Climate Science

[Alan Robinson]

It is all well and good using various methods to predict the future based on the past, but climate science is presently unable to give a unified, coherent explanation of climate's causes. Apparently, our understanding is developing at snail's pace.

It strikes me that science was quite happy to leave it there, until the global warming debate developed. As mentioned before, my suspicion is that despite their reticence on the subject, politicians were only too well aware of peak oil and the developing world economy, and finding themselves without an appealing practical vision for the future, decided to introduce to voters the idea that big changes were needed. We cannot go on burning fossil fuels, not because we are slowly running out and increasing numbers want to burn it, but because carbon dioxide is bad for us. Enter global warming, and enter science stage left with the controversy over hockey sticks. It doesn't end there though. If Jaworowsky's 1991 criticisms of ice core data - for example - have not been refuted, can anyone please explain to me why the IPCC insists on using methods that seemingly are quite inappropriate? What kind of science is that?

I am not holding my breath. I doubt that in my lifetime science will throw very much more light on the combined effects of cosmic rays, solar cycles, stratospheric winds, ozone, complex ocean circulations, the amount of carbon dioxide in the oceans, aerosols, and indeed, just how much carbon dioxide the atmosphere contained in the past. With the current economic development, science funding is likely to be top of politicians' list of spending cuts, now that we have all become used to the idea that the future will be nothing like the past.

Never mind. I'll just continue following Dr Samuel Johnson's advice, and predict rain when I see dark clouds.

Edited August 9, 2011 by Alan Robinson

[jethro]

That pretty much sums up my thoughts too Alan.

[Methuselah]

That pretty much sums up my thoughts too Alan.

Mine too!

[BornFromTheVoid]

This guy tries to answer some of Jaworowsky's points http://www.ferdinand...jaworowski.html

This too

ESPR – Environ Sci. & Pollut. Res. 2 (1) 1995, pp. 60-61

Ancient Atmosphere

It is with great hesitation that I write in reply to the paper by JAWOROWSKI, this paper deserves little attention. But unfortunately, he has succeded in publishing similar articles in journaIs and thus has induced considerable confusion regarding the reconstruction of ancient atmospheric compositions by the analysis of air occluded in polar ice of known age. We hope that this reply will help to clarify the issue. JAWOROWSKI is correct in one point. The glacier studies of ice cores are fundamental for one of the most important issues of the century and are of great importance for succeeding centuries.

I have been personally involved in the development of this field since its inception. In the early stages I was involved directly in experiments; later the experimental and analysis work was conducted by my collaborators and students. ii in this article I speak of “we”, I refer to the ice core team at the University of Bern. In the following I first give a short overview of the history of ice core research.

Although we knew since the nineteen fifties that human activities might change the climate of the Earth, it was not until the mid seventies we realised that mankind was faced with a serious problem. Using a new model for the exchange of CO₂ between atmosphere and ocean, we were able to consistently describe the uptake excess of CO₂ by the ocean, as well as the distribution in the ocean of ¹⁴C produced by cosmic radiation, and ¹⁴C stemming from nuclear weapon tests. We became convinced that, for the expected future anthropogenic CO₂ emission, the atmospheric CO₂ concentration would rise in a predictable manner. (In fact, using the estimated actual fossil CO₂ emissions as input, the CO₂ increase of the past 20 years corresponds to within 10% of the predictions based on such models.) At that rime an urgent question concerned the preindustrial atmospheric CO₂ concentration and the early history of the CO₂increase, but also the question of whether the atmospheric CO₂concentration of the preindustrial time was stable or whether there were also natural variations in CO₂ concentration.

The US-CO₂ programme was planned at an ERDA meeting in Miami in the late seventies. At that time we proposed a reconstruction of the CO₂ history by measuring the gases trapped in polar ice. This idea was met with a great deal of scepticism and we were aware that the changes for success were limited because of a wide spectrum of problems, including those which JAWOROWSKI describes in his paper. On the other hand, we were aware of the urgency of the greenhouse problem and concerned that the science community would fail to conduct the most relevant studies aimed at the assessment of the rising greenhouse effect.

