Subject: Hare-brained idea?
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 08:38:37 +1100
From: "John L. Daly" <daly@vision.net.au
To: Ken Parish <kparish@legalnet.net.au>
Dear Ken
re the soot idea. -
This was central to the nuclear winter theory which is
why Turco saw direct parallels between that and the threatening situation
in Kuwait.
Where Turco came unstuck over Kuwait is that while the
soot rose up in those massive quantities we all saw, it fell to earth very
quickly, leaving the remaining smoke cloud a much lighter bluish colour.
This was the critical undoing factor to his theory because
the `nuclear winter' theory relied on the sun heating all the smoke and
soot from burning cities, the heating made all the more possible by the
low albedo of the smoke thus allowing it to heat more easily. The nuclear
explosion to trigger it only lasts a few minutes, the effect of which will
quickly fade, but the firestorm and the smoke is postulated to rise to
the stratosphere pushed along by the firestorm and the solar heating of
the soot.
Turco saw a direct equivalent situation to this in Kuwait
and made his prediction based on his `nuclear winter' modelling. But the
smoke that he predicted would rise to 25 km (in the
stratosphere) only rose 6 km and thus remained within the troposphere,
only to be leached out by normal meteorological processes. There was no
disruption to the Asian monsoon.
I think this would also be the case with industrial smoke
from the dirtier era of industrial development. Messy, but not climate
changing. I don't think it gets much worse than Kuwait and our lesson from
that is that our climate is more resilient than we often think.
I did a write-up on Kuwait on my website "Shadow
Over Kuwait"- http://www.john-daly.com/kuwait.htm
which I wrote a few years ago.
Cheers John Daly
--
John L. Daly
"Still Waiting For Greenhouse"
http://www.john-daly.com
Subject: More thoughts on soot
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 09:32:21 +0930
From: Ken Parish <kparish@legalnet.net.au>
To: "John Daly" <daly@vision.net.au>
Dear John,
I am beginning to convince myself of the inherent worth
of my own argument (a familiar occupational hazard
for an advocate). The more I look at it, the more it seems to me
that the "soot" theory (with a little bit
of help from nuclear testing from 1955-76) may explain most if not
all of the divergences between the solar irradiance curve and the actual
temperature record curve, according to the
Baliunas graph. For example, the solar irradiance curve slightly exceeds
the actual temperature curve for virtually all of the 20th century up to
around 1930. That is because you need to adjust the solar irradiance curve
for the soot factor to arrive at the true temperature pattern. The steam
trains and "dark satanic mills" were churning away full tilt
throughout this period. This is the heyday of Henry Ford's production line
technique in all its polluting glory. The carbon soot load was heavy everywhere
and renewed daily.
But then in the 1930's there was a depression, and some
of the factories, power plants and steam trains fell silent. Thus the solar
irradiance curve approaches and even falls slightly below the actual temperature
curve during this time.
Then WW2 arrives, the factories etc. spring back into
full production (and even more), and the soot
load is further increased by oil fires from the almost continual bombing
of cities and industrial installations throughout Europe, the Middle East
and Asia. Thus the actual temperature falls precipitately away below the
solar irradiance curve. This accounts for the phenomenon mentioned by Theodor
Lanscheidt in his recent contribution, where he said:
By the way, I would be happy if
you or someone else could explain what happened after 1940. Did mother
earth shudder at the atrocities of World War II?
After WW2, the soot factor progressively tails off as
countries and enterprises convert to more modern technology. But the nuclear
testing factor kicks in, mostly from 1955 to 1963, afterwards supplemented
by some volcanic activity up to 1976.
Don't forget the nature of the "surface record"
- a gridded average (or series of averages)
of lots of weather stations. You don't need to postulate evenly spread
soot loadings throughout the globe. All you need is enough urban centres,
continuously affected by local tropospheric anthropogenic soot levels,
in enough grids to exert a downward influence on the averages. As most
stations were/are in urban areas, this seems a credible scenario.
A further test of this theory is to look at the pattern
of divergence between the actual temperature curve and the solar irradiance
curve as the latter falls below after 1976. If yours/Vincent Gray's theory
is correct (a warming bias in the surface record
for a number of reasons resulting in faulty measurement), then you
would expect to see a progressive and steadily increasing divergence (you
would also expect that the divergence might have begun a bit earlier, having
regard to the nature of some of the warming bias factors you identify).
On the other hand, if my theory is correct, you should see a relatively
sudden downward divergence of the solar irradiance curve as the "masking"
nuclear-generated ice clouds and volcanic debris tail off, after which
both curves should fairly closely parallel each other (although
the actual temperature curve would drop for a year or two each time there
is a significant volcanic eruption). I wonder which scenario most
closely matches the actual records? You can't really tell from the Baliunas
curve, because it appears only to go up to the mid to late 80's. As far
as it goes, it is equivocal. The first part of the divergence seems to
fit my scenario better, but then there appears to be an emerging further
downward divergence as the graph ends. If that downward divergence has
continued progressively through to today, I might accept that your explanation
better fits the facts.
There are some obvious and delicious ironies in this scenario.
In contrast to the greenhouse warming lobby scenario, it is an optimistic
picture. We did pollute our environment during the 20th century,
and it did affect world climate downwards not upwards, but we eventually
learned and cleaned up our act. This accords with observed reality, at
least in the developed world. It also reverses the conventional wisdom
about anthropogenic carbon in the atmosphere. In fact, carbon has negative
consequences (on both climate and health grounds)
if incompletely burned by old technology. But if completely burned, so
that all we have is CO2 gas, it has no additional temperature effects,
and a peripheral benefit of enhancing plant growth.
Regards Ken Parish
Subject: Hare-brained idea?
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 11:03:41 +1100
From: "John L. Daly" <daly@vision.net.au>
To: Ken Parish <kparish@legalnet.net.au>
you wrote:
There may well be a fatal flaw in
my theory/scenario, but the failure of the Turko scenario is not it.
I see the idea you are getting at, that of continual replenishment
of the smoke even as it is being washed out. In the case of Kuwait, there
was local cooling as you suggested, and we would expect this local effect
from industrial usage too.
As to a global effect, we are up against the sheer size
of the earth itself. Air travel gives the subjective impression that it
is small (`global village' etc.), but in my
Merchant Navy days in the 1960s, I travelled the world the surface way
- by a ship travelling at 16 knots. It gives you a completely different
perspective on the size of the earth.
For example, it took my ship travelling at 16 knots, 24
hours per day, a full 21 days or three weeks to get from Yokohama to the
Panama Canal. Only then do you get a true feel for the size of the earth.
In the case of Yokohama, you have a large industrial area giving off lots
of smoke etc. When we sailed out of there, we left all that smoke and haze
behind us within the first hour, leaving the air for the remaining 20 days,
23 hours, completely smoke free and clean.
On a global scale I would think the proportions to be
about similar, namely that the surface area affected by such smoke would
be much less than 1% of the total planet surface. After all, all the combined
land area only amounts to 30%, so the industrial percentage is very small
indeed.
Today, there is much more industrial development, covering
a greater area, but as you point out, it is much cleaner.
Cheers John Daly
Subject: The Big Bangs
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 18:26:46 -0700
From: Steve Hemphill <steve@hemphill.net>
To: John Daly <daly@vision.net.au>, Ken Parish <kparish@legalnet.net.au>
I too am about willing to concede that solids from surface
bursts have not significantly affected temperatures. However, there is
still the question of the water vapor and ice in the stratosphere. How
long does it last and what does it do? I think this is particularly important
due to jet exhaust in the stratosphere.
I am also very interested in Jorge's paper. I am curious
how different components of different eruptions are treated. As can be
seen here, the relatively high proportion of SO2 from Chichon definitely
did not "snuff out" the El Nino of 82-83, as Jorge correctly
stated. However, I still think the cooling caused by Pinatubo restrained
the offset of that El Nino and stretched it out: http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/Gases/chichon.html
http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/Gases/pinatubo.html
I still stand by my statement that El Nino is a response
to warming, and inclusion of it in a statistical analysis could, without
inclusion of remaining causes, virtually complete the correlation. In fact,
if inclusion of SOI vastly decreases the error, then it would be the primary
response.
Steve
Subject: The Big Bangs
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 03:58:38 +0100
From: "Gerhard Grasruck" <Menschmaschine@gmx.de>
To: <daly@vision.net.au>
While this has nothing directly to do with the subject
of this discussion, I would be nevertheless very interested in informations
regarding the view of the 'official' greenhouse climate science on those
atmospheric transmission measurements. This because they of course do not
only invalidate the 'cooling through nuclear tests' theory, but also the
aerosol hypothesis, used by the greenhouse industry to excuse the lack
of warming up to now. As far as I can see, these measurements totally refute
the claim that aerosols were responsible for 'masking' the 'greenhouse'-warming,
with absolutely no wiggling room left.
Have there been any attempts by 'greenhouse'-scientists
to provide an explanation for this? Or are they simply ignoring this evidence?
Gerhard Grasruck
Subject: The Ghost of Winters
past makes a comeback!
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 12:42:52 +0930
From: Ken Parish <kparish@legalnet.net.au>
To: "John Daly" <daly@vision.net.au>
Dear John,
You are obviously correct about the size of the globe
and the small proportion that is developed. But there is a marked urban
bias in the location and number of stations -they are drastically skewed
towards urban areas, as some of your own previous contributions have pointed
out. Moreover, I suspect that this would have been even more true earlier
in the century, before climatologists began trying to reduce these sorts
of distorting factors. Furthermore, the cooling does not need to affect
the whole globe, it just has to affect enough grids by enough of an amount
to lower the overall global average by around 0.2°C between 1900 and
around 1950. Obviously, in the grids actually affected by urbanisation,
the effect would be somewhat higher than this, in order to result in a
global temperature reduction of the required amount. I have no idea whether
it computes, but it would certainly be worth someone "crunching the
numbers".
I have now read the Kondratyev and Nikolsky article in
the 10 September 1981 "New Scientist" referred to by Jorge Sereno
(it is actually a respectful review of their work
by Dr. John Gribbin). It supports my theory, at least so far as
the nuclear cooling component is concerned. It postulates a mechanism somewhat
(though not completely) different from the
one I have proposed in my last couple of emails. I don't know how their
theory fared in subsequent scientific debate, or what arguments were deployed
against it. Perhaps Jorge Sereno can help here. Judging by Jorge's own
arguments in his emails so far, it was dealt with merely by saying that
you don't need a "nuclear cooling" factor to explain climate
patterns through the 1950s and 60s; they are fully explained by solar and
CO2 forcing (whose existence is itself a mere unverified
assumption) and volcanoes; and therefore, QED, nuclear cooling didn't
happen.
However, if you assume as I do that the true solar forcing
factor is a little higher than has been previously assumed, then you do
need nuclear cooling (as well as cooling from soot),
but you don't need CO2-forced warming!! Moreover, with my assumptions I
suspect that you get a much closer fit with the actual temperature record
than with any other scenario that I have read about. The end result is
that we are not witnessing present day anthropogenic warming, what we really
have today is a very pleasant warm and completely natural climate, in the
wake of an anthropogenically cooled globe over the first three quarters
of the 20th century!!
Here is an extended extract from John Gribbin's article
on the Kondratyev and Nikolsky research:
Kondratyev and Nikolsky point out
that the ozone concentration varies in inverse proportion to the amount
of nitrogen oxides present in the atmosphere. Nitrogen oxides
(collectively described as NOx ) break down
ozone through a series of photochemical reactions,which involve the absorption
of incoming solar energy that would otherwise get through to the troposphere.
Calculations made in the early 1970s showed that very large quantities
of NOx are injected into the stratosphere by the expanding fireball of
an atmospheric nuclear explosion; the Soviet scientists argued that this
effect alone is sufficient to explain why the early 1960s were so cold,
and why there was a slight warming of the Northern Hemisphere, accompanied
by increasing ozone concentration -- now seen as a return to more normal
levels as the NOx from nuclear explosions cleared --in the late 1960s.
The fireball from an atmospheric
nuclear explosion reaches a height of 30-45 kilometres above the ground,
and each megatonne releases some 1032 molecules of NOx. In their haste
to explode as many bombs as possible in the run-up to the partial test-ban
treaty of 1963, the superpowers let off an accumulated equivalent of 340Mt
in 1962-63, producing roughly 5 x 1034 molecules, or 1.5Mt, of NOx at heights
through the stratosphere from 20-50 kilometres. NO2, a major constituent
of the oxide brew, lasts for about four years in the stratosphere, and
taking into account the succession of atomic tests through the 1950s Kondratyev
and Nikolsky come up with a total figure of 980Mt "equivalent NOx
power" at the beginning of 1963. Assuming that all this oxide pollution
spreads through a ring of the atmosphere located between latitudes 250
and 850 N, they calculate that each square centimetre of the surface below
that ring had a burden of 1017 molecules of NOx above it, sufficient to
reduce the flux of solar radiation at balloon heights at the top of the
troposphere by about 2.5 percent. This fits in very well with the available
evidence from the balloon flights carried on in the 1960s.
It also fits in very well with the
pattern of weather in the Northern Hemisphere in the early 1960s. Over
the whole hemisphere, the mean temperature for the winter of 1962-63 was
0.4°C below the long-term mean, say the Soviet researchers, and in
1963-64 winter temperatures were 0.6°C below "normal". "Beginning
with 1963, the frequency of negative temperature anomalies increased over
the whole globe. Maximum values of the temperature drop were registered
in 1964-65-66." In Britain, of course,
the winter of 1962-63 was one of the two worst in living memory and data
from sounding rockets indicate that in the equatorial zone, in the middle
stratosphere the temperature in 1963-64 exceeded the mean for the following
twelve years by 6°C. In the following years, temperatures fell at all
altitudes in the zone from 46-55 kilometres altitude and, to a lesser extent,
at altitudes between 16 and 45 kilometres. The increased temperature of
the stratosphere is interpreted as a result of increased absorption of
solar energy; the warm stratosphere is the cause of the cool surface and
troposphere below, because it sequesters heat that would otherwise warm
the ground.
From 1963 to 1967 the stratosphere
slowly decontaminated after the buildup from NOx from almost 20 years of
atmospheric nuclear explosions. Between 1967 and 1970 however, a further
series of weapons tests delayed the return to normal conditions, and this
is reflected in the changing concentration in the ozone layer. Overall,
the evidence in support of the idea of a link between nuclear tests and
changes in the weather seems far too strong to be dismissed as lightly
as it has been so far. Kondratyev and Nikolsky .out that climatologists
may have been unfortunately misled by the coincidentally eruption of a
major volcano, Mount Agung, on 30 March 1963. They claim that the effect
of Agung on temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere has been over-estimated
by a factor of two, and that the effects of volcanoes and NOx from nuclear
explosions "almost equally contributed
to the change in intensity of solar radiation reaching the troposphere,
and apparently produced similar climatic consequences."
It seems that there is more support for my hare-brained
ideas in the objective data than we may have thought! Perhaps my hare-brained
"soot-induced cooling" theory may give the theories of Kondratyev
and Nikolsky a new and deserved lease of life!
Regards Ken Parish
Subject: The Big Bangs
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 18:15:45 +1100
From: "John L. Daly" <daly@vision.net.au>
To: Steve Hemphill <steve@hemphill.net> References: 1
Steve Hemphill wrote:
I still stand by my statement that
El Nino is a response to warming, and inclusion of it in a statistical
analysis could, without inclusion of remaining causes, virtually complete
the correlation. In fact, if inclusion of SOI vastly decreases the error,
then it would be the primary response.
I have previously looked into the relationship between
global temperature and ENSO, and is contained here - http://www.john-daly.com/soi-temp.htm
What I found and showed graphically (including
allowance for volcanoes) is that global temperature lags
the SOI by 6 to 9 months. In other words, it is changes in ENSO which causes
temperature to change, not the other way around.
We are currently in a globally cooler period because
of La Nina. The current La Nina began in the middle of 1998 some 9 months
before the fall in global temperature, which fell below the long-term average
only in March 1999, some 9 months after the onset of La Nina.
John Daly
Subject: Big Bangs
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 10:45:56 +0100
From: "Jorge Sereno" <sereno@zeelandnet.nl>
To: Ken Parish
Ken,
The research is old and some things said in it are erroneous.
Like a cooling of -0.6 or 0.4K. The December-January February temp. globally
for 1962-63 was +0.08K, based on 1950-1980 average. That of 1963-64 was
-0.08K for the same period. GISS data. While their research can still be
o.k., the temperature are not.
best regards, Jorge
Subject: My models+big bangs
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 12:42:51 +0100
From: "Jorge Sereno" <sereno@zeelandnet.nl>
To: <daly@vision.net.au>
Hello everybody,
The (graphs) presented here are the same models, only
the temperature lags solar influences 2 years in one and 6 years in the
other graphs.
To give you a clue about how the different factors influence
the climate, I have added a graph with the four factors decoupled from
one another.
For a 2 year timelag , I find: R= 0,88 Total
explained variance=0,77. No filters are used.
For a 6 year lag, this becomes R=0,90 Total
explained variance=0,81. No filters are used.
For 16 year averages are, a 2 year lag results in: R=0,97 Total
explained variance=0,94. No filters are used
A 6 year time lag gives: R=0,98 Total
explained variance=0,96. No filters are used.
I hope this clarifies my thoughts about nuclear blasts
and their effect.
If we look at the peirod 1945-1976 we can see the following:
For a 2 year lag we a near perfect fit after 1950, even
on a year to year basis. For a six year lag the fit is good after 1945,
but there 3 years that show a higher temperature in my model than in reality,
1953, 1965 and 1967.
Best regards, Jorge.
Subject: big bangs
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 13:28:03 +0100
From: "Jorge Sereno" <sereno@zeelandnet.nl>
To: Ken Parish
Dear Ken,
About the Nikolsky and Kondratyev paper and what the scientific
community had to say about it. I am quite sure I read somewhere that their
was no real judgment of that "community". More interesting for
me is that Kondratyev and Nikolsky had some pretty modern ideas about solar
influences on climate. They thought the solar wind had its influence and
comsic rays as well. In 1981. Very impressive.
Best regards, Jorge
Subject: Hare-brained idea?
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 23:53:59 +0930
From: Ken Parish <kparish@legalnet.net.au>
To: John Daly <daly@vision.net.au>
Dear John,
Your Yokohama description really is just an anecdote!
When you leave land by ship during light prevailing wind conditions in
the daytime, you generally get the phenomenon of sailing into clear air.
It is mostly because the sea breeze is blowing the smoke back onto land.
It is different with stronger prevailing offshore winds.
Assume the average continent has on average at least three
early 20th century urban centres (each of at least
250,000 people) in every 500 x 500 km grid square. Most continents
would have had more than this, although Australia rather less and Antarctica
none at all. Each of these cities is pumping out smoke all day every day.
Let us assume that the average wind strength over time is 4 km/hour, and
the smoke persists in the atmosphere on average for 5 days. The smoke travels
almost the whole 500 km and spreads god knows how far laterally. Between
the 3 cities, virtually the whole grid is smoke-affected. If we assume
the average cooling effect on land is 0.7°C, and we also assume that
sea surface temperatures remain entirely unaffected, the net cooling effect
on the global average surface temperature is just over 0.2°C (the
order of magnitude I am suggesting). Of course this is grossly oversimplified,
but the assumptions don't seem obviously outlandish, and that's my point.
Regards Ken Parish
Subject: The Big Bangs
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 13:39:38 -0400
From: "Dr. Theodor Landscheidt" <theodor.landscheidt@ns.sympatico.ca>
To: John Daly <daly@vision.net.au>
Dear Jorge:
I intentionally based my graph on measured aa data, though
not available before 1868, as they unambiguously represent reality, whereas
models only reflect what we think about reality. So the larger peak before
1960 in the aa curve is not "a result of overestimating
solar influences", as you think, but the result of solid measurements.
In addition, the aa index is acknowledged as a consistent and dependable
indicator of conditions in the interplanetary magnetic field
(IMF) just near earth. There are often huge disturbances in the
IMF that do not hit earth and cannot have any effect on climate.
The temperature rise in my graph is larger as in reality
because it is based on the surface record. I would have preferred to make
use of satellite measurements, but these, naturally, were not available
in the decades after 1868. Yet the correlation as such is not affected
by this shortcoming. Comparisons with satellite and balloon data show that
the correlation with the surface record is good. The undulations in all
of the three data sets show the same rhythm. Only the temperature level
is higher in the surface record than in the two other sets. If I lowered
the temperature level in the graph, this would not have any effect on the
correlation. It would stay at 96%.
You could see that the graph is working when I read from
it that the big nuclear bangs had no noticeable effect on temperature,
as John Daly convincingly proved. As I made a clear-cut forecast about
sinking global temperatures in the coming years, based on the graph, we
shall see after a while whether we can rely on the solar-terrestrial relationship
presented in the graph. If we get global cooling instead of global warming,
this will surely not indicate that the solar factor is as weak as pretended
by the IPCC.
Kind regards, Theodor
Subject: El Nino and other
factors
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 09:28:01 -1000
From: George and Teresa Birchard <gfb@aloha.net>
To: John Daly <daly@vision.net.au>
El Nino distributes heat stored in the equatorial western
Pacific ocean to the atmosphere. Before the last El Nino there was an absolutely
horrific typhoon season in the Pacific. There was super typhoon after super
typhoon. Guam was leveled by some of the strongest winds ever measured.
The names ran through the alphabet twice. A whole lot of heat was stored
in the western Pacific ocean. You can follow the conditions in the Pacific
at http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/toga-tao/realtime.html
and observe the Pacific warm pool deepening before El Nino.
After the El Nino the typhoons just about disappeared
in the Pacific.
However, the global warming lagged the beginning of the
El Nino. It took time for the heat from the equatorial Pacific to be redistributed
to the atmosphere.
So, John, you are right that the global temperature effects
are caused by El Nino. They lag by a number of months. However,
Steve is right if he is saying that El Nino is a response to warming in
the equatorial Pacific ocean. The equatorial western Pacific ocean warmed
before the El Nino.
One more comment on the bomb testing issue. The cooling
should have been in the northern hemisphere, not the southern hemisphere
if there was an effect of the huge Russian blasts. I remember talking with
Jim Angell about the southern hemisphere showing warming, but not the northern
hemisphere during the 60's and 70's. I don't have the hemispheric data,
but it went into the global radiosonde figures you show on this site.
NOx contributes to stratospheric ice clouds that begin
to form at about 200 K. Both water vapor and NOx contribute to stratospheric
ice in the south polar region which affect the formation of the "ozone
hole". Atmospheric testing in the north polar region could have increased
stratospheric ice clouds there.
Single station surface data prove nothing except how cold
the poor fools are living in the Arctic.
There are geologic and geochemical data that show a relationship
between CO2 levels and global temperature. I think that efforts to deny
that CO2 is a greenhouse gas conveniently ignore geological, geochemical,
and physical data. Stupid "experiments" like putting CO2 in a
glass bottle should not even be quoted. Glass is opaque outside of the
visible. The CO2 in the bottle is irrelevant because the glass traps the
heat.
Regards, George
Subject: El Nino and other factors
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 07:18:57 +1100
From: "John L. Daly" <daly@vision.net.au>
To: George and Teresa Birchard <gfb@aloha.net>
Dear George
George and Teresa Birchard wrote:
So, John, you are right that the
global temperature effects are caused by El Nino. They lag by a number
of months. However, Steve is right if he is saying that El Nino is a response
to warming in the equatorial Pacific ocean. The equatorial western Pacific
ocean warmed before the El Nino.
The warming of the equatorial eastern Pacific ocean IS
the El NIno. The `cause' and the `effect' are one and the same thing.
I only displayed Vardo so save everyone time and space.
I did point out that the other Arctic stations showed the same lack of
response to nuclear testing as did Vardo. I singled out Vardo as it was
Norwegian and therefore kept to western standards with a very consistent
record. If the stations do not show a response, then there was no response.
Observation must always take precedence over theory, no matter how compelling
the theory may appear to be.
Regards John Daly
Subject: big bangs (response
to Theodor)
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 23:01:17 +0100
From: "Jorge Sereno" <sereno@zeelandnet.nl>
To: Theodor Landscheidt
Dear Theo, You say:
"I intentionally based my graph
on measured aa data, though not available before 1868, as they unambiguously
represent reality, whereas models only reflect what we think about reality.
So the larger peak before 1960 in the aa curve is not "a
result of overestimating solar influences",
as you think, but the result of solid measurements."
I know that is true! But it is not my point. The point
is that while the right side of your graph is o.k., the left side isn't
if it is intended not only to show us the temperature- variations (CRU)
but also the effect of the Aa-index on those temperatures (being more than
0,7K).
You said:
"The temperature rise in my
graph is larger as in reality because it is based on the surface record.
