Science Daily 1999 - as posted on Real Science by Steve Goddard
Northern Climes, Buffeted By Stronger Winds, 7 To 10F Hotter
A team of scientists from Columbia University has shown that warm winters in the northern hemisphere likely can be explained by the action of upper-atmosphere winds that are closely linked to global warming.
Global mean surface temperatures have increased in the range of 0.6 to 1.2F since the late 19th century. But far more severe warming has taken place over wide regions of northern Eurasia, Canada and Alaska, with temperatures averaging 7 to 10F warmer in the last 35 years, according to data previously compiled by the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City.
The research, which appears in the June 3, 1999 issue of the British journal Nature, offers no predictions on what temperatures future winters will bring, but suggests a continuation of the current trend for three to four more decades.
If warming trends continue, said Drew Shindell, associate research scientist at Columbia’s Center for Climate Systems Research and lead author of the report, northern regions of Europe and Asia and, to a lesser extent, North America, can expect winters that are both warmer and wetter, with increased rain and snow.
“Based on this research, it’s quite likely that the warmer winters over the continents are indeed a result of the increasing amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere,” Dr. Shindell said. “This research offers both a plausible physical mechanism for how this takes place, and reproduces the observed trends both qualitatively and even quantitatively.”
Other authors of the Nature paper were Gavin A. Schmidt, associate research scientist at Columbia’s Center for Climate Systems Research; Ron L. Miller, associate research scientist in the Department of Applied Physics and Applied Mathematics at Columbia, and Lionel Pandolfo, assistant professor in the Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences at the University of British Columbia. Drs. Shindell, Schmidt and Miller also maintain an affiliation with the NASA Goddard Institute.
The physical mechanism the authors suggest is a redistribution of heat closely related to recent changes in atmospheric wind patterns, an indirect consequence of greenhouse warming. Greenhouse gases trap heat at the Earth’s surface, while cooling the stratosphere, a region of the atmosphere that extends from about seven to about 30 miles above the planet’s surface. This cooling has increased the speed of the stratospheric jet stream and has strengthened a lower atmosphere vortex of west-to-east, counterclockwise winds that naturally forms over the polar region each winter.
During the winter, the ocean retains heat better than the land. So when the dominant west-to-east winds increase, they carry warmer air from the oceans to the continents, and colder continental air to the oceans. In North America, the Rockies intercept the warmer winds, so the effect is stronger west of the mountains and is mitigated in central and eastern portions.
The Columbia team used several versions of the NASA Goddard Institute’s general circulation model, a computer construct that predicts the Earth’s climate when certain inputs are varied. Model simulations suggest that much of the increase in surface winds and in continental surface temperatures during the winter months is induced by the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. In the model, increasing greenhouse gas emissions lead to a warmer surface and, at the same time, a colder stratosphere. The large wintertime continental temperature increases produced in the model correspond quite well with what scientists actually observe. But when the researchers used a version of the climate model that did not adequately represent the stratosphere, the results did not jibe as well with reality.
Colder polar temperatures in winter, and warmer temperatures in the middle latitudes, are actually part of a natural cycle of climate variability, which made the warming trend more difficult for the scientists to isolate. The temperature differences are reflected in sea-level pressure, which decreases in the Arctic region and increases at the middle latitudes; this cycle is called the Arctic Oscillation and is second only to El Niño in its effects on global weather. In the NASA Goddard Institute simulations, increasing greenhouse gases caused a preference for one phase of this cycle over another, with stronger west-to-east surface winds at the Northern Hemisphere middle latitudes, leading to the increased surface temperatures over land.
“Despite appearing as part of a natural climate oscillation, the large increases in wintertime surface temperatures over the continents may therefore be attributable in large part to human activities,” Dr. Shindell said. “The impact of greenhouse gases on climate through surface wind changes may be as large as, or in some areas larger than, the more direct impact of global warming.”
The research was supported by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Now alarmists claim that cold winters are caused by the greenhouse effect. The mark of a truly dishonest religion. See Steve’s post here. H/T Marc Morano.
Also see on Watts Up with That here how Climate Central Climate Central confuses weather and climate in spinning the extremes of the last year as very likely the result of greenhouse gas induced climate disruption. Anthony and responders show how these are weather extremes that are not unprecedented and can be explain usually by natural variability.
Millions of people hoping to make an early getaway faced travel misery as the big freeze brought renewed chaos.
All planes were grounded at London’s Heathrow and Gatwick airports.
Forecasters warned that Britain was heading for the coldest December on record, with a current average temperature of minus 0.7C - five degrees C (9F) below the long-term average.
Blizzards and plummeting temperatures on Friday night, coupled with heavy snow on Saturday, crippled a huge section of the nation’s road, air and rail networks, with little sign of the situation improving.
The North West of England was hit with deluges of up to 10in of snow causing widespread disruption and accidents on major roads and motorways. Hundreds of motorists found themselves stranded on the M6 in Manchester.
Parts of the south were also blanketed by snow overnight, with fresh falls predicted to dump as much as a foot of snow on parts the South East and the Midlands.
Temperatures dropped as low as minus 13C in Chesham, Buckinghamshire, overnight with thermometers at Gatwick falling to minus 11C. Forecasters say temperatures will struggle to rise above freezing over the course of the day.
Mark Seltzer, a forecaster for the Met Office, said widespread snow would cause treacherous travel conditions. “A lot of snow has fallen across the North West of England overnight but it should ease off during the day,” he said. “A lot of snow also fell in the South West overnight and it will progressively move into the South East and parts of the Midlands and East Anglia throughout the day. “There could be local accumulations of 20-25cm. Temperatures will struggle to get over freezing and although the snow should ease off tonight, it will return to eastern areas on Sunday.”
This weekend had been expected to be the busiest for retailers and commuters in the run-up to Christmas Day, but many people were struggling to leave home in the face of the weather.
Heathrow closed its runways after failing to keep them clear of ice and snow. Earlier thousands of passengers had found themselves trapped on-board their planes on the Tarmac as the airport ran out of parking spaces. Long delays were caused as every plane had to be de-iced before take-off, meaning that there were not enough stands for incoming aircraft and leaving thousands of passengers waiting for up to four hours.
Meanwhile there were claims of “chaos” inside terminals as travellers whose flights were cancelled were told to go home and file lost baggage reports rather than wait for their luggage to be returned from planes. The disruption came during one of the busiest times for the airport, when it handles more than 200,000 passengers a day. British Airways grounded all its flights out of Heathrow until at least 5pm on Saturday. Shortly after both the airport’s runways were closed until 4pm to allow them to be cleared of snow snow clearing.
35,000 Deaths Feared in New Arctic Blizzards By Sarah Westcott, Daily Express
DEATH rates are set to soar “scandalously” this winter as a new Arctic blast batters Britain with temperatures on a par with Siberia.
Experts predict a dramatic increase in cold-related fatalities as we suffer the bitterest winter in a century, causing 12 deaths every hour. Britons face spiralling energy bills while the death toll this winter could reach 35,000.
There are also fears some mail may not reach its destination by Christmas Day because of the freeze. Forecasters said temperatures could plummet to record lows in the run-up to Christmas, putting tens of thousands of vulnerable people at risk.
Charities warned of pensioners suffering “Dickensian” conditions, resorting to riding on buses or huddling in shopping centres just to keep warm. Millions of Britons are being forced to turn down their thermostats as gas and electricity prices spiral.
Jonathan Powell, senior forecaster with Positive Weather Solutions, said icy conditions were on the way back by the middle of next week after a brief weekend thaw. He said plummeting temperatures could even surpass the -27.2C (-17F) recorded in Braemar in 1982 - the coldest temperature in Britain.
Studies show a drop in temperature of just one degree is followed by 200 heart attacks. People aged between 75 and 84 and those with a history of heart disease appear to be most vulnerable. Last year the number of deaths linked to the cold weather reached nearly 28,000 in four months, sparking claims that the UK has the highest winter death rate in northern Europe.
Neil Duncan-Jordan, of the National Pensioners Convention, said: “Rising bills and severe weather are going to put tremendous pressure on older people and we believe last year’s death rate of nine pensioners an hour could go up to 12 every single hour. “It is a scandal that winter deaths are on the increase.”
Jonathan Powell said the prolonged cold snap would leave Britain “the coldest country in the northern hemisphere” and “on a par with Siberia”. Read much more here.
Now that the AO has gone negative this month so far, I check the -AOs below -1 since 1950 and plotted the temperature anomoly for each year. Here is what I found.
Some things are beyond a joke and one of them is our energy secretary Chris Huhne “the Eco Loon”. Short of Osama Bin Laden as Minister of Transport, Caroline Lucas as Business Secretary, and Marcus Brigstocke as Minister for Comedy, it’s really quite hard to think of an appointment that could be less conducive to the welfare of Britain and her people.
But today, the Eco Loon has truly surpassed himself. Today is the day he attempts to persuade parliament that it is somehow in British interests to:
1. Destroy our economy.
2. Send our average annual utility bills soaring to around 2500 pounds per household.
3. Despoil our countryside.
4. Wipe out the free market.
5. Entrench the power of Big Government.
And in this, of course, he has the full support of the Eco Loon In Chief, prime minister David Cameron. In today’s Telegraph Huhne writes:
So on Thursday the Coalition begins a consultation on a reform that would reshape this market more fundamentally than at any time since the 1980s, when the Lawson reforms were the pioneer of Europe’s deregulation. Since then, we have acquired an overlay of instruments - notably the renewables obligation - that has provided a piecemeal response to the need for more secure, low-carbon electricity. By forging a comprehensive response, we can unlock investment in a broader range of low-carbon electricity generation. By providing greater certainty, we can encourage new market entrants and investors, reduce the cost of capital, and provide low-carbon electricity at lower cost than under present policies. Our mix of four inter-locking policies should give greater assurance of decarbonisation and lower bills.
What this achingly dull business-speak drivel means is that the Cameron administration intends to undo some of the fine work achieved by Margaret Thatcher. As Benny Peiser of the Global Warming Policy Foundation puts it:
Thatcher created Europe’s most competitive electricity and gas markets, privatizing state-owned businesses including British Gas, British Energy, National Power and PowerGen. By 1997, the change had driven down consumer prices by as much as 20 percent, compared with pre-privatization costs, according to former British Energy Plc Chief Executive Officer Robert Hawley.
Cameron - true Heir to Blair that he is - thus intends to offer us less choice, more constrained markets and higher prices. Nice one, Dave.
This would be a lot funnier, of course, if it weren’t so serious.
Part of Huhne’s plan calls for the creation of an artificial carbon market in which - following advice from the Committee on Climate Change - the government sets a CO2 floor price which will rise to 27 pounds a ton by 2020. If Britain lived in a bubble this might not be such a problem. Unfortunately the world markets do not believe that CO2 - aka volcano farts; aka plant food; aka Huhne’s breath - is worth anything like as much, or indeed that there is any prospect of it ever acquiring such value without the kind of global agreement which post- the Copenhagen and Cancun debacles is just never going to happen. Two years ago, C02 was trading on the Chicago exchange (CCX)at $7 a tonne. Earlier this year it was down to 7 cents a tonne. Then the exchange - founder investors: A Gore; Goldman Sachs; etc - stopped trading this worthless entity altogether.
In other words, what Chris Huhne and David Cameron are asking British business to accept is a swingeing impost which fines companies at 27 pounds a tonne for an (almost inescapable) by-product for which our global competitors are charged nothing at all. I don’t think any of us have much objection to Chris Huhne’s insatiable urge to be the first lemming over the cliff. What is of concern is the fact that currently he has been granted the power to drag us all over with him.
Every week, every day almost, I post in these pages about the economic and ecological disaster which awaits Britain if it goes ahead with Huhne’s and Cameron’s insane proposals to “decarbonise” the British economy at a cost conservatively estimated at 18 billion pounds a year. What depresses me almost as much as the sheer bloody uselessness of the Coalition is the bloody uselessness of my colleagues in the Fourth Estate (even the notionally “conservative” or free market ones) in opposing its wilder idiocies.
Huhne’s energy plans are absurd and destructive and wrong on so many levels it almost beggars belief that they are not regularly the butt of TV comedy sketches, outraged newspaper Op Eds and furious protests everywhere from the City to all those parts of the British countryside about to be ruined by Huhne’s 500 foot high bird choppers (aka Hoo Sticks). I shan’t rehearse them all again here. But just to show you how barmy the whole business is, here is Matt Ridley in the Times explaining why solar and wind power don’t even make sense on Huhne’s own terms of “energy security” and eco-friendliness:
For a glimpse of a truly scary future dependent on volatile suppliers look no farther than Mr Huhne’s favoured approach, the dash for wind. Every wind turbine has a magnet made of a metal called neodymium. There are 2.5 tonnes of it in each of the behemoths that have just gone up to spoil my view in Northumberland. The mining and refining of neodymium is so dirty (involving repeated boiling in acid, with radioactive thorium as a waste product), that only one country does it: China. This year it flexed its trade muscles and briefly stopped exporting neodymium from its inner Mongolian mines. How’s that for dangerous reliance on a volatile foreign supply?
Besides, wind does nothing to reduce carbon emissions. As Robert Bryce shows in his book Power Hungry, even Denmark, which can switch off imported Norwegian hydro power when the wind spins its many turbines, has failed to save any significant net carbon emissions through wind. The intermittent nature of the wind means that fossil-fuel power stations have to be kept going, or inefficiently powered up and down. Besides, the total power produced from even the biggest wind farms is so small that, as a strategy for reducing carbon emissions significantly, wind power is a failure.
Yes, gas has carbon in it, but half as much as coal for each unit of energy. So a dash for gas to replace coal would dramatically and rapidly reduce carbon emissions. Given Mr Huhne’s nuclear allergy, it is probably by far the most effective and low-cost way to do so. Solar is expensive (and strangely inefficient at night); tidal destroys ecosystems; wave is an engineering nightmare; there is no room for more hydro; and biofuels use just as much fossil fuel in their production as they produce in “green” fuel.
Shale gas has environmental risks - the water and chemicals used in the hydraulic “fracking” process must be safely disposed of - but environmental benefits too. Unlike renewables it is not land-hungry, taking up remarkably little space. A typical shale gas well has a footprint one 3,000th of the size of woodland producing the same amount of energy in firewood. Unlike coal and biofuels, it does not require transport by road and rail as it can be piped. Unlike oil, it cannot spill (and though it can explode, it rarely does). Unlike coal, its turbines work at small scale almost as efficiently as at large scale, so power stations can be many and local, supplying heat as well as electricity. It can be burnt near where people need power, requiring less investment in ugly pylons and transmission lines. Unlike coal it does not emit sulphur, mercury or other pollutants.
I can think of one consolation and one consolation only about the presence of a dangerous zealot like Chris Huhne in Cameron’s cabinet. Even more so than our useless justice minister Ken Clarke, his presence in government is such an affront to reason, so blatant an upraised middle finger to all those decent people who just want Britain to get back on its feet economically and begin undoing all the damage that was done to Britain by Cameron’s hero Tony Blair, that I suspect he may prove the undoing of the entire Coalition.
In Cameron’s cosy circle of spoiled toffs it of course matters not one jot whether your electricity bill is 250 or 2500 or, frankly, 25,000. It doesn’t matter if your view is ruined by a field of ruddy great wind turbines (not if say your father in law is Sir Reginald Sheffield who stands to make large sums of money from “farming” that intermittent wind). It doesn’t even seem to matter what happens to all those businesses, small ones especially, which are going to be crippled by these artificially-induced energy price increases: not when in Cameron’s circles the only people who really matter are either in-the-loop corporate fat cats whose larger companies can more easily wear the extra costs or City bankers heavily exposed to “green energy” interests.
To the rest of us, though, these things are going to start mattering more and more.
Deutsche Bank is putting its interest in making money off climate change ahead of the facts
By David Henderson
As the Cancun post-mortems continue, one area that calls for attention is the questionable role of leading businesses. Recent episodes involving the Deutsche Bank Group are illustrative of a wider problem. They give grounds for serious concern.