The project to reconstruct the history of the greenhouse gases was conducted; it was, and is, very successful – much above expectation. The CO₂ concentrations measured on the SIPLE core, Antarctica, serve as a measure of that success. They illustrate (JAWOROWSKI, Fig. 5 a, p. 168) the history of atmospheric CO₂ increase since the middle of the 18th century. Another important result was the observation of low CO₂concentrations of the gases extracted from ice-age ice. The low glacial CO₂ concentrations have been confirmed in ice cores with different physical and chemical properties both from Greenland and Antarctica and independently from ¹³C measurements on carbonate of foraminifera shells in ocean cores and, yet again, more recently in moss samples.

Now to the paper of JAWOROWSKI: For years he emphasizes only the difficulties of these studies, formulates the underlying assumptions which sometimcs are only partly fulfilled and criticizes the work performed hitherto in an unscrupulous manner. He does this without any appreciation for the development of expertise in this field over several decades. Thus he extrapolates from contamination problems in improvised pioneering experiments in the late sixties to more recent (1992) similar experiments on the Greenland ice cap for which special equipment was developed. Some of his statements are drastically wrong from the physical point of view, e.g. the statement that CO₂ at 70 m depth in the ice begins to change into solid clathrates. Another example concerns the gas-occlusion process in firn and young ice. This process has been studied in detail theoretically and experimentally. The theory of diffusion of gases in firn and the occlusion at the firn-ice transition has been confirmed impressively by the detection of a gravitational enrichment of the heavier gases and of the heavier isotopes of a gas. This enrichment depends, in the first instance, on the depth of the firn-ice transition. It enables the reconstruction of the history of gas enclosure depth during the last glacial-interglacial cycle. But JAWOROWSKI maintains that the age of the ice and that of the occluded gases are the same and shifts the CO₂ increase revealed from studies of the SIPLE core (Fig. 5 a) – which in the uppermost part overlaps convincingly with the atmospheric measurements by ca. 100 years back in time (assuming identical ages for the ice and the gases in the ice). Fig. 5 b speaks for itself; why should there be such a drastic increase of CO₂ and of CH₄ (Fig. 5 a) in the middle of the 19th century?

The teams of researchers involved in ice core studies have a high standing within the scientific community. The early increases of the greenhouse gases are used to initiative the models simulating climatic change and help to understand the source and sink problem related to the greenhouse gas increases of the last 150 years. The low glacial greenhouse concentrations are an essential boundary condition for climate modelling experiments of the Earth during a glacial period. The papers by JAWOROWSKI, and the one by HEYKE quoted in this paper, are not taken seriously by the science community. The problem with these publications is that a broader circle of persons interested in the Global Change issue will receive the impression that the assessment of the problem is partly based on doubtful information, that there are serious weaknesses in experimental procedures, that the whole Global Change problem does not need to be taken so seriously and that there is no urgency regarding the control of CO₂ emission. The time lost now is crucial for attempts to limit the anthropogenic climatic change to a range with more absorbable negative consequences.

The study of the history of Earth system parameters is an on-going process; an increasing number of laboratories have become involved and interact with each other. As it is the case in any field of science, the state of art is continuously critically assessed and attempts are made to improve the quality of the research. Ice-core information is fundamental for the assessment of one of the most urgent problems of our time. Based on my experience during decades of involvement in this field, I consider the chances as very small that the major findings from greenhouse gas studies on ice cores are fundamentally wrong; and I find the publications of JAWOROWSKI not only to be incorrect, but irresponsible.

Hans Oeschger, Ph. D. Professor of Physics

Physical Institute

University of Bern

Chl-3012 Bern, Switzerland

[Gray-Wolf]

I find the publications of JAWOROWSKI not only to be incorrect, but irresponsible.

strong words but correct if my understanding of both the methodology and the results they bring us are anything to go by.

