Tuesday, June 28, 2016

New paper on solar activity suggests imminent cooling

Judith Curry notes that this paper has attracted extensive interest and sets out some of the reasons why.  2050 is set as the time for the new era of reduced solar activity to cut in.  This finding comports well with the evidence from geology that we are at the end of a warm interglacial

Evidence of cosmic recurrent and lagged millennia-scale patterns and consequent forecasts: multi-scale responses of solar activity to planetary gravitational forcing [link]

Jorge Sánchez-Sesma


Solar activity (SA) oscillations over the past millennia are analyzed and extrapolated based on reconstructed solar-related records. Here, simple recurrent models of SA signal are applied and tested. The consequent results strongly suggest the following: (a) the existence of multi-millennial (9500-year) scale solar patterns linked with planetary gravitational forcing (PGF), and (b) their persistence, over at least the last glacial– interglacial cycle, but possibly since the Miocene (10.5 Ma). This empirical modeling of solar recurrent patterns has also provided a consequent multi-millennial-scale experimental forecast, suggesting a solar decreasing trend toward Grand (Super) Minimum conditions for the upcoming period, AD2050–2250 (AD 3750–4450). Taking into account the importance of these estimated SA scenarios, a comparison is made with other SA forecasts. In Appendixes A and B, we provide further verification, testing and analysis of solar recurrent patterns since geological eras, and their potential gravitational forcing.


Democrats abandon hope of getting new Greenie laws through Congress -- want to use the DoJ instead

Running around after Exxon is like a dog chasing its tail -- futile.  Exxon was perfectly entitled to keep its internal  documents internal

The committee drafting a platform for Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party unanimously called on Friday for the Justice Department to investigate fossil fuel companies, such as ExxonMobil Corp., accused of misleading shareholders and the public about the risks of climate change.

At the same time, in a session Friday night, the group brushed off calls by environmental activists for the platform to support several stronger actions to move away from fossil fuels. The policies, favored by Bernie Sanders, include a carbon tax and a ban on fracking.

The effect of the session, one of several forums around the country, was to intensify the partisan heat around criticism of Exxon's climate record, while allowing the Clinton camp to stake out political territory that is not quite so harsh on oil, coal and natural gas companies.

Exxon is already under scrutiny by several state attorneys general. President Obama's attorney general has referred the question to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for consideration.

Republicans, for their part, have come to Exxon's defense and denounced the probes as a politically inspired witch hunt that infringes on the company's constitutional rights.

Early in the campaign, after Sanders demanded a federal investigation, Clinton said that she, too, thought a Justice Department probe was warranted under RICO, a federal racketeering statute. But during the debates, as Sanders staked out forceful positions against fracking and for a carbon tax, Clinton refused to go that far.

And in the face of petitions by green activists trying to pull the platform more in the Sanders direction, Clinton's representatives on the platform panel backed her up. Clearly, they wanted to keep their fingers off such hot buttons, such as a promise to leave most fossil fuel reserves in the ground.

They also refused to embrace a "climate test" for approving future energy projects, similar to the one President Obama imposed in turning down TransCanada's application for the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline.

Asked about the loss on so many points, the 350.org campaigner Bill McKibben said in an email, "Since I argued for them, I guess their failure is on me. Disappointing."

But the platform panel, according to RL Miller, founder of the advocacy group Climate Hawks Vote, did accept a goal of obtaining all U.S. energy from renewable fuels by 2050.

That ambition would support the new Paris climate agreement's goals and is hardly compatible with a business-as-usual or "all-of-the-above" energy policy. And it is a far cry from the pro-drilling, pro-fracking, pro-fossil fuels stance of the Republican Party and its candidate, Donald Trump.

"We're thrilled that the Democratic Party will formally recognize the need to hold fossil fuel companies accountable for their deceit," Miller said. "And we're happy that the committee is calling for the United States to be 100% powered by clean energy by 2050. However, we don't see how we'll make that bold leap with baby steps."

She added that her group is "appalled by the incrementalist approach adopted by the majority of the committee in voting down amendments to ban fracking, price carbon, and keep fossil fuels in the ground. Incrementalism won't solve the climate crisis."

The platform's authors did not name Exxon, but the debate made clear that the company was the subject of their call for a federal investigation.


Warmists all in a panic over Brexit

Did climate change cause Brexit?

Ha ha.  Well, the politics of climate change policies seems to have influenced the voters.  there seems to be a substantial confluence of British climate change skeptics and people that voted ‘yes’ for Brexit.   Climate policies are one of the topics of concern regarding EU overreach.  It turns out that a large percentage of the British population are skeptical of human caused climate change.

