New Research

[BornFromTheVoid]

http://www.bbc.co.uk...onment-15373071

The Earth's surface really is getting warmer, a new analysis by a US scientific group set up in the wake of the "ClimateGate" affair has confirmed.

The Berkeley Earth Project has used new methods and some new data, but finds the same warming trend seen by groups such as the UK Met Office and Nasa.

The project received funds from sources that back organisations lobbying against action on climate change.

Phil Jones, targeted in "ClimateGate", said the result was "encouraging".

The Berkeley group found about 40,000 weather stations around the world whose output has been recorded and stored in digital form.

It developed a new way of analysing the data to plot the global temperature trend over land since 1800.

What came out was a graph remarkably similar to those produced by the world's three most important and established groups, whose work had been decried as unreliable and shoddy in climate sceptic circles.

[knocker]

Something that tends to be forgotten on occasion.

Evidence of water mass moving south 70 million years ago shows how warmth was distributed

“Understanding the degree to which climate influences circulation and vice versa is important today because carbon dioxide levels are rapidly approaching levels most recently seen during ancient greenhouse times,” said MacLeod. “In just a few decades, humans are causing changes in the composition of the atmosphere that are as large as the changes that took millions of years to occur during geological climate cycles.”

http://munews.missouri.edu/news-releases/2011/1027-prehistoric-greenhouse-data-from-ocean-floor-could-predict-earth%e2%80%99s-future-mu-study-finds/

[knocker]

NOAA study: Human-caused climate change a major factor in more frequent Mediterranean droughts

October 27, 2011

Wintertime droughts are increasingly common in the Mediterranean region, and human-caused climate change is partly responsible, according to a new analysis by NOAA scientists and colleagues at the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES). In the last 20 years, 10 of the driest 12 winters have taken place in the lands surrounding the Mediterranean Sea.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20111027_drought.html

Winter precipitation trends in the Mediterranean region for the period 1902 - 2010. Credit NOAA.

[jethro]

New doubt thrown on Arctic temperature trends:

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2010JCLI4054.1?prevSearch=%5BAllField%3A+erroneous+arctic+temperature+trends%5D&searchHistoryKey=

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/08/10/indictment-of-the-era-40-reanalysis-in-a-new-paper-erroneous-arctic-temperature-trends-in-the-era-40-reanalysis-a-closer-look-by-screen-and-simmonds-2011/

[Gray-Wolf]

New doubt thrown on Arctic temperature trends:

http://journals.amet...archHistoryKey=

http://pielkeclimate...-simmonds-2011/

That's good then , the ice can come back now we know it's not warming as much as we thought!

[jethro]

That's good then , the ice can come back now we know it's not warming as much as we thought!

Do you have to turn all good news into bad? I would have thought you of all people would be pleased that the warming isn't as bad as first thought. If the ice loss has possibly been driven less by AGW than previously considered, then it should offer a glimmer of hope that the future prognosis (taking into consideration future emissions) is less dire.

[stewfox]

NOAA study: Human-caused climate change a major factor in more frequent Mediterranean droughts

October 27, 2011

Wintertime droughts are increasingly common in the Mediterranean region, and human-caused climate change is partly responsible, according to a new analysis by NOAA scientists and colleagues at the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES). In the last 20 years, 10 of the driest 12 winters have taken place in the lands surrounding the Mediterranean Sea.

http://www.noaanews....27_drought.html

Winter precipitation trends in the Mediterranean region for the period 1902 - 2010. Credit NOAA.

Problem is there is only small amount of data (100yrs) looks like given recent yrs we are going back into a 'wet phase'

1900 to 1940 was generally very wet man made no doubt

Edited November 3, 2011 by stewfox

[ZONE 51]

Hi, found this link on my searches and it has a whole list of studies in mostly PDF, not sure where i should post it, can be moved if needed

http://www.leif.org/research/

Edited November 10, 2011 by ElectricSnowStorm

[VillagePlank]

Empirical evidence presented in this paper supports a hypothesis that the UK began to reduce its

consumption of physical resources in the early years of the last decade, well before the economic

slowdown that started in 2008. This conclusion applies to a wide variety of different physical goods,

for example water, building materials and paper and includes the impact of items imported from

overseas. Both the weight of goods entering the economy and the amounts finally ending up as

waste probably began to fall from sometime between 2001 and 2003.

