's not a criticism of the work, which is obviously useful. Rather it's a caveat regarding drawing too strong a conclusion from it.

Hey, Miami almost closed the gap on Texas. And they beat Duke earlier this season in ACC play. Never be my favorite team, but ya gotta respect the way they played.

Next year they should be good if McClinton (and coach Haith) return - which looks likely. Anyway, I'm happy with the season. And I'm excited about the football team. Coach Shannon is really whipping them into shape again.

[Tampa Bay Hurricane]

X-Y-No I am a bit confused. What is really happening with the climate?
I am used to thinking of a global warming trend but
the thread in the S2K winter forum
about this winter as the 54th coolest has me curious-
is it a cycle or warming or both?
Or is that an anomaly against the heating trend?

[Scott Patterson]

I am used to thinking of a global warming trend but
the thread in the S2K winter forum
about this winter as the 54th coolest has me curious-
is it a cycle or warming or both?

54th coldest means it would also be the 58th warmest. That puts it as almost as average as you can get.

The amazing part of it is that it is the only normal winter in eight years!

[x-y-no]

X-Y-No I am a bit confused. What is really happening with the climate?
I am used to thinking of a global warming trend but
the thread in the S2K winter forum
about this winter as the 54th coolest has me curious-
is it a cycle or warming or both?
Or is that an anomaly against the heating trend?

54th coolest in the contiguous United States since 1895, yes.

Globally, this December through February was the 16th warmest on record.

We're having a major La Nina event - that accounts for some if not all of the cooling relative to other recent years.

[Sanibel]

La Nina's produce cold winters, even during upward cycles recorded in the past.

[Tampa Bay Hurricane]

Thank you! Good old la nina no not really rain is more
exciting than dry weather.

[gigabite]

This is abstracted from the U.S. Naval Observatory’s data service, with extreme conditions highlighted.

EL NINO LA NINA SEEMS TO FOLLOW THE LATITUDE OF THE MOON

I think I'd like to see more than two points of correlation before I get too excited about this. How well did earlier events correlate?

Also, I'm not sure what the relevance is. No doubt we'll continue to see El Nino/La Nina events superimposed on the long-term warming trend. But they don't really affect that trend (beyond their own extent, that is.) If we had some reason to expect that we would plunge into a permanent strong La Nina, that would offer some useful mitigation. But I don't see any indication of that.

I have reviewed this statement with both the SOI data and the available el Nino 3.4 data for the years 1960 thru 2000, and I have found a 70 percent correlation. There may be a slight phase shift that I haven’t even looked for at this time that would boost the correlation up some.

I should clarify the statement to say that: a strong el Nino event should be expected after the mid summer’s New Moon reaches it’s lowest swing and a strong la Nina event should be expected after the mid summer’s New Moon reaches it’s upper swing.

There are several associated factors that have to be contributors to strength of the atmospheric tides notably the latitude of the moon (ephemeris data), the distance of the gravitational vector from the earth (one day I might compute it for 40 years), and the earth sun distance (ephemeris data). Bringing these into account should demonstrate that a specific mechanism is orchestrates this weather characteristic.

What I have shown here are the SOI, the latitude of the Mid Summer New Moon (MSNM), and the Earth Sun Distance. Evidently the Sun and the Moon work together to keep the climate from a runaway icehouse or greenhouse condition. The 1988 extreme la Nina was a combination of the solar distance being relatively long and the latitude of the MSNM being high. The 1997 extreme el Nino was a factor of a short solar distance and a low MSNM.

...also note the solar distance was longer than the median solar distance for the period shown every year before 1976 except for twice.

[gigabite]

The Cooling World
Newsweek, April 28, 1975

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.

http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

[gigabite]

The first signs of the change of the 100 year cooling cycle is exhibited in this excerpt from the fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union. And as all the respected professors have backed away from saying that there is no relationship between this type of solar activity and global cooling as the in the generally accepted disclaimer " A correlation does not necessarily indicate a relationship." The fact remains that mini Ice Ages occur every 100 years. That on top of the fact that China and India are putting 4 new coal fired plants online every week. This will increase global atmospheric particulate matter which blocks sunlight and the combination of more fine particles and more low pressure is sure to mean more rain.




http://fallmeeting.agu.org/2013/files/2 ... kFinal.pdf
downloaded 01/04/2014

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/13/l ... eak-cycle/