Pages

06 May 2008

Two climate change tidbits which match my view.

A quote from Prof. Tim Patterson of Carlton University in Ottawa, Canada, chair of International Climate Science Coalition:

"instead of wasting billions [of dollars] restricting emissions of carbon dioxide, a vitally important gas on which all life depends, governments must concentrate on solving known environmental problems over which we do have influence: air, land, and water pollution being obvious examples".

I found a second quote concerning climate change on the Wikipedia page of Professor Patterson:

"There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years... On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

************************************************************

I wanted to post this article from Phil Chapman that discusses his views on Climate Change, after stumbling upon his article when I heard it briefly mentioned on WeatherBrains.com, a weekly weather webcast. After searching Google and finding many copies of the article, I chose to copy/paste the edition from The Australian, what seems to be Australia's version of the BBC. I went to spaceweather.com and added today's image of the sun to the article.

Phil Chapman is a geophysicist and astronautical engineer who lives in San Francisco. He was the first Australian to become a NASA astronaut.

Sorry to ruin the fun, but an ice age cometh

THE scariest photo I have seen on the internet is www.spaceweather.com, where you will find a real-time image of the sun from the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory, located in deep space at the equilibrium point between solar and terrestrial gravity.

What is scary about the picture is that there is only one tiny sunspot.

Disconcerting as it may be to true believers in global warming, the average temperature on Earth has remained steady or slowly declined during the past decade, despite the continued increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, and now the global temperature is falling precipitously.

All four agencies that track Earth's temperature (the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the Christy group at the University of Alabama, and Remote Sensing Systems Inc in California) report that it cooled by about 0.7C in 2007. This is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record and it puts us back where we were in 1930. If the temperature does not soon recover, we will have to conclude that global warming is over.

There is also plenty of anecdotal evidence that 2007 was exceptionally cold. It snowed in Baghdad for the first time in centuries, the winter in China was simply terrible and the extent of Antarctic sea ice in the austral winter was the greatest on record since James Cook discovered the place in 1770.

It is generally not possible to draw conclusions about climatic trends from events in a single year, so I would normally dismiss this cold snap as transient, pending what happens in the next few years.

This is where SOHO comes in. The sunspot number follows a cycle of somewhat variable length, averaging 11 years. The most recent minimum was in March last year. The new cycle, No.24, was supposed to start soon after that, with a gradual build-up in sunspot numbers.

It didn't happen. The first sunspot appeared in January this year and lasted only two days. A tiny spot appeared last Monday but vanished within 24 hours. Another little spot appeared this Monday. Pray that there will be many more, and soon.

The reason this matters is that there is a close correlation between variations in the sunspot cycle and Earth's climate. The previous time a cycle was delayed like this was in the Dalton Minimum, an especially cold period that lasted several decades from 1790.

Northern winters became ferocious: in particular, the rout of Napoleon's Grand Army during the retreat from Moscow in 1812 was at least partly due to the lack of sunspots.

That the rapid temperature decline in 2007 coincided with the failure of cycle No.24 to begin on schedule is not proof of a causal connection but it is cause for concern.

It is time to put aside the global warming dogma, at least to begin contingency planning about what to do if we are moving into another little ice age, similar to the one that lasted from 1100 to 1850.

There is no doubt that the next little ice age would be much worse than the previous one and much more harmful than anything warming may do. There are many more people now and we have become dependent on a few temperate agricultural areas, especially in the US and Canada. Global warming would increase agricultural output, but global cooling will decrease it.

Millions will starve if we do nothing to prepare for it (such as planning changes in agriculture to compensate), and millions more will die from cold-related diseases.

There is also another possibility, remote but much more serious. The Greenland and Antarctic ice cores and other evidence show that for the past several million years, severe glaciation has almost always afflicted our planet.

The bleak truth is that, under normal conditions, most of North America and Europe are buried under about 1.5km of ice. This bitterly frigid climate is interrupted occasionally by brief warm interglacials, typically lasting less than 10,000 years.