In September a report entitled “Climate Change: Addressing the Major Skeptic Arguments,” was issued under the auspices of Deutsche Bank. It was published by DB ClimateChange Advisors, a unit described on the bank’s website as “the brand name for the institutional climate-change investment division of Deutsche Asset Management, the asset-management arm of Deutsche Bank AG in the U.S.” The report was co-authored by three climate scientists at the Columbia Climate Center at the Earth Institute of Columbia University.
As the title suggests, the authors’ avowed purpose in preparing the report was to demonstrate that the “major skeptic arguments,” and any conclusions based on them, are to be rejected. To quote the document’s introduction: “This study aims to respond to the most common misconceptions that are presented to challenge the position that [greenhouse gas] emissions are adversely impacting Earth’s climate and will continue to do so.”
In an editorial preface to the report, the Deutsche Bank global head of climate-change investment research, Mark Fulton, describes it as “a balanced, detailed and expert assessment of the scientific case for climate change that will help investors navigate these extremely complex issues.”
The document’s claims to balance, and to accuracy as a navigational guide, were promptly put in question by the Canadian economist Ross McKitrick of Guelph University, one of the “skeptics” supposedly disposed of within it. Prof. McKitrick’s critique, entitled “Response to Misinformation from Deutsche Bank,” is dated Sept. 13. It focuses on two central topics treated in the report, with the main emphasis on the well-publicized “hockey stick” controversy. In relation to these topics, it identifies and spells out an extended list of errors, misrepresentations and falsehoods.
In response, the authors of the document have put out a revised text which replaces the original. But to create this new version they have simply inserted at the end a three-page “Response to McKitrick.” In these pages they admit to a few ‘mischaracterizations’ and offer amended versions of three sentences that they acknowledge to have been misleading. However, the original wording of these confessedly faulty sentences survives, unchanged and unfootnoted, in an unaltered main text. McKitrick has described this behaviour on the authors’ part as “unsporting.” Others might characterize it as unprofessional. The Deutsche Bank sponsors of the study should not have sanctioned it.
In a second set of comments, dated Nov. 8 and entitled “Response to Revised Report from Deutsche Bank,” McKitrick has extended and reinforced his critique. Up to now, there has been no further response from the authors of the report or from Deutsche Bank.
Viewed together, McKitrick’s twin presentations appear as damning and unanswerable. As a guide to investors, or indeed for any other purpose, this Deutsche Bank/Earth Institute report is worthless.
The report’s deficiencies put in question the conduct of its sponsors within Deutsche Bank, as also the conduct of those whom they report to. It would be interesting to know whether the officials who commissioned and approved this deeply flawed initiative took the precaution of submitting a draft for expert review to competent persons not already firmly convinced that “the skeptics” have been refuted.
Looking at the list of members, it would seem that no such person is to be found among the eminent individuals who make up the Deutsche Bank’s high-level Climate Advisory Board: All of these appear as people who are (to quote a nice phrase from Clive Crook) “pre-committed to the urgency of the climate cause.” They include the chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Dr. R.K. Pachauri, and a former executive director of the United Nations Environment Program, Klaus Topfer.
It is not clear whether the Climate Advisory Board saw a draft of this Earth Institute report, or indeed whether they were aware that it had been commissioned. A more representative Advisory Board, spanning a wider range of opinions, might have taken more trouble to ensure that it was kept fully informed, and that any published work on climate change issues put out by Deutsche Bank would measure up to professional standards.
The Deutsche Bank Group has also taken its climate-change involvement into the political sphere. In the recent Californian elections, voters were invited to accept or reject Proposition 23, which would have placed strict constraints on the state government’s plans to introduce further curbs on carbon dioxide emissions. A few days before the vote, the Financial Times reported that “Sixty-eight big investors, managing US$415-billion in assets, have united to urge Californians to vote against efforts to roll back the state’s carbon legislation… Signatories include...Deutsche Bank Climate Advisers...”