Summary data is available on the last page of this document.

If correct, this finding is important. It suggests that economic growth in a mature economy does not

necessarily increase the pressure on the world’s reserves of natural resources and on its physical

environment. An advanced country may be able to decouple economic growth and increasing

volumes of material goods consumed. A sustainable economy does not necessarily have to be a nogrowth economy

(PDF) http://www.carboncommentary.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Peak_Stuff_17.10.11.pdf

[songster]

By 2007, the DMC and TMR measures had fallen to 96-97% of their 2001 figure. One conclusion is that

material use in the UK, and indirectly through its imports, was falling in absolute terms during the half

decade prior to the economic downturn. This implies some absolute decoupling of growth and physical

extraction, and hence a reduction in ecological pressure.

An alternative interpretation is that the "growth" since ~2000 was an illusion fuelled by ever-increasing debt levels and financial sector circle-jerks.

[VillagePlank]

An alternative interpretation is that the "growth" since ~2000 was an illusion fuelled by ever-increasing debt levels and financial sector circle-jerks.

http://hw.nwstatic.co.uk/forum/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.png

Thanks, you've made my day.

Now read it properly, and perform a proper critique.

[Guest]

Problem is there is only small amount of data (100yrs) looks like given recent yrs we are going back into a 'wet phase'

1900 to 1940 was generally very wet man made no doubt

Last spring and the end of October up to date this year appears to have born this out in southern France - the last 3 weeks appear to have been somewhat wetter than normal - the effect of a high over central Europe tends to encourage those nasty little lows into the Med.

[Alan Robinson]

Last spring and the end of October up to date this year appears to have born this out in southern France - the last 3 weeks appear to have been somewhat wetter than normal - the effect of a high over central Europe tends to encourage those nasty little lows into the Med.

Hmm........what a difference 600 miles of latitude make. Here in southern Scandinavia we had just about the driest April on record, then about the equal wettest summer on record, and now what is beginning to look like the driest autumn on record. It hasn't really rained on this island since early October. My water-hole for the birds has dried out, and I had to fill it from the tap!

[songster]

http://hw.nwstatic.co.uk/forum/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.png

Thanks, you've made my day.

Now read it properly, and perform a proper critique.

I thought my critique was cogent enough. The paper showed that use of {various resources} began to drop from around 2002 onwards, whereas the economic slowdown (i.e. GDP) didn't happen till several years after that. They suggest that this means that resource use over those few years was becoming decoupled from economic growth, and that the UK was therefore managing to make more happen with less. But they don't prove it, instead relying on the implicit assumption that GDP is an accurate measure of economic activity across the population.

Note that they do in fact acknowledge this alternative explanation in passing:

"Another potential explanation is that the economic growth in the period to 2007 was not universally shared among the UK population.

A large fraction of the total increase in GDP was captured by the very highest income earners. Although the national figures suggested improving prosperity, the disposable income of all but the top 1% may have been largely static."

Anyone who's had their eyes open for the last decade will see that this is a far more accurate summary of the situation. Resource usage peaked in ~2002, because for the vast majority of the population, economic activity peaked in ~2002.

[VillagePlank]

... instead relying on the implicit assumption that GDP is an accurate measure of economic activity across the population.

That's the crux point.

I think that the paper is important, since it challenges that other assumption - that increases in GDP are commensurate with increases in resource utilisation. Critically, as you say, is GDP a suitable metric for measuring economic activity? As the authors mention, it fails to factor in widely distributed levels of economic activity across the income divide.