* From Brexit Is Also A Repudiation Of EU Global Warming Mandates:

Conservative pollster Lord Michael Ashcroft surveyed 12,369 Brits voting in Thursday’s referendum and found 69 percent of those who voted to leave the EU saw the “green movement” as a “force for ill.”

Funny that AGW skepticism was sold as an American aberration. It seems to be alive and well in Britain and elsewhere in Europe.

Will Brexit influence the Paris Climate Change Agreement?

There are numerous dimensions to the potential impacts of Brexit on the Paris Agreement:

*  Guardian: Leave victory risks delaying EU ratification of the Paris deal, leaving the door open for Obama’s successor to unpick the pact

More importantly, for the rest of the world, the Leave campaign’s victory provides a fillip globally for groups opposed to climate action, and if it causes delays to the Paris accord coming into effect, it could provide an opening for aspiring right-wing leaders – including Donald Trump – to try to unpick the pact.

The Brexit vote will be used as a rallying cry for an agenda that frequently includes climate scepticism among its tenets, alongside curbs to immigration and to government regulation.

Many climate sceptics around the world will have been encouraged by the Brexit vote, as there is so much overlap between the two camps, and environmental and carbon goals under the EU were a key target of the Leave campaigners.

* Politico: 5 ways Brexit will transform energy and climate

One oft-voiced concern is that the departure of Britain — which has been a climate leader within the bloc — could weaken the E.U.’s climate ambitions, on top of the general chaos expected to ensue as Brexit now unfolds (which will surely distract all parties from climate policy).

“The UK has generally argued for stronger action on emissions within the EU, so its absence will make it more difficult to counter the arguments of those Member States, such as Poland, which want slower and weaker cuts in emissions,” said Bob Ward, policy and communications director of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics and Political Science.

*  WaPo: Why an E.U. without Britain is bad news for the fight against climate change

“We don’t know how long the exit process is going to take, and secondly, whether that would end up with the UK still in the single market, like Norway, and therefore still within the burden sharing agreement, or completely outside the EU as a separate state, and therefore, would submit its own [climate pledge],” Jordan said. “And in fact, it could take years until that’s clear.”

“UK will not now take part in the sharing out of the EU 2030 target contained in the EU [pledge], and Brexit will likely make it more difficult for the EU to achieve that target as UK has been cutting its emissions by more than the EU average,” Ward said by email.

*  Climate Change News: Six questions for UK and EU low carbon ambitions as British voters reject continued membership of world’s largest single market

In the short term, it could benefit global efforts to limit greenhouse gas emissions growth, former UK climate chief Chris Huhne told Climate Home. That’s because the market volatility set loose by Brexit is likely to lead to a UK recession, and potentially a global slowdown. In the 2008-09 economic crisis emissions fell 1.4%.

Longer term the EU will lose its second-largest economy and a key driver of the region’s low carbon policymaking, the founding member of the 13-strong Green Growth Group of EU nations. Despite a vocal quorum of climate sceptics the UK has consistently argued for Europe to target 50% greenhouse gas emission cuts by 2030, as opposed to the current 40%.

Historically, the UK has adopted a European leadership role with France and Germany on arguing for tougher emission cuts, rolling out a regional carbon market and formulating energy policy.

London is a centre for global green finance and services, UK hi-tech companies are pioneering smart, energy efficient devices, electric vehicles are a major part of the car industry’s long-term strategy.

For one, don’t expect the EU to ratchet up its 40% cuts target with the UK no longer a player.

Secondly, expect eastern states like Poland to play merry hell over the effort sharing deal with a Brussels leadership they are already in conflict with.


Scientists Discover That Their Imaginary Greenland Meltdown Is Not Having Any Effect

Crack government funded scientists are baffled why their imaginary Greenland meltdown is not affecting the Gulf Stream.

It never occurred to them to look at the data and understand that Greenland isn’t actually melting. Greenland’s surface has gained 530 billion tons of ice since last summer, and is tracking well above normal.

It is mid-summer in Greenland, and temperatures in the center of the ice sheet are -15C

Anyone with an IQ over 30 understands that ice doesn’t melt at -15C. This group however does not include climate scientists, or progressives.

One week ago our brilliant secretary of state determined that glaciers calving off Greenland’s Jakobshavn glacier indicated a looming catastrophe.