I would have preferred to make use of satellite measurements, but these,
naturally, were not available in the decades after 1868."
No, and you and I wouldn't know what they would have measured.
They could have supported your view or destroy your correlation. They represent
the lower troposphere and not only the surface, so a difference is logical.
But I too believe they can very well support the idea that there is a false
trend in the surface data. But by how much? I suggest you read the Science
issue of February the 18th. It is very interesting and offers support for
the thought that the surface record is faulty as well as support for the
idea that these errors are less than many have assumed on this site. One
article is written by John Christy (among others).
You say:
"Yet the correlation as such
is not affected by this shortcoming. Comparisons with satellite and balloon
data show that the correlation with the surface record is good. "
But balloon data also represents more than just 1,5m above
the ground. Descrepancies are logical. However, they both show that climate
models are very wrong (if I interpret the Science
articles right).
You say:
"The undulations in all of
the three data sets show the same rhythm. Only the temperature level is
higher in the surface record than in the two other sets. If I lowered the
temperature level in the graph, this would not have any effect on the correlation.
It would stay at 96%."
I am not an expert in statistics so correct me if I am
wrong bit isn't that what a correlation indicates? It shows that highs
and lows occur at the same time. If we would amplify the aa index with
factor three, it would still stay at 96%. Because the highs and lows would
still start at the same time. But we would all know that the magnitude
of one factor was immensly overestimated.
You say:
"You could see that the graph
is working when I read from it that the big nuclear bangs had no noticeable
effect on temperature, as John Daly convincingly proved. As I made a clear-cut
forecast about sinking global temperatures in the coming years, based on
the graph, we shall see after a while whether we can rely on the solar-terrestrial
relationship presented in the graph. If we get global cooling instead of
global warming, this will surely not indicate that the solar factor is
as weak as pretended by the IPCC."
If you would only know how much I wished you were/are
right. I think that the IPCC clearly underestimates the influence of solar
activity and overestimates the influence of mankind
(in the case of 2,5K temperature risefor CO2 doubling). Based on
my models, the rise will be somewhere between 0,8 and 1,0K for all antropogenic
influences (so whether the SO2 influence is true
or not). I am not so sure about your predicition however. That depends.
If the sun is going to enter something like the Dalton minimum and we would
see more La Nina's than El Nino's, than my models indicate a fall in temperature
as well. If solar activity will fall back to average levels for the period
1800-2000 for instance, then the temperature would stay at the same level
in the next decade. I can go on with a dozen of other combinations, but
my predicition would be that the next ten years we see a lower rate of
temperature rise even at groundstation level, if solar irradiation levels
and other levels of solar-factors would drop.
Best regards, Jorge
Subject: Jorge Sereno's graphs
and summary so far
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 11:19:14 +0930
From: Ken Parish <kparish@legalnet.net.au>
To: "John Daly" <daly@vision.net.au>
Dear John,
Unfortunately I am not going to have time to make any
further contributions to this debate for at least the next few days due
to lecturing commitments, and you may have closed it off by then. So if
you will permit me a few observations on the debate so far:
1. On the "soot-induced cooling" theory,
I have looked at the Baliunas graph again and noted that I previously overestimated
the magnitude of the post-1976 divergence between the surface temperature
record and the solar irradiance curve (what I was
doing was trying to think of a feasible explanation for the post-1976 divergence
apart from CO2 forcing or a warming bias in the surface record).
In fact the net divergence is only around 0.1°C. Thus you only need
to posit the proposition that the smoke-affected continental land masses
were cooled by 0.33° on average in the first half of the 20th century
to get a global average cooling effect of 0.1° (the
land masses being 30% of total planetary surface). Even less outlandish
than my previous estimate, especially when you consider that the analogous
stratospheric effects of volcanoes like Pinatubo and Agung are commonly
accepted as having global cooling effects of 0.5°C. This hypothesis
may be self evidently silly to the experts out there, but if so then would
one of you put me out of my misery and prove to me why it can't be correct!
2. Returning to the "nuclear cooling"
theory, I am interested to hear from Jorge Sereno that Kondratyev and Nikolsky's
arguments were not destroyed by climatologists, just ignored!
3. On Jorge Sereno's graphs, would someone please
correct me if my understanding set out hereunder is incorrect. My understanding
is that the blue line in the second and third graphs represents the actual
surface temperature record, and the red line is Jorge's post-Baliunas model
(synthesizing the combined effects of solar forcing,
CO2 forcing, volcanic effects and SOI/ENSO). From what I can see,
using a 2 year timelag assumption for solar forcing, Jorge's model comes
up with projected/modelled temperatures that are consistently about 0.05
degrees K higher than the actual surface record between the early 1950s
and the late 1960s. Using a 6 year time lag, his model comes out higher
than actual temperatures (by a similar amount)
from the early 1950s right through to the late 1970s. It therefore appears
that there is some modest additional cooling influence during that period
that is omitted by Jorge's model. The obvious candidate is nuclear induced
cooling. The time span coincides precisely. Nuclear tests, it seems from
Jorge's graphs, cooled global temperatures by around 0.05 degrees K during
the 1950s, 60s and perhaps early 70s. If you factor nuclear testing in
as well as the 4 factors presently modelled, Jorge's graphs fit the observed
reality with almost remarkable precision, at least from 1950 right through
to the present day (see below for observation on
the earlier period). Of course, a net temperature effect of 0.05°K
is nowhere near as spectacular as the 0.5° mentioned in my original
article. But remember, I did not assert that this was the average effect,
just that the effect might have been as large as that in the couple of
years after the 1961-62 tests, because the testing then was so much more
intense than at any other time. I still stand by that proposition. As Kondratyev
and Nikolsky suggested, climatologists (and in this
case Jorge Sereno in his model) may be overestimating the effect
of Agung during that time and underestimating (or
rather completely ignoring) the effect of testing. However, even
ignoring any argument about the proportionate influences of Agung and testing
from 1963-65, a net global cooling effect from nuclear testing of 0.05°K
over 20 years or so is hardly insignificant.
4. If I have properly understood Jorge's graphs,
I am surprised that he is not more positive about the nuclear cooling theory.
It enhances the accuracy of his model and in that sense helps to validate
its assumptions. To this open-minded greenhouse warming sceptic, Jorge's
model presents a persuasive, though not conclusive or compelling, case
that CO2 forcing had a significant though not huge role in the climate
changes of the late 20th century (and that nuclear
testing also had a similarly significant though not huge effect).
Perhaps Jorge, like John Daly, may be misunderstanding what I am now saying.
Having regard to the mechanism proposed by Kondratyev and Nikolsky, we
can now say that the cooling effect of nuclear testing was spread fairly
uniformly across the globe. You would not expect to see any significant
temperature anomalies in individual station records, whether in Russia
or anywhere else. The cooling was caused by the photochemical reaction
in the stratosphere between NOx and ozone, as the NOx spread around the
globe during its 4 year residency there. If you make the reasonable assumption
that the extent of this reaction will be a roughly bell-shaped curve, as
the NOx spreads round the globe and contacts and destroys more and more
ozone before gradually dropping out of the stratosphere, then you would
expect the maximum cooling effect to occur about 2 years after the NOx
's arrival. By that time it has been dispersed widely by stratospheric
circulation, and this is why you don't see any "blips" in any
individual station records. As new NOx is regularly arriving (each
time there is a test), the cooling effect is smooth, globalised
and long-lasting. Again, also remember that the NOx would not be detected
by Douglas Hoyt's pyrheliometers. In summary, there is nothing in any of
the debate contributions so far which undermines the nuclear cooling theory
in any way. Indeed, Jorge Sereno's graphs and Kondratyev and Nikolsky's
material provide strong circumstantial corroboration (to
use a lawyer's approach).
5. Finally, looking at Jorge Sereno's graphs again
for the period 1900-1950. I see that his model derives temperatures higher
than the actual record between 1910 and 1930, and about the same from 1930
to just before 1940. This is consistent with my "soot cooling"
suggestion. However, between 1940 and 1950 the model is cooler than
actual temperature! This tends to undermine my "soot cooling"
suggestion. More interestingly, it is also an opposite result for that
period from that achieved by the Baliunas synthesis. The Baliunas model
was warmer than actual temperatures during this period! Leaving
aside solar timelag assumptions, the only things Jorge's model adds to
the Baliunas model are volcanic effects and SOI/ENSO. As there were no
volcanic effects during this time (1940-50),
I assume that the difference between the Baliunas model and Jorge's is
caused by the inclusion of SOI/ENSO effects. Perhaps this is the true answer
to Theodor Lanscheidt's question earlier in this debate.