I have often posted (on here) that we owe a great resposibility to the 'lurkers' who come here to help them understand better the way we see our planet changing over 'recent' time.

EDIT: Talking of changing climate is this the longest (since records began in the 50's) that NAO has been negative?

Edited August 15, 2011 by Gray-Wolf

[pottyprof]

I find the publications of JAWOROWSKI not only to be incorrect, but irresponsible.

I have often posted (on here) that we owe a great resposibility to the 'lurkers' who come here to help them understand better the way we see our planet changing over 'recent' time.

We also keep saying that personal opinion is not scientific but that seems to be something that gets forgotten.

[Alan Robinson]

We also keep saying that personal opinion is not scientific but that seems to be something that gets forgotten.

I am sure you noticed it was Prof. Oeshger in Bern that made the ad hominem argument in his letter.

BornFromTheVoid; thanks for the link http://www.ferdinand...jaworowski.html. I was amazed that I couldn't find anything on the internet opposing Jaworowsky's views. This at least is a start, though I should have thought there might be far more widespread condemnation of Jaworowsky, if indeed he is so completely wrong. Nonetheless, as I do not fully understand all the reasoning and arguments, and neither do I have the time and inclination to delve so deeply into it, where does this leave us? It seems Oeschger is totally at odds with Jaworowsky (along with Segalstad and Hisdal, who were Jaworowsky's co-authors). With apparently little common ground between the opposing arguments, is it not reasonable for we laymen to conclude that the whole business of ice core data is controversial?

I might just add that during my career in engineering, I was appointed several times what is called an "Expert Witness" to the High Court. I was astounded, more than once, to read and hear the statements of other Expert Witnesses, who very clearly spoke out of turn, and beyond their own area of competence. In such civil action, it was in those days normal that both Plaintiff and Defendant each appoint their own experts. Due to whole teams of experts being called upon - thus drawing cases out interminably - legislation was passed limiting each party to just a single expert witness, and due to experts putting forward distorted evidence on behalf of their clients, the rules concerning expert evidence had to be changed. This resulted in experts having to consult other experts, and act as a sort of spokesman, only that does not work properly when being cross-examined by a QC in front of the Judge, and the expert fails to answer by saying "I am sorry, but that is beyond my particular expertise".

These days, experts make a solemn declaration to the Court that they understand their duty is to the Court, meaning that they must not put forward the views of whoever hired them in the first place. Now these "experts" are normally members of prestigious professional institutions, have strings of letters after their name, and rely on reputation to give credence to their (sometimes) distorted, partisan evidence. Nonetheless, I have seen more than one such expert neglect to advise the judge just where his or her area of expertise ended, and they very willingly went on to give faulty and misleading evidence, purporting to have full understanding of the issues.

I am convinced this is the case with climate science experts. There are so many specialist areas that would take a lifetime to become expert in. The only difference between my High Court experiences and the global warming debate, is that it is you and I who take the place of His Lordship.

Edited August 16, 2011 by Alan Robinson

[Alan Robinson]

I have heard several times that global warming and the climate trends these last few years would for us in northern Europe result in

1) hotter, drier summer summers

2) wetter winters

The general development would be for precipitation to reduce in summer and increase in winter.

Can anyone please explain to me why summer 2011 is now set to be the wettest summer in Denmark since records began in 1874?

http://www.dmi.dk/dmi/sjaskvaad_sommer

EDIT: Talking of changing climate is this the longest (since records began in the 50's) that NAO has been negative?

GW, I used to follow the NAO graphs closely, but I've given up on it. For one thing, I did a statistical analysis of the durations of positive and negative phases, and got what I thought was a decent probability curve for the various durations. On that basis I predicted that winter 2010 - 2011 would be fairly mild with a high proportion of westerly winds. How wrong could I be! You are correct, the NAO stayed negative, and apart from a few weeks of positive in May 2011 (or there abouts) it has remained stubbornly negative.

The odd thing is, I thought -ve NAO was supposed to be associated with continental type weather, and +ve indices occur with maritime weather. Well, the NAO has remained negative, and here we are in Denmark about to break the record books for summer rain! Continental weather would have given us drought.

