Home/BlogThe 9th International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC9), organized by the Heartland Institute, is just getting started in Las Vegas, at the beautiful and sprawling Mandalay Bay hotel, casino, and conference center:
Mandalay Bay Hotel, Casino, and Conference Center in Las Vegas.
Follow me…it’s a loooong walk…
Roy Spencer, Bill Gray, and Marc Morano
Weather Channel co-founders John Coleman and Joe D’Aleo
Heartland Institute president Joe Bast opens the conference.
WeatherBell’s Joe Bastardi and Cato’s Pat Michaels
Austrian rapper Kilez More.
The data is on our side not there side. That is what should be brought to the for front the data, which shows everything AGW theory has predicted has failed to materialize from the steady temperature trends for some 17 years, to Antarctic Sea Ice now at record highs, to no lower tropospheric hot spot in the tropics, to no increase in tropical activity ,to no increase in tornados, to no increase in global droughts. No heat waves ,no long list of record high temperatures, no increase in atmospheric humidity ,no increases in El Nino’s etc.
Their theory is a shame and they had called for a more positive AO when they first presented their BS, only to change this wrong prediction when the atmospheric circulation evolved into a more meridional pattern.
Then to make matters worse they tried to justify this wrong prediction for the atmospheric pattern due to a decrease in Arctic Sea Ice. More BS.
Now they are trying to spin the record Antarctic Sea Ice levels into somehow being connected with global warming , more absurdity.
Let us not forget ocean heat content which can be shown to correlate quite well with sunspot activity ,having nothing to do with IR but rather visible and UV light intensities. In addition OHC has leveled off of late in contrast to another wrong prediction made by them.
AGW theory is junk and the solar /climate connection theory will be the one that rises to the top, and this will be happening before this decade ends.
These are the more notable wrong predictions AGW theory has called for there are more.
All true except ‘climate change’ can and does mean literally anything, including the recent record cold, snow, ice cover.
all cited -with a straight face- as further evidence of ‘climate change’
The simplest way to expose AGW as a fundamentally unscientific theory is to ask what possible observation could ever falsify it?
But this too is a moot point because it was never about science anyway- it’s a political movement first and foremost
Nice photos. Enjoy the conference. Are you making a presentation?
Yes, a keynote here :-
http://climateconference.heartland.org/ballroom-streaming/
at 8:00am PDT, July 9.
Salvatore, originally AGW as driven by CO2 was a theory, a hypothesis to explain trends in historical weather records. They built models to support the hypothesis, but to date, the only place AGW as driven by CO2 exists, has ever existed and likely will ever exist is within data. I think that is the point that needs to be made. It has never existed within the real world, it has only existed within the artificial world of data.
Yesterday, where I am the temperature was 79 deg F at 4pm. Over the last few years, normally it would have been anywhere for 85 to 97 (or higher). Last year it was around 89 F. 10 years ago it was 91.
What does that tell someone? Some years it is warmer, some years it is cooler. It is called weather, not AGW. But I do say again, on a nice day, 79 deg F, wind at about 3 miles an hour out of the northwest, nice clear blue sky, a few clouds near the horizon … what part of that particular day is driven by any AGW? How can anyone go and say, well, this part is normal and this part is what is caused by AGW?
The only place AGW exists is within data and how it is analyzed.
wyoskeptic –
I’m on your side, but you need to be more careful with your terminology.
‘Data’, in the science community, means numbers obtained by observation or experimentation, which need to be confirmed by independent observation/experimentation to be generally accepted.
The numerical results of computer modelling are NOT data. Personally, think they are garbage, but admit that to be a somewhat extreme view. When the input DATA are known to be correct, within known limits, the results of a computer model for a given set of conditions can be useful – within limits.
Roy, it’s nice to know your face. Have a nice conference
Here is the link to the live feed and recorded presentations. Enjoy
http://climateconference.heartland.org/
Great job the last couple days Dr. Roy!
What a successful conference in generating actual scientific conversation!
All of the participants are to be commended.
Funny. I did not see this conference covered on CNN. Look forward to catching up on events of the conference. Thanks for all the great work you do.
Congratulations on the recognition from the Cornwall Alliance. Not everything is about science.