The interglacial we have enjoyed throughout recorded human history, called the Holocene, began 11,000 years ago, so the ice is overdue. We also know that glaciation can occur quickly: the required decline in global temperature is about 12C and it can happen in 20 years.

The next descent into an ice age is inevitable but may not happen for another 1000 years. On the other hand, it must be noted that the cooling in 2007 was even faster than in typical glacial transitions. If it continued for 20 years, the temperature would be 14C cooler in 2027.

By then, most of the advanced nations would have ceased to exist, vanishing under the ice, and the rest of the world would be faced with a catastrophe beyond imagining.

Australia may escape total annihilation but would surely be overrun by millions of refugees. Once the glaciation starts, it will last 1000 centuries, an incomprehensible stretch of time.

If the ice age is coming, there is a small chance that we could prevent or at least delay the transition, if we are prepared to take action soon enough and on a large enough scale.

For example: We could gather all the bulldozers in the world and use them to dirty the snow in Canada and Siberia in the hope of reducing the reflectance so as to absorb more warmth from the sun.

We also may be able to release enormous floods of methane (a potent greenhouse gas) from the hydrates under the Arctic permafrost and on the continental shelves, perhaps using nuclear weapons to destabilise the deposits.

We cannot really know, but my guess is that the odds are at least 50-50 that we will see significant cooling rather than warming in coming decades.

The probability that we are witnessing the onset of a real ice age is much less, perhaps one in 500, but not totally negligible.

All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinders and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead.

It will be difficult for people to face the truth when their reputations, careers, government grants or hopes for social change depend on global warming, but the fate of civilisation may be at stake.

In the famous words of Oliver Cromwell, "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken."


Previous posts in my blog concerning climate change can be found on these pages:

1) Monday, 10 March 2008. CO2 doesn't make global warming?

2) Tuesday, 26 February 2008. Fact: The planet cooled the last 12 months.

3) Tuesday, 26 February 2008. We need to get past alle the global warming hype.

7 comments:

  1. Thanks for putting this out there for us to read. I personally would not have found this. I've never been big on "global warming". Would less sunspots make for less northern lights? I haven't seen them in a few years down here, and I recall a few years back we were spotting them quite often.

    ReplyDelete
  2. John A. Warden III, a U.S. strategy expert recently posted this about Global Climate Change: Thinking Strategically About Global Climate Change. It would be interesting to hear how your readers view his positions and the need to establish the future state of the global climate before embarking on a lots of tactical solutions to a percieved problem.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Warden's analysis of climate change is interesting, but in my view, several steps beyond what the general US population is capable of comprehending at the moment. And in the light that no one has yet posted a response - you give me too much credit assuming that I have many readers - these ideas are a bit too much.

    I had to read though it twice, because Warden's initial questions bring to me a feeling of control over global forces. Upon stepping back for a broader view, I agree that climate change, as with any change, has positive and negative consequences.

    This brings me to lament that I have never really stated my position on climate change clearly. I added this post to my blog late last night, which led me to think everything through as I fell asleep. Maybe I can put a few of my own personal thoughts into some bulleted ideas.

    * Anthropogenic global warming may be real, but when one looks at the climatic picture of the planet over millions of years, human influence seems minute and almost completely insignificant.

    * Global temperatures and climates are in constant flux, it's foolish for everyone to freak out over changes: up or down. Hell, I'd be more concerned if everything flat-lined.

    * When one cycle tips out of balance, the planet has always "righted the wrong" with a balancing mechanism. We don't always understand these complex cycles and therefore are afraid when we don't understand what naturally occurs.

    * When the girl at the checkout counter thanks me for "saving the environment" by using cloth bags, she has no idea what she's talking about. Yeah, we are heavily influencing the world around us, as humans we believe it is our God-given duty and right to have "domain" over the world. "Saving the environment" is a dumb-ass way of stating the idea that we should stop f*<#ing with nature. But hey, the Bible says we can do whatever we want.