Another thing, I don't quite understand the -ve index. As often as not these last few months when I have seen surface pressure charts it has been low at Reykjavik, and high over the Azores - correct - hence the heavy rain we have had. Pressure has of course been low over Spain, which presumably affects Lisbon, and might well affect the way they work out the NAO index from day-to-day. Whatever, I pay the NAO index not the slightest credence any more.

Edited August 23, 2011 by Alan Robinson

[John S2]

I have heard several times that global warming and the climate trends these last few years would for us in northern Europe result in

1) hotter, drier summer summers

2) wetter winters

The general development would be for precipitation to reduce in summer and increase in winter.

This is an interesting subject. I think the theory was that the jet stream would tend to be a little further North on average which would lead to warmer, drier, summers. Instead, 2011 will be the 5th summer in a row that has had above average rainfall in the UK, although there have been significant local variations. It should be emphasised that this is a regional effect. This summer has been warm over much of the USA away from the Northwest, for example. There are several factors that could be conspiring to produce poor summers in the UK:

1) July & August have a tendency [not a 'rule'] to be better when the atmosphere is behaving in an El Nino fashion rather than Nina. Recent years have seen prolonged periods with high positive SOI numbers - associated with La Nina.

2) Solar influences - this needs more research

3) The warming of the arctic could actually be helping to move the jet stream further South at our longitude in summer by shifting the zones of greatest thermal contrast

On the subject of colder winters, the most plausible theory I have come across is that the state of the sun's magnetic field - it has been exceptionally low recently - indirectly affects the jet stream and causes more blocking. The warming arctic could possibly enhance this, but I don't believe the evidence supports the idea that lack of sea ice is a primary driver.

What I am saying is that there are numerous factors which influence our weather, some of which are independent from the global warming signal. 2010 was strange in that it was a cold year in the UK but warmest on record globally [but any difference from 2005 & 1998 is statistically insignificant]

[jethro]

I have heard several times that global warming and the climate trends these last few years would for us in northern Europe result in

1) hotter, drier summer summers

2) wetter winters

The general development would be for precipitation to reduce in summer and increase in winter.

Can anyone please explain to me why summer 2011 is now set to be the wettest summer in Denmark since records began in 1874?

http://www.dmi.dk/dmi/sjaskvaad_sommer

I would say it's a risk you face if you take a few years of data and then extrapolate into the future.

[BornFromTheVoid]

I have heard several times that global warming and the climate trends these last few years would for us in northern Europe result in

1) hotter, drier summer summers

2) wetter winters

The general development would be for precipitation to reduce in summer and increase in winter.

Can anyone please explain to me why summer 2011 is now set to be the wettest summer in Denmark since records began in 1874?

http://www.dmi.dk/dmi/sjaskvaad_sommer

Because of weather maybe? Perhaps more low pressure than usual

GW, I used to follow the NAO graphs closely, but I've given up on it. For one thing, I did a statistical analysis of the durations of positive and negative phases, and got what I thought was a decent probability curve for the various durations. On that basis I predicted that winter 2010 - 2011 would be fairly mild with a high proportion of westerly winds. How wrong could I be! You are correct, the NAO stayed negative, and apart from a few weeks of positive in May 2011 (or there abouts) it has remained stubbornly negative.

The odd thing is, I thought -ve NAO was supposed to be associated with continental type weather, and +ve indices occur with maritime weather. Well, the NAO has remained negative, and here we are in Denmark about to break the record books for summer rain! Continental weather would have given us drought.

Another thing, I don't quite understand the -ve index. As often as not these last few months when I have seen surface pressure charts it has been low at Reykjavik, and high over the Azores - correct - hence the heavy rain we have had. Pressure has of course been low over Spain, which presumably affects Lisbon, and might well affect the way they work out the NAO index from day-to-day. Whatever, I pay the NAO index not the slightest credence any more.