Dear Roy, I wonder about how 400 ppm can increase temperature based on that
air consist of ca 78% 780000 ppm and ca 21% 210000ppm oxygen. The triple bonding for N2 is about 112 pm and less I guess for oxygen. CO2 I think is bigger as a linear molecyle, but how can this space containing a few linear CO2 molekyles hinder reflections, even at a different wave length, still waves? Have you or others done any calculations on the gap or given any “easy illustrative explanation” for this concept so even a politician can understand it? Have a nice and hopefully sunny summer. Best regards Raymond
The AGW perspective is only relevant at a specific scale. If u look at the last 10 yrs in satellite data it breaks down. If you look at last 100yrs in thermometer record it appears valid, and if you look at the last 1000yrs in the high resolution proxy data it is not abnormal same with the last 10000 and ~100000 (sea level was >20 feet higher at the last peak interglacial) . They cherry pick the data they use to build the case,and focus on an interval with the largest increase in solar activity. So they have not isolated the variable of CO2, which makes it an invalid experiment.
Aaron, how much of recent warming would you attribute to AGW?
Joe Bastardi is the spitting image of the late Prime Minister of Canada, Pierre Trudeau.
Good question. It is challenging to answer, but i am going to take an attempt at it for fun but modelling is outside my area (my phd was reconstructing paleoclimate from lake and cave sediments and tree rings).
I believe the IPCC has calculated somewhere around 10% of the warming in AGW is directly from CO2 and the rest is related to feedbacks to other ghg (mostly water). I would consider two variables the sun and CO2 and apply an uncertainty range for the feedbacks between a high case with strong sensitivity and a low case with weak sensitivity for both the solar and the CO2 in a simple mixing model, whereas sensitivity to solar plus CO2 equals 100%. Then use stochastic monte carlo iterations with the models to experiment through time and see which model matches the hadcrut4 data set best. In other words i would accept the uncertainty and experiment. But imho there must be a solar knob even if we dont understand the mechanism of sun on climate (like cosmic rays, magnetics and uv light or the feedbacks and sensitivity to irradiance). We can attempt to weight the variables by seeing what best explains the data. Of course there are probably other processes at work in this complex system … including random drift so it will not be an easy answer. However, my guess is in the next decade we would understand much much more with this approach as the sun’s activity and CO2 go out of phase bc the sun suddenly quieted down. We now have two independent variables to test. Feedback?
It’s interesting, Aaron, that 10% number on warming directly from CO2… Dr Spencer referenced it on “Stossel” (fox news) and yet else where he says that a doubling of CO2 would bring a little less than 1 degree celsius on it’s own. (and that there is a consensus on this point) We are over a third of the way towards doubling CO2 so that would be at least .3 degrees celsius which would be over 50% of recent warming. Any idea as to why the discrepancy? (In other words, what am I not getting here?) Thanx much, I always look forward to your comments…
One thing i do not know is if there is enough computing power to use weighted distributions for two variables rather than one discrete value for the earth’s sensitivity to forcing in the already complex models. For the stocastic monte carlo method to be valid, it requires many iterations per scenario and there would need to be many different scenarios. There is probably a simpler way.
Let me state something i do know. There is abundant evidence for solar forcing of earth’s climate associated with the magnetic (hale) cycle, and the irradiance (schwabe) cycle and for the longer cycles (gleissberg). I know this because they commonly force sedimentation and tree growth which record precipitation and or temperature changes. Based on this empirical data both must be factored into a climate model… imho.
What else CAN cause temperature rise?
Well, I maybe simplistic (or even simple?) but Earth’s 100,000yr ellipticity cycle is hardly ever mentioned. Some scientists say it is too weak to be effective, BUT…
Earth’s orbit is NOT a perfect ellipse, but is egg-shaped, and Earth stays at the minor focus of the egg-shape, so that the minor Earth-Sun radius remains roughly the same (OK, it changes very, very slightly), while the major radius changes year-to-year. Earth’s orbital ellipticity increases during 50,000 years to a maximum varying between 5% and 7%, before decreasing back to almost zero over the next 50,000 years. This is not some whacky theory, but orbital mechanics long established by astronomers.