Regards Ken Parish
Subject: Big Bangs (to Ken Parish)
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 09:50:44 +0100
From: "Jorge Sereno" <sereno@zeelandnet.nl>
To: Ken Parish
Dear Ken,
I think we will never be able to make a perfect correlation,
surely not based on only 4 factors. We see those, in my opinion small,
deviations throughout my model.And lets not forget that the GISS model
allows for a 0.05K deviation to achieve a 95% significance virtually over
the whole period 1868-1998. And for the period 1950-1976 in my model with
a two year time lag, there is a difference of 0.02K on a total amplitude
of about 0.6K for the whole period. In the 6 year timelag, it is 0.03 -
0.04K at most. Like you say it is quite different than initial thoughts
of yours of 0.5K. You call this of the same significance as the CO2+co.
effect for the whole period? I do not think so. 0.3K is the difference
of a magnitude! My point is and was that you cannot make a case (to
use lawyers language) out of 0.02-0.03K.
I am not going to discuss my models in length in this
review, let's wait until my paper is published.
best regards, Jorge Sereno
Subject: Breaking my word again
-but only a short note
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 23:40:12 +0930
From: Ken Parish <kparish@legalnet.net.au>
To: Jorge Sereno
Jorge
On what data do you base your figures for volcanic effect?
The Volcanic Explosivity Index (VEI) or some
other reasonably objective measure? I had intended to check the relative
VEIs for Agung, Pinatubo and El Chichon to see whether you might have been
overstating the effect of Agung (and therefore underestimating
the possibility that the nuclear effect was much larger than 0.03-0.05
degrees between 1963 and 1965 - which is all I ever intended to postulate).
On a closer inspection of your 4th graph, however, you appear to be postulating
a quite small effect for Agung anyway - somewhere around 0.03 degrees K.
So there probably isn't much room for an argument that it is overstated.
I wonder why the injection of so much more NOx in 1961-2 failed to have
a greater temperature effect? I guess it either means that Kondratyev and
Nikolsky were wrong, or else the ozone layer was so damaged by then that
the scope for interaction between the two was drastically reduced.
I also see that you ascribe a much lower temperature effect
to Pinatubo than is commonly claimed - apparently around 0.07 degrees K.
Is this also based on VEI or similar? I can't help wondering, perhaps a
little churlishly, why you think a temperature effect for nuclear testing
of around 0.03 degrees extending over 20 years "cannot make a case",
while a factor of similar magnitude that only effects climate 2 or 3 times
in half a century and for a year or two at most each time, is worthy of
inclusion in your model.
In any event, it appears to me that your model should
make a very useful contribution to the developing understanding of climate
change. Unlike the complex global circulation models, your underlying assumptions
and methodology are transparent, which makes your study comparatively more
credible. Your hypothesis of a much smaller (but
still significant) role for CO2 forcing, and a much larger role
for solar irradiance, coincides with what I have always intuitively suspected
was probably the true position. Of course, your model leaves little or
no room for the John Daly/Vincent Gray "warming bias in the surface
record" hypothesis. Since both hypotheses involve significant areas
of conjecture and assumption, there is plenty of room for constructive
disagreement. I look forward to seeing what they have to say.
Regards Ken Parish
Subject: The Big Bangs
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 16:33:55 -0400
From: "Dr. Theodor Landscheidt" <theodor.landscheidt@ns.sympatico.ca>
To: Jorge Sereno
Dear Jorge:
My graph is no model that predicts precise temperature
ranges. It 'only' indicates whether temperatures go up or down and when
turning points are to be expected. Yet general statements derived from
comparisons are possible. So the temperature decline in the next ten years
should be steeper than in the sixties because the aa curve shows a steeper
descent now than in the sixties.
Kind regards, Theodor
Subject: The Big Bangs
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 16:41:36 -0400
From: "Dr. Theodor Landscheidt" <theodor.landscheidt@ns.sympatico.ca>
To: Ken Parish
Dear Ken:
I thank you for your suggestion. Yet there were strong
volcanic effects at that time. Between 1940 and 1953 five explosive events
were registered that reached level 4 on the Volcanic Explosivity Index
(VEI = 4). The curve of volcanic activity
showed a steep rise and reached a peak in 1952.
Kind regards, Theodor
Subject: Big Bangs
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 22:31:18 +0100
From: "Jorge Sereno" <sereno@zeelandnet.nl>
To: Ken Parish
Dear Ken,
The effect of volcanic eruptions is needed for my reconstruction
in all cases. And in all cases, they show a good correlation. I think there
is little room for discussion whether large volcanic eruptions has a short
lived influence on the global climate (weather, as
it lasts only a couple of years), we can discuss how big the cooling
effect is. I think we don't know. My models give a best fit if we say it
is about 0.175K for the first two years after an eruption. So on 6 year
averages, this diminishes. I would like to ask you to compare temperature
data of all four known large eruptions and see if you can find a cooling
of 0.5K for a single year in the period 1868-1998. I didn't find it in
the GISS dataset and I didn't find it in th CRU dataset either. It is always
confined to 0.1-0.25K at most.
I do not want to make a point in this case. It is debatable
if the influence is 0.2 or 0.3K for year or two.
I used the Sato et al. dataset (not
VEI, I did that a couple of months ago, but indices like 5, 6 or 7 are
not precise enough). I am not a specialist in the field of volcanology,
so I leave it up to the people who think they are and whose models are
used more often. In this case, it is the Sato et al. dataset which can
be found on the GISS site
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/strataer/
Look in datasets and then in aerosols or something similar.
You cannot make a case in my opinion for nuclear blasts because it is just
one period and natural variability seems to be of the same size in my model
(as there are more "discrepancies" throughout
the period of the same size). And lets face it, initially you implied
that the effect was much much larger than 0.03K or so. If you would have
found this in the first place, I wonder if you would have written the paper
at all. I wouldn't have commented on it, as I cannot prove you are wrong.
I thought I could provide some good reasons why the effect was much smaller
than you implied and that's why reacted in the first place.
Finally: there is still room for Daly's/Gray's assumptions.
As I tried to fit greenhouse gas in the surface record, the effect is now
estimated the way it is. As the biggest influence occurs after 1970 and
John and Vincent discuss 1979-2000, I could lower the influence of greenhouse
influences to 0.2K for instance and the fit would be virtually the same
for the whole period. I find some support for their case when I look at
the GISS land and ocean index, which is not used in my model as it only
stretches back till 1950. However, this dataset shows all round lower temperatures
for the last two decades.
Best regards Jorge Sereno
Subject: The Big Bangs
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 13:30:30 +1300
From: "VINCENT GRAY" <vinmary.gray@paradise.net.nz>
To: "John Daly" <daly@vision.net.au>
Dear John
A fascinating article. A shame they cannot estimate the
actual temperature effect. It is also a shame that they think that it is
"evidence" for the greenhouse effect. I still contend that part
of the reason for the fall in temperature 1945-1976 was the removal of
many met stations to airports, as it is part of the reason for the recent
increases.
You are to be congratulated that an important paper such
as this is published on your website, and subjected to genuine peer review,
rather than being submitted to the sausage machine of the academic journals.
Regards Vincent Gray
Subject: notes from the "Big
Bang" discussion
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 00:42:12 -0600
From: Dale Peters <dpeters@theshop.net>
To: daly@vision.net.au
Interesting, although a bit tedious in its volume, your
"Big Bang" discussion brought several things to mind:
At least two of the TTAPS authors bought off on the Kuwaiti
soot catastrophe, Sagan being the other (or perhaps
he just acted as Truro's surrogate on NightLine). Until something
happens to suggest TTAPS might get something right, you needn't cite it,
in my view.
Your mention of your experience as a merchant seaman was
appropriate, and the belittling of it was wrong. The only thing really
wrong with it was that it gave you some sense of the linear scale of things,
when areas instead would better typify that smallness of human influence.
Your topics and many other that deserve your wrath, or the Junkman's, are
based on inexperience and innumeracy. The vast majority see the combined
oceans of the Earth as about the size Lake Michigan, with some few seeing
them as a largish puddle. Similarly, many seem to perceive the land area
of the Earth as about that of the U.K., or New England, with a notable
fraction seeing it as about the size of Luxembourg, or maybe Manhattan
island. The scale of the planet altogether escapes them.