    * I completely agree with the fanatics that humans need to clean up our mess and quite destroying stuff. Living in harmony with the planet would solve the problems that we've created by fighting and attempting to control the world around us. Instead of going "green" we should be going "sensible" and "practical" and "sustainable", but the word 'green' sounds cool and is pretty to add to labels... apparently giving the populace a warm & fuzzy feeling.

    * I always think about the animals portrayed in ICE AGE 2, when they world is warming and chaos ensues. Chaos is natural, change is natural, adapting to this chaos and change is what drives life forward. Our ancestors constantly faced change but suddenly we seem to have forgotten how to adapt. I think this scares us into our current hyped panic over climate change.

    * There are so many complex variables that make up Earth and our position in the universe that models are only as good as the guys putting data into them. What about the stuff we haven't yet discovered, or the stuff we don't fully understand? Solar radiation, planetary motion and variance, upper atmospheric patterns, ocean currents, cloud albedo feedback, glaciation cycles, etc.

    * And finally, I'm freezing my ass off in northern Wisconsin. Turn up the damn thermostat a few degrees, huh?!?!

    ReplyDelete
  4. OSNW3,

    I found this: Sunspots are often related to intense magnetic activity.

    So yeah, sunspots are closely linked with how much of that activity reaches Earth. We just reached the minimum of the eleven-year cycle towards the end of 2007.

    A graph of the current cycle can be found on this page: http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/
    It looks like we'll see the next peak of northern lights in 2011 and 2012.

    Incidentally, my father remembers a peak of northern lights as a child in the early 50s. He claims that the colors lit the snow-covered ground on fire with colors, and that they could hear the snapping on cold and clear nights in rural northern Wisconsin. That corresponds with a maximum on this graph: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sunspot_Numbers.png

    ReplyDelete
  5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sunspot
    _Numbers.png

    ReplyDelete
  6. Chapman claims that the sunspot minimum was in March 2007, and he's wrong. If you plot a 3-month moving average of sunspot numbers, October 2007 looks the lowest:

    Dec 06 27.3
    Jan 07 22.7
    Feb 07 18.5
    Mar 07 11.2
    Apr 07 12.2
    May 07 15.8
    Jun 07 18.7
    Jul 07 15.4
    Aug 07 10.2
    Sep 07 5.4
    Oct 07 3
    Nov 07 6.9
    Dec 07 8.1
    Jan 08 8.5

    The official solar minimum is determined several years after the fact by using a running smoothed sunspot number with a 12 month moving average. So in 2009 we might know if October 2007 was really the minimum.

    All of those official sunspot charts use smoothed numbers because daily sunspot numbers jump around all over the place, making it difficult to see trends.

    Also, why does Chapman claim that cycle 24 was "supposed" to start soon after that? Who predicted that? Sunspots reverse polarity with every cycle, and the official point when we move from cycle 23 to cycle 24 is when we've had at least a few months when the majority of spots are the new ones of opposite polarity. We started seeing cycle 24 spots last year. Several of the recent spots were cycle 24.

    There is nothing unusual about the current solar minimum. Dr. Kenneth Tapping, the Canadian astrophysicist at the Penticton Observatory in British Columbia has been widely misquoted in several articles about sunspots and climate in Investor's Business Daily.

    To correct the record and to explain why he thinks the current solar minimum is nothing out of the ordinary, he prepared some notes, and you can get a pdf copy by sending a blank email to SunspotMin@gmail.com.

    Chapman's article was followed by an excellent, factual response by a real climatologist in the same Australian newspaper a few days after. Read it at:

    http://tinyurl.com/3pzzmq

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thanks Tad, I had didn't know how the offical sunspot minimum was calculated. Though I'm not exactly sure how a few months one way or the other would really matter in the scheme of things.

    I wouldn't argue with anything you stated - I'm not going to bicker on who is right & wrong on this issue. I don't actually care if the global temp is rising or not. It's risen and fallen in the past and will continue to do both.

    ReplyDelete