The negative NAO recently has just been on average and there doesn't necessarily need to be high pressure over Iceland and low pressure across the Azores for it to be negative.

And there have been a distinct lack of zonal winds for Denmark this summer so far

I presume that would that be part of a -ve NAO signature for Denmark?

[Alan Robinson]

3) The warming of the arctic could actually be helping to move the jet stream further South at our longitude in summer by shifting the zones of greatest thermal contrast

Just to be clear John, concerning longitude, is this supposed to be due to the distribution of land and ocean around the polar circle? The Norwegian Sea and Bering Sea divide Canada and Greenland from Siberia, is that it? If so, is there an explanation about the supposed mechanisms and how they are changing? I was wondering about prof. Lockwood's recent announcement that solar phenomena are probably responsible for the blocking highs near UK these last two winters.

Edited August 24, 2011 by Alan Robinson

[Alan Robinson]

Because of weather maybe? Perhaps more low pressure than usual

The negative NAO recently has just been on average and there doesn't necessarily need to be high pressure over Iceland and low pressure across the Azores for it to be negative.

And there have been a distinct lack of zonal winds for Denmark this summer so far

I presume that would that be part of a -ve NAO signature for Denmark?

Well today DMI have come up with this.

http://www.dmi.dk/dm..._rke_og_skybrud_

The gist is that 21 different IPCC models predict a wide variety of scenarios, and there is a prediction to suit everyone's taste. I expect this will inflame the climate debate, which politicians here will welcome with open arms. They also report that, in fact, since 1991 summer precipitation has been steadily increasing compared to the previous 100 years. Furthermore, the magnitude of shorter downpours is also steadily increasing, and they infer that cloudbursts (a touchy subject for DMI in recent times) will increase in frequency. So much for the drier summers.

Pressure has generally been somewhat below 101.3 kPa (as an engineer I stick to SI units ) and the weather has been wet. Just how long this has to keep up for the climate to be wet is perhaps a matter of convention.

Regarding zonal winds, I am afraid I don't understand the term. If you mean something like "westerlies", then I can report that between June 2011 and today there have been a large proportion of westerly winds, though it is a remarkably long time since we had a gale.

With respect to the NAO, my observation is that with the exception of this summer, negative indices usually bring high pressure over the Gulf of Bothnia and western Russia, giving us easterly winds here. When that happens in winter, lows usually form in the Ligurian Sea or Adriatic Sea, pass through the gap between The Alps and The Carpathians, tipping lots of snow on us. We have had such lows this summer, making things muggy, but it is complex frontal systems from the west that have given us so much rain this summer, not air from the Black Sea.

Edited August 24, 2011 by Alan Robinson

[jethro]

All that extra rain washing CO2 out of the atmosphere too.

[Methuselah]

All that extra rain washing CO2 out of the atmosphere too.

With any luck, yes...

[Waterspout]

On the subject of colder winters, the most plausible theory I have come across is that the state of the sun's magnetic field - it has been exceptionally low recently - indirectly affects the jet stream and causes more blocking.

In general I agree with your posting, however it is the drop in the Sun's UV Output by around 30% since the last Solar Max, which has a well known physically modelled effect of altering the Jet Stream and Blocked patterns into NW Europe. UV affects Ozone production in the atmosphere which affects the Jet Stream.

There's some good reading/papers on this here:

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi?id=sh05100g

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=7122

Ironically 2 of the authors are Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt.

This research was further reflected on by Mike Lockwood more recently in the explaining Winters of 2009-2010:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8615789.stm

"The way in which solar activity affects the behaviour of blocking episodes is linked to the amount of ultraviolet (UV) emissions being produced by the Sun. "

[Waterspout]

Well Well and as if by magic:

http://www.bbc.co.uk...onment-15199065

I often email Richard Black, especially when he writes articles telling us Scientists say The Sun has no role in our Climate. I actually emailed him 2 years ago regarding the UV connection to European Winters, and I've just had the pleasure to email him again to congratulate him on the BBC playing catch-up with reality. ;-D I have to say he always replies as a courtesy.