5-7% further away from the Sun doesn’t sound a lot, but due to the inverse radiation law, that works out to a 20% to 25% reduction in total solar radiation received by Earth at maximum aphelion. Thus, a considerable reduction in solar radiation occurs every year for thousands of years as Earth orbit approaches and retreats from maximum aphelion. Malenkovich showed that this is the trigger for ice ages, and we can now see that it is also the forcing that causes the cyclic warming and cooling of the planet over a 100,000yr cycle.
This is the only valid explanation for the fact that global temperature retreats from its maximum after an interglacial – if rising CO2 were the cause, the temperature would just go on increasing. AGW is disproved by this one observation.
Malenkovich demonstrated three variations that cause natural climate change. The two axial spin variations vary the distribution of total solar radiation between the Northern and Southern hemispheres. Only the third variation, the orbital, varies the total solar radiation received by Earth.
There were a lot of people at the conference! Our paths never crossed. I enjoyed your keynote and award acceptance speeches.
I was considering bringing my IR thermometer and measure the temperature of some hot roadways and overhead sky, but didn’t, figuring we wouldn’t get out much during the day. It wouldn’t have worked well anyway – I hadn’t realized the summer monsoon had slipped in while I was focused on hurricane Arthur and the Vegas weather was New Hampshire levels of humidity with haze, clouds, and thunderstorms.
I enjoyed your account of testing the airliner air with a CO2 meter while stuck on the tarmack in Texas. What a great way to stress out fellow passengers and turn it into a “teachable moment”. 🙂
Back home yesterday I was painting some trim on my house and was surprised that sitting on the roof was remarkably uncomfortable. The air temp was about 85F, the IR thermometer said the roof was 170F!
peter says:
July 13, 2014 at 6:31 AM
No, it’s very close to a perfect ellipse. One that is hard to see as an ellipsed, and almost visible as an offset circle, but very definitely not egg shaped. Kepler and all that.
This is wrong too. In terms of TSI at perihelion, call it 1 unit, then at aphelion TSI is 1/(1.07^2) = 0.8734, so 13% less (or 14% more the other way). See http://spaceweather.com/glossary/aphelion.html which references a favorite scientist who appears to have gotten it wrong in the opposite direction:
Lessee, I was really looking for distances. http://science1.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast04jan_1/ says
So 152.6/147.5 = 1.0346. So you’re wrong on that too – the Sun at aphelion is only 3.46% further away than at perihelion, and 1.0346^2 is 1.0703, so Roy’s 7% is right. Well, the reciprocal is 0.9343, so 6.57% less. Rounds to 7%.
Ric Werme –
You have not read my post – or I have expressed myself very badly.
You appear to be talking about the difference between solar radiation at annual perihelion and aphelion during a normal annual orbit, where the radius only varies by (at present) 1.6% or 1.7%. I am discussing the 100,000yr Malenkovich cycle featuring the difference between (a) the solar radiation at perihelion when earth’s orbit is a classical Kepler ellipse, i.e., almost circular; and (b) when Earth’s orbit is distorted to its maximum ellipticity, when orbital maximum radius at aphelion is 5-7% larger, causing a much larger solar radiation variation during each annual orbit, over many thousands of years.
Given a mean Earth-Sun radius of 1.496×10^8 km, at 7% ellipticity, minimum radius is 1.393×10^8, maximum radius is 1.60072×10^8 km. The inverse square ratio is 1.9357/2.5623 = 0.755. Therefore the radiation received at aphelion is about 25% of that received at perihelion.
This phenomenon is a modification of Kepler. When Mars, Jupiter, Saturn and Uranus are aligned with Earth on one side of the Sun, while Venus and Mars are diametrically aligned on the other side, the resultant combination of gravitational fields distorts the classical Kepler elliptical Earth orbit into the egg-shaped orbit I describe.
Malenkovich, in the early 1900s, calculated (by hand!- no computers!) this alignment to occur every 100,000 – 114,000 years and proposed the consequent reduction in solar radiation as the cause of ice ages. Much more recently, Berger and Loutre re-calculated (by computer)the effect using modern data for all planets in the solar system, plus the Moon, producing very accurate data for Earth’s orbital variations over the last couple of million years and projections for the future. The data for the past aligned perfectly with other data (from ice cores, sea and lake sediments, stalagmites, etc.) on global temperature variations.
Hi Fonz,
Sorry for the delay. I think we are considering different time intervals to calculate how much warming has occurred associated w agw. CO2 has increased with the industrial revolution, and there has been about 0.9 C warming associated with that interval of time (observed over the duration of the hadcrut data set or since about 1880) http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/.
So if we are 35% to doubling CO2 then that suggests there is about a half a degree of extra warming in the system. This extra heat could be either: A. Feedbacks to CO2 (IPCC model’s assumption) or B. Something else like solar activity or random drift. The hiatus in warming for over a decade (cooling in hadcrut) that occurs at the same time solar activity transitioned away from its interval of very high output suggests to me that the sun was driving part of the warming. This is of course not consistent with CO2, which has continuously increased over this interval. This recent 10 to 15 years is when the models fail because they do not match the data. This is why I state the models were not a valid test for sensitivity to CO2 bc there were two potential variables: A. The sun, and B. CO2.
OK… I always thought it was .4 degrees (1910-1940) minus .2 degrees plus .4 degrees (recent warming). Not so I suppose… I guess the question that I’m asking (pin pointing it here) is how much warming would we expect from a 35% of doubling of co2 alone. (“alone” meaning directly from co2) and isn’t that amount greater than the 10% suggested by the ipcc?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle
This has been updated since i last looked but notice how the mid 1900s were a transitional interval in sunspot number, which is a good proxy for solar activity. The irradiance variable is in the IPCC models, but it fails to be a good estimate of solar impact on climate for at least two reasons: 1. Irradiance is only part of the suns mechanism for changing earths climate there are others like magnetics that via cosmic rays can impact cloud cover, or also UV light that is much more variable, and these are ignored, and 2. Even irradiance is not assigned any feedbacks in the models. So why give co2 all the forcing power for feedbacks and solar output none? Id love any AGW believer to answer that bc it is not logical and even borderline absurd because they play by one set of rules for co2 and another for the sun.
Thanks for the question. I enjoy the interactions.
Milankovitch Cycles – the data shows glaciation starts when the earth’s orbit exhibits the least eccentricity , the tilt of the axis is at a minimum, and aphelion of the earth in relationship to the sun occurs during the N.H. summer.
With the earth’s orbit displaying very little eccentricity at present the tilt 23.4 and decreasing, and aphelion occurring during N.H. summer season Milankovitch Cycles are on balance favorable for cooling. This should remain in place for the next 4000 years.
The most important factors in my opinion in determining the climate are as follows:
Initial Sate Of The Climate
How far from glacial if in inter-glacial and vice versa which means the given variability of an item that causes the climate to change does not have to be as large when the initial state of the climate is near threshold inter-glacial/glacial values or conditions.
Milankovitch Cycles –
Where the earth is in relation to these cycles. Low obliquity, low eccentricity and precession (when earth is closest to sun during N.H summer) all favor colder conditions. Milankovitch Cycles are favorable for cooling and should remain so for the next 4000 years.
Earth’s Magnetic Field Strength –
The weaker the more it will enhance solar effects. A weakening earth magnetic field /solar magnetic field favoring a colder climate. We have at present a weakening earth magnetic field.
Solar Variability –
Through primary and secondary effects. Solar variability already recently showing quite a range in the brief but severe solar lull from 2008 through the end of 2010. Solar activity going forward looking quite weak.
I have listed the many secondary effects and studies which support those effects many times.
Ranging from a solar/volcanic connection, to ozone /solar connection and thus atmospheric circulation changes, to cosmic rays /solar connection and thus low cloud formations to solar irradiance changes tied into ocean heat content changes to site a few examples.
Salvatore –
“Milankovitch Cycles – the data shows glaciation starts when the earth’s orbit exhibits the least eccentricity”
At least eccentricity, Earth is at or very near its minimum distance from the Sun all the year round, and ice caps do not grow.
The perfect concordance of data for long periods of maximum orbital eccentricity with the formation and growth of ice caps is now beyond dispute and universally accepted, confirmed as it is by ice cores, sea- and lake- bed sediments, stalagmites, etc.
The eccentricity responsible for these long-term effects is NOT that of Earth’s annual orbit and the precession which varies the point on the classical Kepler ellipse at which the poles point directly at the Sun. The Milankovich eccentricity variation, responsible for the ice ages, is the ONLY variation which changes the total solar insolation of Earth. It is a 100,000 year cycle of Earth’s orbital eccentricity caused by the varying gravitational field due to the orbits of the other planets. At its most extreme, the eccentricity (currently 1.6%) is about 7%. Because of the inverse square radiation law, this results in about 25% less solar radiation at aphelion for many thousands of years, thus causing a global ice age.
I recommend Milutin Milankovich’s “Canon of Insolation and the Ice Age Problem”. It is available in English translation from the usual online booksellers, often available used at low prices.
Wrong I will send you the latest findings. It is when the orbit of the earth is most circular..
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/05/25/milankovitch-orbital-parameters-and-arctic-ice/
All the information is in articles various people have sent in the post section.
Orbital eccentricity and ice ages: Milankovitch revisited
Posted: June 6, 2011 by Rog Tallbloke in Astronomy, climate, Energy, Solar physics, solar system dynamics
I had a Eureka! moment in the bath this morning, not by intuiting Archimedes principle, but while thinking about the Milankovitch cycles, particularly orbital eccentricity and the relationship it has with ice ages.
Eccentricity is a term used to describe the shape of Earth’s orbit around the sun. The variation of Earth’s orbit around the sun ranges from an almost exact circle (eccentricity = 0.0005) to a slightly elongated shape (eccentricity = 0.0607) (Thomas, 2002). The time frame for the cycle is approximately 98,000 years (Davis, 2002). The impact of the variation is a change in the amount of solar energy from perihelion (around January 3) to aphelion (around July 4). Currently the Earth’s eccentricity is 0.016 and there is about a 6.4 percent increase in insolation from July to January (Berger, 2001). http://www.emporia.edu/earthsci/student/howard2/theory.htm
This however, is not the whole story as I realised while washing the suds out of my hair:
Kepler’s 2nd Law. Orbiting bodies sweep out equal ares in equal times
Rather than just causing a seasonal difference, changes in eccentricity also have an effect on the total amount of solar radiation (TSI) arriving at the top of the Earth’s atmosphere (TOA) on much longer timescales. This is because during periods when eccentricity is higher, the Earth takes longer to transit the half of its orbit where it is further from the Sun than it does to transit the half of its orbit where it is closer to the sun. This is Keplers second law: the motion of the orbiting body sweeps out equal areas in equal times. So when the orbiting body is further from the Sun, the longer radius creating a bigger area per angular segment is compensated for by the fact the Earth travels along the orbital path bounding that segment more slowly than when it is closer to the Sun. The upshot of this is that TSI averaged over a year is going to be less than when the orbit is more circular.
The upshot of this is that TSI averaged over a year is going to be less than when the orbit is more circular.
This is from the article in the above which concludes TSI will be less when the orbit is more circular and thus more favorable for N.H glaciation.
I agree with this analysis.
http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/2014/07/more-heat-about-ocean-heat-another-nail.html
http://www.esci.umn.edu/courses/1001/1001_saar/lectures/L27/lec27_outl_ice_ages_climate_change.pdf
Further study which shows low eccentricity of earth’s orbit favors glaciation.
Nice post. I was checking continuously this site and I’m impressed! Extremely useful info especially the last part I care for such info much. I was looking for this particular information for a long time. Thank you and best of luck.
Howdy! TҺis is kіnd of оff topic ƅut
I neеd ѕome guidance rom аn established blog.
Ӏs іt hard tօ set սp ƴοur օwn blog?
I’m noot ѵer techincal Ƅut Ӏ cаn figure things օut pretty
quick. Ι’m thinking ɑbout making my օwn but Ι’m
not ѕure wherte tօ begin. Dо ʏօu ɦave
any iideas oor suggestions? Wiith thanks
Feel free tο sudf tо
my рage despicable me minion rush resource generator
iza viagra viagra ads youtube viagra from food
buy cialis online coupon for free cialis cialis and viagra