"Standing near Greenland’s Jakobshavn glacier, the reputed source of the iceberg that sank the Titanic over a century ago, U.S Secretary of State John Kerry saw evidence of another looming catastrophe.  Giant icebergs broken off from the glacier seemed to groan as they drifted behind him, signaling eventual rising oceans that scientists warn will submerge islands and populated coastal region"

Glaciers are rivers of ice. Excess snow falls in the interior, and glaciers carry the ice to the sea where it calves. Glaciers calving is an essential process required to return the 500 billion tons of annual snowfall to the sea, and has nothing to do with global warming. Kerry was seemingly aware that this was occurring in 1912, but perhaps no one told him that the Jakobshavn glacier has been retreating for hundreds of years.

More HERE  (See the original for links, graphics etc.)

Pink snow excitement

It's nothing new but Warmists have just noticed it.  It makes no difference at all

WHAT’s turning Arctic snow pink? Chemical spills? Baby seal clubbing? It’s actually just algae — and it has scientists in a spin.

A study published in the science journal Nature Communications reports the tiny algae which calls snow home has the potential to seriously accelerate melting of the ice cap.

The fields of reddish-pink algae are darker than the surrounding bright, white snow. This means it absorbs more sunlight. This sunlight warms the algae — and the snow around it.

The algae is nothing new. It’s been found on glaciers and pack-ice the world over.  It’s only now that its affect on snow when it blooms in the warmer summer months has been measured.

Under its soft-hued blanket, the snow and ice melts some 13 per cent faster.  This causes the shiny glaciers and snowfields — which cool the earth through reflecting sunlight — to retreat.

This means more, darker, rock and soil is left exposed — which in turn absorbs more of the sun’s energy. The study argues the acceleration produced by the algae needs to be included in climate modelling. [So the existing models are wrong??  What fun!]


Warning from the past:  Future global warming could be even warmer

Just more modelling

CLIMATE: Future global warming will not only depend on the amount of emissions from man-made greenhouse gasses, but will also depend on the sensitivity of the climate system and response to feedback mechanisms. By reconstructing past global warming and the carbon cycle on Earth 56 million years ago, researchers from the Niels Bohr Institute among others have used computer modelling to calculate the potential perspective for future global warming, which could be even warmer than previously thought. The results are published in the scientific journal, Geophysical Research Letters.

Global warming from greenhouse gas emissions depends not only on the size of the emissions, but also on the warming effect that the extra amount of gas has on the atmosphere. This effect, called climate sensitivity, is usually defined as the warming caused by the doubling of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Climate sensitivity depends on a number of properties of the earth’s climate system, such as the composition of clouds and cloud cover.

“The research shows that climate sensitivity was higher during the past global, warm climate than in the current climate. This is bad news for humanity as greater climate sensitivity from warming will further amplify the warming,” says Professor Gary Shaffer, University of Magallanes, Chile, and the Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen.

The past tells about the future

The study was based on reconstructions and climate modelling of a period of global warming 56 million years ago. The period known as the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) was triggered by massive releases of carbon into the atmosphere and climate researchers have long identified it as a time that could in some ways be analogous to today’s global warming.

Reconstructions of past temperatures show that even before the PETM the Earth was about 10 degrees warmer than today and then warmed an additional 5 degrees during the PETM. In addition, they combined data about minerals, isotopes and the carbon cycle with climate models to estimate the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere – both before and during the period. From this, they could calculate the climate sensitivity and the result was that where it was about 4.5 degrees C before the PETM, the sensitivity rose to about 5.1 degrees during the PETM. Climate sensitivity is currently around 3 degrees.

“Our results show that the amount of carbon that drove the PETM warming was about the same amount as the current ‘easily accessible’ fossil fuel reserves of about 4,000 billion tons. But the warming that would result from adding such large amounts of carbon to the climate system would be much greater today than during the PETM and could reach up to 10 degrees. This is partly due to the current atmosphere containing much less CO2 – approximately 400 ppm (parts per million) – compared to before the PETM, where the concentration was about 1,000 ppm and partly because we emit carbon into the atmosphere at a much faster rate than during the PETM. If we then also take into account the fact that climate sensitivity increases with the temperature, it means that it is all the more urgent to limit global warming as soon as possible by reducing the man-made emissions of greenhouse gases,” explains Professor Gary Shaffer, who conducted the study in collaboration with researchers from Purdue University, USA, the University of Chile and the Technical University of Denmark.



For more postings from me, see  DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC and AUSTRALIAN POLITICS. Home Pages are   here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  

Preserving the graphics:  Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere.  But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases.  After that they no longer come up.  From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site.  See  here or here


No comments: