By Michael Marshall, The New Scientist

Editorial: The sun’s activity has a place in climate science

THE idea that changes in the sun’s activity can influence the climate is making a comeback, after years of scientific vilification, thanks to major advances in our understanding of the atmosphere.

The findings do not suggest - as climate sceptics frequently do - that we can blame the rise of global temperatures since the early 20th century on the sun. (ICECAP NOTE: no you can blame a goodly portion on the global data center manipulation and population more than quadrupling enhancing heat island contamination)."There are extravagant claims for the effects of the sun on global climate,” says Giles Harrison, an atmospheric physicist at the University of Reading, UK. “They are not supported.”

Where solar effects may play a role is in influencing regional weather patterns over the coming decades. Predictions on these scales of time and space are crucial for nations seeking to prepare for the future.

Over the famous 11-year solar cycle, the sun’s brightness varies by just 0.1 per cent. This was seen as too small a change to impinge on the global climate system, so solar effects have generally been left out of climate models. However, the latest research has changed this view, and the next report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), due in 2013, will include solar effects in its models.

So far, three mechanisms have come to light (see diagram). The best understood is what is known as the top-down effect, described by Mike Lockwood, also at the University of Reading, and Joanna Haigh of Imperial College London. Although the sun’s brightness does not change much during solar maxima and minima, the type of radiation it emits does. During maxima the sun emits more ultraviolet radiation, which is absorbed by the stratosphere.This warms up, generating high-altitude winds. Although the exact mechanism is unclear, this appears to have knock-on effects on regional weather: strong stratospheric winds lead to a strong jet stream.

The sun’s brightness does not change much during solar maxima, but the type of radiation it emits does

The reverse is true in solar minima, and the effect is particularly evident in Europe, where minima increase the chances of extreme weather. Indeed, this year’s cold winter and the Russian heatwave in July have been linked to the sun’s current lull, which froze weather systems in place for longer than normal.

The second effect is bottom-up, in which additional visible radiation during a solar maximum warms the tropical oceans, causing more evaporation and therefore more rain, especially close to the equator.

On its own, the effect may not be sufficient to cause noticeable differences. “It’s too weak a forcing,” says Tim Woollings of the University of Reading. But a study by Katja Matthes at the GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences in Potsdam and colleagues suggests the two effects could work together to greater effect. For example, observations show that monsoon rains in south-east Asia tend to be stronger during peak solar years. The researchers found that they were only able to reproduce this in models if they included both effects (Science, vol 325, p 1114).

The third solar influence on climate is extraterrestrial. Earth is bombarded by cosmic rays from exploding stars, which are largely deflected by the solar wind during solar maxima and to a slightly lesser degree in minima.

One theory held that cosmic rays cool the planet by helping to form airborne particles that water vapour condenses onto, increasing cloud cover. However, models suggest the effect is tiny (Nature, vol 460, p 332). Just to be sure, though, the idea is being tested by the CLOUD experiment at CERN in Geneva, Switzerland. Initial results are expected in the next six months.

Read much more here.

-----------------

Der Spiegel: The Ocean’s Influence Greater Than Thought
By P Gosselin

Alex Bojanowski at Germany’s online Der Spiegel reports here on a new paper appearing in Nature that shows climate change in the 1970s was caused by ocean cooling. Climate simulation models once indicated that the cooling in the 1970s was due to sun-reflecting sulfur particles, emitted by industry. But now evidence points to the oceans.

I don’t know why this is news for the authors of the paper. Ocean cycles are well-known to all other scientists. The following graphic shows the AMO 60-year cycle, which is now about to head south.

Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). Enlarged here. Source here.

Computer models simulating future climate once predicted that it would soon get warm because of increasing GHG emissions, but, writes Der Spiegel, citing Nature:

Now it turns out that the theory is incomplete. A sudden cooling of the oceans in the northern hemisphere played the decisive role in the drop of air temperatures.

The paper was authored by David W. J. Thompson, John M. Wallace, John J. Kennedy, and Phil D. Jones. The scientists discovered that ocean temperatures in the northern hemisphere dropped an enormous 0.3C between 1968 and 1972. Der Spiegel writes:

A huge amount of energy was taken out of the oceans. The scientists said that it was surprising that the cooling was so fast.

This shows, again, that the climate simulation models used for predicting the future are inadequate. It’s not sure what caused the oceans to cool. But scientists are sure that aerosols were not the cause. Der Spiegel describes a possible scenario how the oceans may have cooled:

Huge amounts of melt water from Greenland’s glaciers poured into the Atlantic at the end of the 1960s, and formed a cover over the ocean. The melt water cooled the ocean for one thing, and acted to brake the Gulf Stream, which transports warm water from the tropics and delivers it to the north. The result: the air also cools down.

But, as Spiegel reports, that hardly explains why there was also cooling in the north Pacific. Der Spiegel:

The scientists will have to refine their climate simulations. The new study shows one thing: The influence of the oceans is greater than previously thought.
I’d say that’s a very polite way of saying: Your models have been crap, and it’s back to the drawing board. This time don’t forget to properly take the oceans and every thing else into account. Yes, there’s a quite a bit more to climate than a single trace gas in the atmosphere. Hooray - the warmists are finally beginning to realize it! (Maybe) Read more and comments here and on Watts Up With That postings.

ICECAP NOTE: Neither is a surprise to us. Since inception, stories on the role of the sun and oceans on climate have been posted on Icecap in the “About Climate Change” Section. We have addressed all the factors mentioned in the New Scientist and Nature papers and more. These factors taken together with contamination of temperatures (30%-70% of the changes since 1900 have been found in numerous peer review papers to be the result of urbanization and land use changes) and volcanism can explain most of the longer term trends and extremes and cyclical behavior of temperatures regionally and globally.

Abstract: Perlwitz etal (2009) used computer model suites to contend that the 2008 North American cooling was naturally induced as a result of the continent’s sensitivity to widespread cooling of the tropical (La Nina) and northeastern Pacific sea surface temperatures. But they concluded from their models that warming is likely to resume in coming years and that climate is unlikely to embark upon a prolonged period of cooling. We here show how their models fail to recognize the multidecadal behavior of sea surface temperatures in the Pacific Basin, which determines the frequency of El Ninos and La Ninas and suggests that the cooling will likely continue for several decades. We show how this will be reinforced with multidecadal shift in the Atlantic (and declining solar activity). See publication reprint on SPPI here.

--------------

Phil Jones, The ‘Closet’ Skeptic: Is He Now Throwing The CO2-AGW Hypothesis Under The Bus?
C3 Headlines

Back in February, Phil Jones, of Climategate infamy, did an interview with the BBC. Out of that interview came some very significant revelations that boarded on AGW heresy, including:

* Neither the rate nor magnitude of recent warming is exceptional.

* There was no significant warming from 1998-2009. According to the IPCC we should have seen a global temperature increase of at least 0.2C per decade.

* The IPCC models may have overestimated the climate sensitivity for greenhouse gases, underestimated natural variability, or both.

* This also suggests that there is a systematic upward bias in the impacts estimates based on these models just from this factor alone.

* The logic behind attribution of current warming to well-mixed man-made greenhouse gases is faulty.

* The science is not settled, however unsettling that might be.

* There is a tendency in the IPCC reports to leave out inconvenient findings, especially in the part(s) most likely to be read by policy makers.

Now, several months later, Jones has published a paper with others that concludes the 1970’s land surface cooling was due to cooling in the North Atlantic Ocean. Obviously, Jones and company are now recognizing that natural, large-scale factors are forcing global changes in temperatures besides the IPCC favored trace gas CO2 from human emissions.

And apparently, they are not claiming that human CO2 is the cause of the ocean oscillations that initiate the sea temperature changes in the first place. Gee, I wonder why. (click on images to enlarge)

[Note: Other prominent deniers of natural factors being principal agents in climate change are also starting to see the light.]

Enlarged here.

Enlarged here.

Enlarged here.

For more information on natural ocean oscillations, go here, here and here. See post here.

By Michael R. Fox, Hawaii Reporter

On May 18, 2010 Vice president Al Gore gave an incredibly depressing commencement speech at the University of Tennessee.  According to Gore, doom was imminent, even if he had to fudge the climate data to make it sound frightening.  Glaciers are melting (some are growing, some are receding, as they have for centuries - Antarctica, for example, is growing, sea levels are rising - but very little.  Just check with world expert Nils Axel Morner, (here).  It is difficult to measure Gore’s impact on those who were there at Commencement or had read his speech, but it could not have been good.

Then on September 1, an environmental extremist named James Jay Lee took hostages at the Discovery Channel’s office in Silver Springs, Maryland.  He was armed and claimed also to have explosives with him.  Lee made some very extreme demands which he posted on the web.

In the world most of us live in we are accountable for our own actions and beliefs. While some have unfairly suggested that gloomy, depressing, hateful speeches by Al Gore may have influenced Lee’s actions, however that would be as easy as it would be wrong.  Nobody made Lee kidnap those 3 people in the Discovery Channel’s building, nobody made him threaten their lives, and nobody forced him to write his extreme manifesto.  Unquestionably, however, there are many in the environmental movement who hold the same extreme views as quoted directly from his manifesto:

How people can live without producing more filthy children? All programs on Discovery Health-TLC must stop encouraging the birth of any more parasitic human infants. Talk about ways to disassemble civilization - civilization must be exposed for the filth it is. That, and all its disgusting religious-cultural roots and greed. Broadcast this message until the pollution of the planet is reversed and the human population goes down! This is your obligation. If you think it isn’t, then get hell off the planet!

There is much more but we can see the nature of his extreme, contemptible anti-human views. Hopefully we can all agree that these are very extreme views to be held by a fellow American.  We should dismiss him as an extremist, a loner gone off the rails, with little or no political impact on the world, our nation, or those around him.  He would have few, if any friends who would share these extremist views.

Consider another person with many similar extremist views. This fellow believed that

* Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;
* The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation’s drinking water or in food;
* Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;
* People who “contribute to social deterioration” (i.e. undesirables) “can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility” - in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.
* A transnational “Planetary Regime” should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans’ lives - using an armed international police force.

You might want to dismiss these extreme statements also, as the words of some angry, anti-human crank.  But they aren’t. These are the words of Obama’s science advisor, a man whom Obama seeks out for such scientific advice.  These are the words of Dr. John Holdren.  He co-authored the book, “Ecoscience” in 1977, where he wrote those words above. He and co-authors, Dr. Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich, wrote this book and put many of their horrendous thoughts in writing.  He is now the Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology - informally known as the United States’ Science Czar.

An extraordinary analysis of Holdren’s writings appears here.  This is an incredibly detail analyses of Holdren’s exact words, and goes right to the exact written source and the exact pages in Ecoscience where Holdren’s horrendous quotes, values, and contempt for human life appeared. With the exact words and the exact pages presented, the doubters have no wiggle room.

What on Earth is it about Holdren which Obama approves, and would motivate him to appoint him to high office?  Do they share the same values? What is it about the National Academy of Sciences which nominated him for membership in the National Academy of Sciences (NAS)? The NAS is just not that prestigious anymore, and is losing ground.  What is it about the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) which elected him their president?  Should we conclude that Holdren’s belief system of population control, sterilization of women, and the killing of infants is something deserving of the name “Science”, and were so compelling that they elected him president by the AAAS?

Should we still presume that the AAAS can be serious about science and the horrendous people it elects to their high offices?  Should we ever take seriously any document or policy statement from the National Academy of Sciences, so long as they have demonstrably bad judgment in nominating Holdren and Ehrlich to the NAS membership?