As an illustration, the head of the Biology Department
at a small state college not too far from my home in Oklahoma City once
told me (early '70's, this was) that there
were plans afoot for a set of power reactors in the American midwest that
would raise to temperature of the Mississippi river ten or twenty degrees
(Fahrenheit) at its mouth. A little research,
and calculation (assuming the river and all its tributaries
to be inside a extremely large and oddly-shaped thermos bottle, as I neglected
evaporative cooling) showed that amount of power corresponding to
that temperature increase would serve the electrical needs of over half
a billion new people in the region. Obviously, had I believed the fellow's
pronouncement I'd have gone into real estate at that time. Returning to
the point, it was an abject failure to appreciate scale on the part of
the biologist in question. To a fairly decent approximation (maybe
one good enough to be named as a law?) "anthropogenic"
and "global", applied to physical effects, are opposites; "anthropogenic
global" is an oxymoron.
The matter of soot has some potential, I think, but not
as cited. Conditions in China (if I understand correctly)
mean that more home heating and cooking is done over coal/coke/charcoal
fires now than ever in history, and quite possibly more industry is coal-fired
than ever. Compare temperatures and atmospheric conditions there (and
in all Communist or formerly-Communist countries) to find out something
on this topic, not, however, that I'd expect much soot to be lofted to
the stratosphere, but that local and regional effects might be instructive.
As for the likely paucity of records, it might be that India has some useful
data, although I don't know about how prone to soot the typical dung fires
are.
The nuclear-explosion topic suffered from a remarkable
lack of data. I noticed only one citation with anything quantitative to
say about the mass of material lofted to the stratosphere, its composition,
or optical properties (excepting the optical depth
measurements which would reflect (no pun intended), at some remove, the
missing quantities).
As always, I enjoy your site. Keep up the good work.
Dale Peters
Subject: Dale Peters contribution
and further reflections
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 11:20:51 +0930
From: Ken Parish <kparish@legalnet.net.au>
To: "John Daly" <daly@vision.net.au>
Dear John,
Concerning Dale Peters' contribution, my gentle jibe about
John Daly's Yokohama smoke story being an "anecdote" was an "in"
joke for attentive readers of these debate pages. It was in no sense intended
to belittle John, and I am sure he did not take it as such.
The huge comparative size of the earth's oceans does not
invalidate my "soot cooling" suggestion. This is demonstrable
by simple mathematics. The ratio of ocean to land surface is approximately
70/30, so an average soot-induced cooling effect over land of just 0.33°
would produce a corresponding effect on the global average surface temperature
of 0.1° (which is what I was postulating).
However, upon further reflection, what makes the "soot cooling"
suggestion unlikely is the fact that the dirty industrial development phenomena
I described were, up to 1940, largely confined to Europe, North America
and Japan. They would need to have been much more widespread for cumulative
local temperature effects to have had a significant impact on the global
record.
Turning to the nuclear cooling hypothesis, although I
am instinctively attracted to Jorge Sereno's model/synthesis (because
it accords with my own prejudices), a sceptic nevertheless has a
duty to doubt, question and test everything. We need to remind ourselves
that a model is just a model. The outputs depend on the inputs and assumptions.
Thus, for instance, if one adopted a slightly higher forcing value for
CO2 and slightly lower values for solar irradiance and SOI than Jorge,
you would certainly end up with a larger variance between the model result
and actual temperature for the period 1952-76. This would leave room for
the sort of nuclear cooling effect that I (and Kondratyev
and Nikolsky) have suggested. How such a model would fit with the
rest of the actual temperature curve I have no idea, and neither the ability
nor inclination to model it myself. However, I suspect that you could juggle
the parameters to achieve a pretty good fit if so minded.
Thus Jorge's model, as he himself concedes, does not disprove
the nuclear cooling theory. Nor, as I have previously pointed out, does
the lack of evidence in individual station data or in Douglas Hoyt's pyrheliometers
show anything at all, because of the nature of the cooling mechanism posited
by Kondratyev and Nikolsky.
The only way I can think of that the nuclear cooling hypothesis
could possibly be tested (apart from undertaking
further atmospheric bomb testing, which doesn't really seem advisable),
is to examine the stratospheric temperature record for the relevant period.
Stratospheric temperatures have been measured for many years, but much
more reliably since 1958. Here is a link to an article by Dian J. Gaffen
of the NOAA Air Resources Laboratory, USA discussing stratospheric temperature
measurement techniques and their limitations.
http://www.aero.jussieu.fr/~sparc/News12/Radiosondes.html
Unfortunately I have not quickly been able to locate graphical
data showing stratospheric temperature trends from the 1950s and 60s. No
doubt some contributors to these debate pages can easily lay their hands
on such data, to assess whether one can detect the possible imprint of
the Kondratyev and Nikolsky mechanism. Having regard to the fact that solar
irradiance was in general falling throughout the 1950s (see
Jorge Sereno graph 4 and Baliunas
graph), and that there were no major volcanic eruptions, any
significant stratospheric temperature rise in the couple of years
following the nuclear testing peak in 1958 (leading
up to the 3 year moratorium - see my original article) would tend
to indicate the presence of the Kondratyev and Nikolsky cooling mechanism
(photochemical reaction between ozone and NOx from nuclear blasts).
You might also expect to see the beginnings of a slight temperature fall
in 1960-61 as the NOx levels tail off. Any stratospheric temperature trends
after about 1961 are complicated by the intrusion of volcanic effects and
enhanced solar irradiance. Perhaps looking at this aspect might be a challenge
for someone like Steve Hemphill who, after all, first set me off on this
exercise! However, the usefulness of such an exercise to the quest for
an answer to whether global warming is occurring, and why, is somewhat
doubtful. Since present geopolitical trends suggest that a large nuclear
exchange is unlikely to occur (thankfully),
the question of whether past testing led to surface cooling is just an
interesting sidelight to the global warming debate.
A final word: Models, as they say, are just models. But
almost equally, apparently persuasive direct data also need to be treated
with caution. You need to know exactly what you are measuring. As Mark
Twain once said, there are lies, damn lies and statistics. Climate science
(like law) is often full of all three! Take, for instance, the MSU
satellite data so frequently referred to by "contrarians" (on
this website and elsewhere) as powerful evidence against global
warming claims. Testimony to the US Senate Committee on Environment and
Public Works by John R. Christy of the Department of Atmospheric Science
and Earth System Science Laboratory University of Alabama in Huntsville
on 10 July 1997 puts the MSU data in a rather different light. Christy,
along with Roy Spencer, is responsible for producing the MSU satellite
data:
In a recent study, Dr. Richard McNider,
also of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and I looked for the causes
of the natural fluctuations. We found that by accounting for the influence
of tropical ocean temperatures (El Nino)
and the cooling effect of volcanoes, we could explain over 60% of the monthly
variations (Fig. 4).
These natural, shorter-term fluctuations indicate to us how much the global
temperature responds to specific causes. Once calculated and removed,
we see that without El Ninos and volcanoes, the temperature trend of the
past 18+ years is upward (+0.06°C/decade
or +0.11°F/decade, Fig. 4, bottom. The value varies from +0.05 to +0.10
degrees C/decade depending on certain parameters specified.).
What is causing this upward trend? We do not know for sure. It may be the
enhanced greenhouse effect. At the same time there could still be a longer
term trend in the data due to variations in aerosols, water vapor, or other
unknown factors that are masking the true magnitude of the greenhouse effect.
The latest results from global climate
models, which include improvements and the cooling effects of air pollution,
indicate warming rates for the Earth of +0.08°C to +0.30°C/decade
for the latter part of the 20th century. These are about half of the warming
rates predicted a few years ago, when only increases in greenhouse gases
were modeled. Note too, that according to the latest models there should
be more warming in the troposphere than at the surface. Therefore, the
MSU is ideally suited to provide information on the layers that should
show the greatest change. The present warming rate of +0.06°C/decade
observed in the "adjusted" MSU data is just outside this model
range, and is not inconsistent with fully natural variations on decadal
time scales. Therefore, uncertainty remains as to the cause(s) of the trend
the MSU has measured....
The Spencer-Christy MSU data
set has been used by some as evidence that global warming is not important,
which then undercuts the need and urgency of programs to continue to study
the Earth System. I strongly disagree with this interpretation. By showing
that the Earth's rate of warming is slower than predicted by earlier models
or surface data sets (Fig. 5),
it does, perhaps, remove the sense of urgency for those who wish to enact
greenhouse gas controls or to shut off scientific debate. But most importantly,
the slower warming rate in the last two decades in effect gives us the
security of time so that data from future observations and research may
be used within the debate.
The corrected MSU data in fact show global warming only
slightly lower than the bottom end of the general circulation models of
the global warming advocates! Of course, in addition to the limitations
mentioned by Dr. Christy himself, one further potential problem with his
conclusion of an underlying warming trend in the MSU data is the seeming
assumption that solar irradiance and SOI are unconnected. If Theodor Lanscheidt's
ideas are right, then they are closely connected. If so, then removing
ENSO effects (as Christy has done) may give
a false impression of CO2 - induced warming. Nevertheless, Dr. Christy's
testimony illustrates why seekers of truth are well advised to adopt an
attitude of constructive scepticism about the claims of both sides in the
global warming debate.
One last self-justifying point on Dale Peters' contribution.
He makes a fair point that that my original article was farily light on
quantitative data on how much material was injected into the stratosphere
by nuclear testing. However, that omission was remedied by open peer review,
the process of which enabled me to cite very specific figures on that issue
from the work of Kondratyev and Nikolsky, namely that each megatonne of
bomb yield releases some 10 to the 32nd power molecules of NOx into the
stratosphere. The temperature effects of this material, and the mechanism
by which it occurs, are also described by Kondratyev and Nikolsky. You
can read the full quote for yourself earlier in this open review. Moreover,
if you want to do your own calculations on what this means for the total
period of testing by both superpowers, many of the bomb yields are given
in my article, and the rest are immediately accessible via the weblinks
which you can also find in the article.
Beyond that, I am afraid I was handicapped by the fact
that much of the detailed data about nuclear testing remains classified
secret by the US Government. If you look at the primary sources linked
from my article (especially on the US Department
of Energy website), you will find that many pages of many documents
are "blanked out" on security grounds. For slightly different
reasons, I found it next to impossible to deduce any reliable estimate
of what temperature effect the testing had, either geographically or over
time. Like anthropogenic greenhouse warming, it is very much an open question.
Much of the discussion in this open review has been about that very issue.
It speaks for itself. I make no apologies for this.
My article was inevitably skewed towards the anecdotal
and historical rather than the quantitative, partly because of difficulties
in obtaining data and partly because of my own training and inclination.
I would like to think that there is a useful place for such a cross-disciplinary
aproach, but that is really for readers to judge.
Regards Ken Parish
Subject: Dale Peters contribution
and further reflections
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 17:05:27 +1100
From: "John L. Daly" <daly@vision.net.au
To: Ken Parish <kparish@legalnet.net.au>
Dear Ken
you wrote:
Concerning Dale Peters' contribution,
my gentle jibe about John Daly's Yokohama smoke story being an "anecdote"
was an "in" joke for attentive readers of these debate pages.
It was in no sense intended to belittle John, and I am sure he did not
take it as such.
I was absolutely devasted. Once I had drowned my sorrows
in drink, I had another little think about the Yokohama `anecdote'. Get
yourself a large globe, pick out any industrial country you like. Using
a highlight pen, draw a long fallout plume for 100 miles downwind from
any major cities you find there. Then stand back and look at how big that
plume is in relation to the size of the globe. Draw lots of them if you
like, and see if they look significant on your globe.
The corrected MSU data in fact show
global warming only slightly lower than the bottom end of the general circulation
models of the global warming advocates!
The Christy quote cited a decadal trend of +0.06°C.
However, there was a negative trend until 1998 came along, pushing up the
average. Since then, 1998 is behind us and the latest decadal trend is
0.05°C. In the southern hemisphere the trend is even slightly negative.
As to filtering out the effects of El NInoes and volcanoes
to detect and isolate other forcing factors, I don't think that's a sound
procedure at all. If there were no more volcanoes for the next 100 years,
there would be continued warming due to the improving transparency of the
atmosphere. Since volcanoes, El Ninoes and La Ninas are a natural background
variable to our climate, any statistical procedure to `remove' them creates
a phony climate, detached from reality. Mark Twain would definitely have
something to say about it.
The 21 year satellite record is now long enough for such
things to be self-cancelling anyway.
Cheers John Daly
Subject: The Big Bangs and
Dale Peters contribution and further reflections
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 20:30:10 -0700
From: Steve Hemphill <steve@hemphill.net>
To: Ken Parish <kparish@legalnet.net.au> CC: John Daly
<daly@vision.net.au>
Mr. Peters poetry illustrates the feeling of insignificance
of some Homo sapiens. I too have spent weeks bobbing along at a few knots
across the Pacific. However, with my calculator at my fingertips I can
provide many analogies of the non-insignificance of our lemming-like species.
Even assuming (wrongly) it takes at least
a one Megaton explosion to reach the stratosphere, look at a foot. Compare
a foot to 16 times around the earth. That's the difference between one
pound of tnt and one Megaton of tnt. Another: Assume a 5 foot average arm
span, and all the people on Earth with arms outstretched would, while touching
each other, encircle the earth 200 times.
At this point in time I hope I don't have to address the
argument that "hands around the world" would be an especially
difficult task across the oceans. Some here would take off heartily in
that direction.
Of course if there was an influence by the ejection of
massive (Yes, Mr. Peters, massive) amounts
of water and NOx into the stratosphere it would certainly remove that big
decline in temperature during the '50s and '60s and also remove a big argument
against global warming, that is the variability during that time. How much
mass is in the stratosphere? Serious question there.
For another dose of reality, let's imagine we snuff out
the sun. Does anyone really expect El Nino to continue on? I must admit
here that in my last post I said El Nino is "the primary response"
of warming at this temperature when I really meant it is "a primary
signal" of warming. That's what I get for hitting that "send"
button too fast.
But again, evidence the stratosphere is cooling as the
Earth's ocean begin sucking up heat is, in fact, a strong signal Earth
is warming. Remember the thermos example? Several here prove again and
again they don't understand it, yet go on merrily arguing around and around
about it. All you have to do is compare the troposphere temps with the
stratosphere temps. That's all.
However, most important of all I believe, increased temperature
(with ensuing rainfall increase) combined with increased CO2 provide an
important concept for Homo sapiens, cousin to the lemming. That is that
we do, in fact, affect Earth's climate. Maybe this climate response, maybe
for the better for most all, will convince us we need to live sustainably.
Maybe we lucked out this time.
It'd be nice to have a regionally accurate model.
Steve
Subject: The Big Bangs
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 12:07:48 -0400
From: "Dr. Theodor Landscheidt" <theodor.landscheidt@ns.sympatico.ca>
To: John Daly <daly@vision.net.au>
Dear John:
I agree with you that filtering out the effects of ENSO
events distorts reality. Yet adding the SOI to global temperature, as Jorge
did in his model, does not make sense either. You, Peixoto, and I have
shown that El Niño and La Niña contribute the lion's share
to temperature. So to put the SOI and temperature together gives temperature
a double accent that favours global warming.
Ken is right in remarking that Christy's argument is even
less convincing as he does not consider that there is evidence that El
Niño and La Niña are subjected to solar forcing.
Kind regards, Theodor
Subject: Big Bangs (response
to Theodor)
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 22:32:19 +0100
From: "Jorge Sereno" <sereno@zeelandnet.nl>
To: Theodor Landscheidt
Dear Theodor,
You said:
"I agree with you that filtering
out the effects of ENSO events distorts reality. Yet adding the SOI to
global temperature, as Jorge did in his model, does not make sense either.
You, Peixoto, and I have shown that El Niño and La Niña contribute
the lion's share to temperature. So to put the SOI and temperature together
gives temperature a double accent that favours global warming."
It is clear a rise in the last 25 years favours global
warming, The world has warmed over the last century and also in the last
25 years (according to groundbased and sattelite
measurements). You probably mean that it favours anthropogenic global
warming. If so, why do you think it favours it? In the seventies, when
we were at 2/3 of where we are today from a human induced global warming
perspective, it showed a clear cooling and reached the highest mean SOI
values of the whole period 1868-1998. So in this period it didn't exactly
favour human induced global warming.
El Nino and La Nina contribute the Lion's share on a yearly
basis, but they (in general) do not have a
large significance on a long term trend. While they do so during the last
25 years, it doesn't if we take a look at the whole century. It shows a
small rise, surely compared to the overall rise this century. SOI is needed
in my model in order to explain yearly variance and to explain short term
trends, like the last 25 years (warming) and
the period 1940-1975 (cooling).