It would thus appear that its Climate Change Advisors, who are no more than “the climate-change investment division of Deutsche Asset Management,’ took a strong position on behalf of Deutsche Bank on a controversial political matter. If so, it would be interesting to know whether and to what extent this action, which appears as questionable in itself, was authorized and approved at higher levels within the bank.
As its website confirms, Deutsche Bank is fully committed to the doctrine, now widely endorsed by businesses and governments, of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). How far its current handling of climate-change issues can be viewed as responsible is clearly open to doubt.
For any organization of standing, not least a leading multinational company such as Deutsche Bank, an obvious aspect of responsible conduct is a demonstrated concern for accuracy and the truth. The bank’s management board could now manifest such a concern, first, by commissioning an independent and informed review of this report, and second, by withdrawing and repudiating the report if the review supports McKitrick’s analysis.
In the wider context, however, Deutsche Bank is one of many, while the report shares its faults with numerous cousins. Both are symptomatic.
Businesses across the world, and governments too, have made unqualified and uncritical commitments to the view that in relation to climate-change issues “the science” is “settled.” Within the business world, as in the case of Deutsche Bank, endorsing this received opinion forms a leading aspect of CSR and, for many companies, of corporate strategy.
Received opinion largely rests on a belief, reinforced by statements from leading science academies, that in relation to climate science the official expert advisory process as a whole, and the IPCC assessment reports in particular, are to be seen as reliable guides.
Increasingly in recent years, arguments and evidence to the contrary have been presented by informed critics, prominent among whom have been McKitrick and his fellow Canadian, Stephen McIntyre. In my view, these critics have made a powerful case. The IPCC process has been exposed as being far from a model of rigour, inclusiveness and impartiality, while influential publications on climate-change issues have been shown to be professionally flawed.
Neither businesses nor governments have given the critics due attention. But in the past year or so, new developments have cast further doubt on the claims to objectivity and competence of the official expert advisory process and its official sponsors. In particular, the so-called “Climategate” and “Glaciergate” episodes have exposed attitudes and practices which were clearly unprofessional.
In response to these embarrassing revelations, Dr. Pachauri and the UN Secretary-General asked the InterAcademy Council, a creation of science academies around the world, to appoint an expert independent review committee to report on the process and procedures of the IPCC.
The resulting report was published at the end of August. Because of its careful and qualified wording, both sides of the climate-change debate have been able to draw encouragement from it. I see the report as making a major contribution in two respects: First, it made numerous recommendations for improving the IPCC process; and second, it stressed the need to ensure that a full range of informed views is taken into account, thus confirming that “the science” is not “settled.”
These twin conclusions are subversive of received opinion. Hence the report could help pave the way for significant improvements in the handling of climate-change issues.
The main focus of improvement is clear. In an area of policy where so much is at stake, and so much remains uncertain and unsettled, policies should be evolutionary and adaptive, rather than presumptive as they are now; and their evolution should be linked to a process of inquiry and review that is more thorough, balanced, open and objective than has so far been the case.
Whether and how far a more judicious approach on these lines will gather momentum depends principally on governments, but businesses and business organizations could play a useful - and more responsible - part in raising the quality of debate. As the current example of Deutsche Bank confirms, there is a long way to go.
David Henderson was formerly head of the Economics and Statistics Department of the OECD. He is currently chairman of the Academic Advisory Council of the London-based Global Warming Policy Foundation. His latest publication on climate-change issues has just appeared in the quarterly Newsletter of the Royal Economic Society.
See also Financial Post’s Bank part of global corporate craze to cash in here. They conclude: “As Mr. Henderson puts it, the Deutsche report on climate skeptics has been rendered worthless as a guide to the science and for investors. It also betrays a larger issue, which is a corporate role on the part of Deutsche Bank that makes Exxon look like a Boy Scout.” Icecap note; it should be remembered that Lehman put together a detailed two volume report on climate change as a prospectus for the huge profits they would make in carbon trading and green investments. Like Deutsche bank, they used sources equally willing to prostitute themselves for the cause and dollars. It the process, they took their eyes off the ball of their business and incurred huge loses when the bubble burst and are no longer in business.