It seems strange that as a society we dismiss the rantings and extreme views of the gunman who held employees of the Discovery Channel hostage, and called for the cessation of producing “filthy children”.  On the other hand we highly honor a well-connected Ph.D., with similar extreme views, and even appoint him to be the president’s science advisor.  It makes no sense.

Strangely as a society we dismiss the rantings and extreme views of a gunman who held hostage employees of the Discovery channel, who called for the cessation of producing “filthy children”.  On the other hand we highly honor a well-connected Ph.D. with similar extreme views, by appointing him to be the president’s science advisor.  It makes no sense.

However, as Eric Hoffer observed “One of the surprising privileges of intellectuals is that they are free to be scandalously asinine without harming their reputation.” - as quoted by Thomas Sowell in his book, “Intellectuals and Society”.  Obama should know better.  And Americans deserve better.

Michael R. Fox, Ph.D., is a nuclear scientist and a science and energy resource for Hawaii Reporter and a science analyst for the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, is retired and now lives in Western Washington. He has nearly 40 years’ experience in the energy field. He has also taught chemistry and energy at the University level. His interest in the communications of science has led to several communications awards, hundreds of speeches, and many appearances on television and talk shows.

By Robert Bradley Jr.

When will Democrats and true environmentalists wake up to windpower, or what Robert Bryce calls the ethanol of electricity? Industrial wind is a scam when seen in all of its dimensions - economic, environmental, and esthetic. Bryce has identified five myths of green energy - and post after post at MasterResource by Kent Hawkins, Jon Boone, and John Droz Jr. have shown that meaningful CO2 reductions from windpower are highly debatable.

Industrial wind is chock full of environmental negatives and isn’t nearly as effective at reducing air emissions than advertised. Big Wind is corporate welfare with companies like GE and FPL skipping their federal taxes. Wind today is the legacy of Enron, the Ken Lay model of political capitalism. Wind is an assault on lower-income energy users, not only taxpayers. (And Democrats are supposed to be for the little guy...)

Yet the Left marches onward with no inkling of a need - given their own purported values - to make midcourse corrections.

Industrial wind and on-grid solar were supposed to be competitive by now. Beginning in the 1980s, the (false) promises have come again and again from wind and solar proponents. Read the quotations here.

And now, desperation has set in for an industry that needs more government (point-of-a-gun) energy policy to continue its artificial boom. And so a fundraiser yesterday was held by the renewable lobby for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D. Nevada) that caught the eye of the Wall Street Journal, which published this short op-ed, Why They Go Green:

In a free energy market, companies succeed by producing cheaper, better products than competitors. In a “green” energy market, companies succeed by holding Beltway fundraisers. For more on the distinction, ask Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who will benefit today from a tony Washington money-raising breakfast hosted by top “renewable energy” industry groups.

Democrats may be losing altitude with most of struggling corporate America, but it’s all about the love with the green sector, floating above economic realities thanks to stimulus handouts and other perks funneled them by the majority. Mr. Reid has been a strong advocate of this transfer, and the industry is showing it knows how to give back.

That, and watching its back. The companies that belong to the American Wind Energy Association or the Solar Energy Industries Association (among the fundraiser’s hosts) produce costly products that can’t compete against traditional fuels. Their business plans are written around Washington subsidies and mandates. They’re obviously worried a Republican majority might pare back the grants, loans and tax credits, in the name of cutting government waste. One can hope.

As the event invitation noted - in requesting $2,500 to attend - Mr. Reid’s Nevada Senate competition against Republican Sharron Angle is an “incredibly important race.” Indeed it is if your balance sheets depend on the Democrats’ special way with taxpayer money.

Can Democrats and the Left wise up and chuck windpower and on-grid solar? (Off-grid solar has a free-market niche.) Industrial wind is an environmental loser, not only an economic loser. The good news is that change is in the air as the grassroots environmental movement is rethinking - and rejecting -industrial windpower. When will Big Environmental question Big Wind - or do they secretly love industrial wind because its power is more expensive and less reliable than what industrial society needs?

Strange values, strange politics. Read more here.