Edited October 9, 2011 by Waterspout

[NorthNorfolkWeather]

Well Well and as if by magic:

http://www.bbc.co.uk...onment-15199065

I often email Richard Black, especially when he writes articles telling us Scientists say The Sun has no role in our Climate. I actually emailed him 2 years ago regarding the UV connection to European Winters, and I've just had the pleasure to email him again to congratulate him on the BBC playing catch-up with reality. ;-D I have to say he always replies as a courtesy.

Hi WS,

I sent an email to a couple of friends of mine today, reminding them that I pointed out the drop in UV and the effect I thought it would have -- just under 3 years ago. Glad to see that scientists now think I'm right.

The bit that always makes me smile is someone saying "the sun has no effect on our climate". However no sun = no climate and small changes in the sun at non visible wavelengths could always have been a driver that couldn't be measured until recently

[Gray-Wolf]

I do not think anyone doubts the suns impacts on weather/climate ? What is under debate is mans impact? The latest spate of " X" flares from the sun ( and the solar storms assoc.) show us the sun is ramping up to solar Max. Should we suffer another early ,biting Arctic blast this Nov/Dec are we going to put it down to an active sun or are we going to look North to the ice loss this summer for our explanations as to why?

Prior to Wed's winter update I'll give you mine . Cold Nov/Dec then a middling Jan/Feb/March. Why? The Arctic Amplification and the 'Faux High' it drives over sections of the Arctic ocean (driven by the ocean shedding the heat it gained over summer) with any 'deep cold slipping south into temperate zones. This is of course balanced by WAA into the Arctic to compensate for the cold air that slipped south......maybe it's our turn for some of that and Central Europe will get the 'early Arctic Blast'????

[pottyprof]

I do not think anyone doubts the suns impacts on weather/climate ?

Amazing....... Suddenly all these people are claiming that the sun does indeed have an effect on climate. It wasn't that long ago when this was denied by many proponents of AGW theory. Heaven forbid that the rule book has changed.

[Waterspout]

The latest spate of " X" flares from the sun ( and the solar storms assoc.) show us the sun is ramping up to solar Max. Should we suffer another early ,biting Arctic blast this Nov/Dec are we going to put it down to an active sun or are we going to look North to the ice loss this summer for our explanations as to why?

Solar Max is now expected around 2014. Some X-Ray Flares have indeed gone off lately, but the background UV Output has not increased that much so far, although I don't have current figures for the UV Spectrum. It will ramp up slowly, irrespective of any X-Ray flares going on. So, in % change terms I don't think the current UV Output is much different to that in 2009/2010.

I must search out the figures now! One thing is interesing. The Solar Min in 2009 had a UV level 6% lower than the Solar Min of 1996. So, is there a threshold level which kicks in this Northern Blocking scenerio, or is it controlled by many years of lower UV over time? I don't think anyone has the answers to this as of yet. We can just keep monitoring what happens I suppose.

[VillagePlank]

Amazing....... Suddenly all these people are claiming that the sun does indeed have an effect on climate. It wasn't that long ago when this was denied by many proponents of AGW theory. Heaven forbid that the rule book has changed.

Maybe all that energy is stored somewhere so that there is a lag of some kind creating an effect that even in solar minima we can still be warming since the energy from the more viscous material emits more slowly [1]

[1] http://en.wikipedia....eaky_integrator

EDIT: for all the long-timers on here, I know this is a little mischievous

Edited October 17, 2011 by Sparticle

[Methuselah]

Amazing....... Suddenly all these people are claiming that the sun does indeed have an effect on climate. It wasn't that long ago when this was denied by many proponents of AGW theory. Heaven forbid that the rule book has changed.

Tbh PP, all most people have ever said (there are some loons, I admit) is that the Sun is not the sole contributor to our climate...If it was - we'd all be frozen solid?

[VillagePlank]

(there are some loons, I admit)

Me! Me! ME!

[Methuselah]

Me! Me! ME!

Count me in, too!