Interestingly, that uber-environmentalist, Monbiot, mentions similar concerns, here, but refuses to dismiss the hypothesis on that basis. Indeed, as he says, is it not cause for celebration that our resource utilisation is dropping, anyway?

And surely the debate must open as to why?

A major part of GDP is private consumption (see link above) This is factored in regardless of the means as to how one managed to consume (ie from where they got the money from) If consumption is going up - GDP goes up - even if you're up to your eyeballs in debt. Surely, then, the comparison is still valid?

Of course, the painful thing is that if GDP is forced up by excessive borrowing, then GDP will collapse when that borrowing needs to be paid back. Another component of the GDP calculation is public expenditure, and we know that that's drying up, already ....

Edited November 15, 2011 by Boar Wrinklestorm

[Gray-Wolf]

Surely a U.K. that outsources it's heavy industry and production will not be as polluting as one that still has steel works,ship building etc? Do we not just 'outsource' our polluting along with the industry?

Maybe each item needs to be viewed in terms of it's cost in GHG's? We may not be making a lot of plasma screen T.V.'s but we would seem to be buying them? Each one has a GHG 'cost' in it's production?

As we become a 'service industry' nation then we should expect our GHG production to drop but ,by outsourcing to nations without the technologies, or laws, to limit atmospheric pollution ,we are merely displacing a larger portion of 'pollution' ( than would have occurred if made at home)to other areas of the planet? The other cost is from the unregulated cargo ships and the pollution they belch from their stacks. Every item we import also has this 'levy' of GHG's included in it's 'price' to the planet?

[VillagePlank]

Surely a U.K. that outsources it's heavy industry and production will not be as polluting as one that still has steel works,ship building etc? Do we not just 'outsource' our polluting along with the industry?

Maybe each item needs to be viewed in terms of it's cost in GHG's? We may not be making a lot of plasma screen T.V.'s but we would seem to be buying them? Each one has a GHG 'cost' in it's production?

As we become a 'service industry' nation then we should expect our GHG production to drop but ,by outsourcing to nations without the technologies, or laws, to limit atmospheric pollution ,we are merely displacing a larger portion of 'pollution' ( than would have occurred if made at home)to other areas of the planet? The other cost is from the unregulated cargo ships and the pollution they belch from their stacks. Every item we import also has this 'levy' of GHG's included in it's 'price' to the planet?

Yes, that's covered on page 4:

• Total Domestic Extraction (TDE). This measures the weight of biomass, minerals and fossil

fuels taken from the ground in the UK.

• The UK imports biomass, minerals and fossil fuels. The second index is called Direct Material

Consumption (DMR), which adds imports and subtracts exports from Total Domestic

Extraction.

• Goods imported into the UK are made using resources of biomass, minerals and fossil fuels in

their country of origin. The third measure includes estimates of the materials employed in other

countries to make UK imports. This is called Total Material Requirement (TMR)

ie the report takes your concerns and includes them in the figures. Src: UK’s Office of National Statistics (ONS). This seems to be an important piece - on the face of it, this guy appears to have conducted a very thorough piece of work - even Songster noticed that he clearly labeled contrarian reasons for his findings which suggests, to me, to be an honest approach to his conclusions.

Edited November 15, 2011 by Boar Wrinklestorm

[jonboy]

I found this on the science direct web site ( http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682611002872) which is a new paper by Nicola Scafetta which infers that global surface temperature can be linked to natural solar system oscillations. The abstract is below. What is interesting is the link to how the planets such as Jupiter and Saturn can influence our plant and thus our climate and as such adds weight to the methods that RJS and BFTP use in their forecasts.

Abstract

Herein we show that the historical records of mid-latitude auroras from 1700 to 1966 present oscillations with periods of about 9, 10–11, 20–21, 30 and 60 years. The same frequencies are found in proxy and instrumental global surface temperature records since 1650 and 1850, respectively, and in several planetary and solar records. We argue that the aurora records reveal a physical link between climate change and astronomical oscillations. Likely in addition to a Soli-Lunar tidal effect, there exists a planetary modulation of the heliosphere, of the cosmic ray flux reaching the Earth and/or of the electric properties of the ionosphere. The latter, in turn, has the potentiality of modulating the global cloud cover that ultimately drives the climate oscillations through albedo oscillations. In particular, a quasi-60-year large cycle is quite evident since 1650 in all climate and astronomical records herein studied, which also include a historical record of meteorite fall in China from 619 to 1943. These findings support the thesis that climate oscillations have an astronomical origin. We show that a harmonic constituent model based on the major astronomical frequencies revealed in the aurora records and deduced from the natural gravitational oscillations of the solar system is able to forecast with a reasonable accuracy the decadal and multidecadal temperature oscillations from 1950 to 2010 using the temperature data before 1950, and vice versa. The existence of a natural 60-year cyclical modulation of the global surface temperature induced by astronomical mechanisms, by alone, would imply that at least 60–70% of the warming observed since 1970 has been naturally induced. Moreover, the climate may stay approximately stable during the next decades because the 60-year cycle has entered in its cooling phase.

Highlights

► The paper highlights that global climate and aurora records present a common set of frequencies. ► These frequencies can be used to reconstruct climate oscillations within the time scale of 9–100 years. ► An empirical model based on these cycles can reconstruct and forecast climate oscillations. ► Cyclical astronomical physical phenomena regulate climate change through the electrification of the upper atmosphere. ► Climate cycles have an astronomical origin and are regulated by cloud cover oscillations.

[songster]

I'm intrigued by the "even Songster" comment. So far as I know I've not stated my politics on this forum: pretty much all I've gotten involved with is the discussions on Arctic responses to climate change. I'm also intrigued that you regard the suggestion of increasing inequality as "contrarian" rather than "bleeding obvious" ;-)

Regarding the quote you highlighted, I think at least as relevant is the "across the population" part. I'm not going to take issue with GDP as a measure of economic activity: as such it does the job it needs to do, which is quantify in general terms how busy / large any given economy is. It would be interesting however to see the breakdown of that across income bands and across industry sectors. Given the series of bubbles so far this century (tech bubble, housing bubble, financial services bubble), it seems reasonably obvious that an ever-increasing proportion of GDP has been derived from these areas. Bubbles of course don't require resources (hence resource usage didn't track upwards with GDP), since they stem from a collective herd mentality decreeing that asset X is worth more today than it was yesterday.

I'll bet anything you like that the same thing has happened in previous bubbles right back to the Dutch tulip mania. GDP soars ahead of resource usage, because it's being artificially inflated by the false monetary valuation ascribed to whatever is bubbling at any given moment. Bubbles, however, do not last.

The other point I didn't raise, but Monbiot does, is the discrepancy between energy usage (which apparently peaked in 2001) and GHG emissions (which didn't). There are three possibilities: the measurement of energy usage is wrong, the measurements of GHG emissions are wrong, or our energy production is becoming ever less efficient and more polluting. Let's hope for all our sakes that it's the second of those.

It's vital that we get to the bottom of what's going on, because the alternatives prescribe very different courses of action. Yes, we should celebrate that we're using less stuff. That's simple enough to agree with: there simply is not enough carrying capacity on the Earth (or even several Earths) for seven billion people to aspire to current Western levels of consumption. But is the drop in "usage of stuff" occurring because the majority of the population has stagnated or got poorer since 2000, or is it because we're using resources more efficiently and increasing our standard of living despite consuming less?

In the latter case, then it's possible we should push for a return to constant growth, in the belief that we are entering a new Golden Era where we manage to increase efficiency at an even faster rate than the change in our standard of living - we get more for less. In the former case, then the increased efficiency is an illusion caused by the artificial bubble-driven inflation of GDP, and the only way we can consume less is by accepting a lower standard of living - whether voluntarily via self restraint or involuntarily via recession/depression.

[Guest]

I found this on the science direct web site ( http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682611002872) which is a new paper by Nicola Scafetta which infers that global surface temperature can be linked to natural solar system oscillations. The abstract is below. What is interesting is the link to how the planets such as Jupiter and Saturn can influence our plant and thus our climate and as such adds weight to the methods that RJS and BFTP use in their forecasts.

Abstract

Herein we show that the historical records of mid-latitude auroras from 1700 to 1966 present oscillations with periods of about 9, 10–11, 20–21, 30 and 60 years. The same frequencies are found in proxy and instrumental global surface temperature records since 1650 and 1850, respectively, and in several planetary and solar records. We argue that the aurora records reveal a physical link between climate change and astronomical oscillations. Likely in addition to a Soli-Lunar tidal effect, there exists a planetary modulation of the heliosphere, of the cosmic ray flux reaching the Earth and/or of the electric properties of the ionosphere. The latter, in turn, has the potentiality of modulating the global cloud cover that ultimately drives the climate oscillations through albedo oscillations. In particular, a quasi-60-year large cycle is quite evident since 1650 in all climate and astronomical records herein studied, which also include a historical record of meteorite fall in China from 619 to 1943. These findings support the thesis that climate oscillations have an astronomical origin. We show that a harmonic constituent model based on the major astronomical frequencies revealed in the aurora records and deduced from the natural gravitational oscillations of the solar system is able to forecast with a reasonable accuracy the decadal and multidecadal temperature oscillations from 1950 to 2010 using the temperature data before 1950, and vice versa. The existence of a natural 60-year cyclical modulation of the global surface temperature induced by astronomical mechanisms, by alone, would imply that at least 60–70% of the warming observed since 1970 has been naturally induced. Moreover, the climate may stay approximately stable during the next decades because the 60-year cycle has entered in its cooling phase.

Highlights

► The paper highlights that global climate and aurora records present a common set of frequencies. ► These frequencies can be used to reconstruct climate oscillations within the time scale of 9–100 years. ► An empirical model based on these cycles can reconstruct and forecast climate oscillations. ► Cyclical astronomical physical phenomena regulate climate change through the electrification of the upper atmosphere. ► Climate cycles have an astronomical origin and are regulated by cloud cover oscillations.

Have you got access to a graph on this?

[VillagePlank]

It's vital that we get to the bottom of what's going on, because the alternatives prescribe very different courses of action.

Yep.

[jonboy]

Scafetta-auroras1.pdfMike report attached

[Guest]

Scafetta-auroras1.pdfMike report attached

Jonboy,

Thanks - my maths isn't up to that in the report but looking at the graphs do I take it that there is likely to be some global cooling until about 2030 and thereafter it will warm a little until 2060? If so I will look forward to it - I will be 118 by then, getting into my dotage:)

[VillagePlank]

Thanks for that, Mike. If that report verifies, then it seems to me to be very important - and the conclusion is that human influence is simply noise! I guess we have to wait and see for rebuttals. Technically, I'm a little unsure why they used Fourier analysis, when wavelets tend to do better in incomplete series such as HadCrut.

Edited November 16, 2011 by Boar Wrinklestorm

[knocker]

Requiem for a species.

LIVERMORE, Calif. -- In order to separate human-caused global warming from the "noise" of purely natural climate fluctuations, temperature records must be at least 17 years long, according to climate scientists.

To address criticism of the reliability of thermometer records of surface warming, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory scientists analyzed satellite measurements of the temperature of the lower troposphere (the region of the atmosphere from the surface to roughly five miles above) and saw a clear signal of human-induced warming of the planet.

Satellite measurements of atmospheric temperature are made with microwave radiometers, and are completely independent of surface thermometer measurements. The satellite data indicate that the lower troposphere has warmed by roughly 0.9 degrees Fahrenheit since the beginning of satellite temperature records in 1979. This increase is entirely consistent with the warming of Earth's surface estimated from thermometer records.

https://www.llnl.gov/news/newsreleases/2011/Nov/NR-11-11-03.html

Image courtesy NASA