I do not think that it is proven at all what causes El
Nino/La Nina. If you are right and it is influenced by solar influences,
it is clear that other aspects of solar activity are involved. Aspects
I have no models of and which cannot be linked directly with solar irradiances
changes, which are the bases of the solar models I used. So all I have
got then are SOI indices which should be treated seperatly from the solar
models I use. If you are right, they themselves become solar model, so
to speak.
Best regards, Jorge
Subject: Theodor Lanscheidt and
Steve Hemphill contributions
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 09:42:54 +0930
From: Ken Parish <kparish@legalnet.net.au>
To: "John Daly" <daly@vision.net.au>
Dear John,
I agree that there must necessarily be large areas of
uncertainty involved in the "adjusting" exercise performed on
the MSU data by Christy and McNider. But I am not sure I agree that it
is an illegitimate exercise as such (which John Daly
and Theodor Lanscheidt seem to be saying). It is just premature
(see below). Subject to reading Christy and
McNider's paper (does anyone have a citation),
I presume that what they did was an exercise rather like Jorge Sereno or
Baliunas et al i.e. they attempted to separate the 4 major influences on
climate (solar irradiance, ENSO, volcanic activity,
greenhouse gases), in this case by adopting assumed temperature
forcing values for the first three listed factors, and then suggesting
that what was left represented (or at least might
represent) the imprint of CO2 forcing.
One of the problems with this approach, at least for a
relatively short record set like MSU, is that the number of combinations
of possible forcing values you can pick that will fit the known data is
very large. Such an exercise is not much more than an educated guess, which
inevitably reflects the prejudices of its author. However, as the record
set becomes longer and longer, logically the range of combinations of forcing
values that will fit the measured data must become progressively smaller
and smaller. Thus, performing such an exercise on 100 years of surface
temperature record is potentially much more meaningful than doing it with
20 years of MSU data (leaving aside surface record
unreliability).
With MSU data, the task is made even more difficult by
the fact that the MSU figures are an average of temperature readings over
a large altitude range in the troposphere. As we know from Chick Keller's
work, volcanic activity has both differential absolute temperature and
differential timelag effects at different altitudes. Adjusting the MSU
record in any meaningful way therefore becomes immeasurably more difficult.
ENSO effects also differ with altitude, and there is an additional complicating
factor that ENSO impacts different regions of the earth in different ways,
and to different extents for each ENSO event. Of course, John Daly would
say that such differential effects will cancel each other out over time.
No doubt that is correct given enough time, but I would take a lot of convincing
that a 20 year record set is long enough to allow meaningful assumptions
to be made about the net forcing values in the troposphere of such intensely
variable and incompletely understood climate factors.
Finally, with both MSU and surface record sets, you keep
getting irritating people coming along and saying "What
about the effect of sulphate aerosols, or jet aircraft in the stratosphere,
or nuclear testing, or changing local tropospheric dust and soot levels?"
Until you can either eliminate these factors as being insignificant, or
quantify their effects with some degree of accuracy, you can't really begin
narrowing the range of permissible forcing values for the "big 4"
climate factors. That is why I wrote my article. For all these reasons,
I doubt that such exercises are likely to prove very much at all in the
near future, although they are certainly very interesting.
What I think one can say with increasing confidence,
and Steve Hemphill will violently disagree, is that all the diverse methodologies
being employed to try to get a handle on what is driving climate change
seem to be progressively converging on the conclusion that the forcing
effect of CO2 is probably in the range +0.5-1.0°C in total over the
next century. See, for example Christy and McNider, Jorge Sereno and even
the lower IPCC range (which is probably their middle
range by now, given the downward adjustment trend to date). When
you consider that anthropogenic CO2 production is certainly going to peak
and then decline during that time in any event, because of technological
change and dwindling fossil fuel supplies, it is very hard to get excited
by doomsday scenarios about such a modest warming, and even harder to justify
draconian measures of the sort advocated at Kyoto. We certainly should
eradicate land clearing, promote reforestation, and take reasonable measures
to reduce polluting smokestack emissions. All these things are desirable
anyway, for reasons quite unconnected with any greenhouse effects. But
destroying world economic progress to stop a modest warming, that may well
be beneficial anyway, doesn't really seem like a proportionate response
to me.
Of course, this sanguine view would change if they ever
presented any credible evidence that the polar icecaps are melting rapidly,
or that they will do so eventually because of some anthropogenic CO2-generated
long-term heatsink timelag mechanism. That is why the ice thickness issue
is so central to the greenhouse debate. No doubt it was one of the reasons
why John Daly was interested in my article: it helps to underline the illegitimacy
of using the early 1960s as a baseline for studying polar ice thickness (see John's excellent
article on that subject on this website). However, I don't think even
the most partisan of warming advocates can claim that the evidence for
either of these melting scenarios is clear, compelling or even credible
at the moment. They are no more than speculative doomsday scenarios of
the sort H.G. Wells used to write. I'll start worrying when the Martians
zap the garden shed or turn my pet poodle into an android.
Regards Ken Parish
Subject: MSU Difference and
Long Term Feedbacks (The Big BAngs)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 06:38:45 -0700
From: Steve Hemphill <steve@hemphill.net>
To: Ken Parish <kparish@legalnet.net.au>
Dear Ken,
I
am afraid you have been sucked into statements by short-sighted people.
You say I will "violently disagree" with a projected warming
this century of 0.5 to 1.0 deg C. This is not true in the least. That temperature
range is very possible. A sustained increase in CO2 requires an equivalent
increase in floral activity, ocean temperature, water vapor, etc. that
would be centuries away. I think Dr. Ahlbeck's statistical analysis of
CO2 trends is very important and will become even more so in the future: www.john-daly.com/ahlbeck.htm
Dr. Ahlbeck's paper illustrates the concept of varying
sink directly correlating with the distance from equilibrium. In fact,
I also think the increase in atmospheric CO2 may reverse in the next 100
years at constant or even increasing anthropogenic output due to decreasing
sea ice area and increasing floral activity. Both need time to react and,
therefore, both may overshoot. Floral response needs centuries to overcome
geographic factors.
To reduce the variability induced by using different sensors
and to verify the increased heat retention of the atmosphere, I think one
concept that goes a long way to proving anthropogenically induced global
warming is simple comparison of the trend of the difference in anomaly
of the troposphere vs. the stratosphere, attached here. This doesn't, however,
mean warm is bad.
Steve
Subject: The Big Bangs
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 13:01:46 -0400
From: "Dr. Theodor Landscheidt" <theodor.landscheidt@ns.sympatico.ca>
To: Jorge Sereno
Dear Jorge:
Just the last 25 years with a strong preponderance of
El Niños and high surface temperatures are the main basis for the
claim of anthropogenic global warming. For the period between 1900 and
1940 even IPCC scientists concede that the Sun caused up to 2/3 of the
warming. This is why I said that the combination of temperature and SOI
would be favourable to global warming.
Contrary to your opinion, I think that there is already
some evidence of solar forcing of ENSO events. I did not only make theoretical
points, but correctly forecast the last two El Niños, in one case
2 years before the event, and predicted
the extent of the current La Niña better than specialized institutes
which change their forecast continually when they get new observation data.
My lead time is much longer than that of those institutes.
Kind regards, Theodor
Subject: NRC Blunder on 1998
temperatures
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 17:25:04 -0500
From: Mike MacCracken <mmaccrac@usgcrp.gov>
To: John Daly daly@vision.net.au, Chick Keller <cfk@lanl.gov>
At 6:05 PM -0500 3/1/00, John Daly wrote:
In case some of you have not seen
it yet, we may all have to re-write the climate history book. A Darwin
university lawyer, Ken Parish, has made a detailed investigation of the
nuclear testing of the post war period, and has come up with some quite
startling information as to the extent and power of these tests.
His info is very detailed and hard
to refute. His conclusion is that these tests were so numerous and in many
cases so large as to constitute an ongoing period of artificial volcanic
activity lasting right through the 1950s and into the 1960s, the very period
when we had the post-war cooling.
Perhaps the worst tests were those
by the USSR performed at their Novaya Zemlya test site in the Arctic Ocean,
the biggest being a whopping 65 megatons! That the Arctic saw an anomalous
cold spell during that very time can now be seen in the context of those
tests at the very same time. Indeed, the whole global cooling of that time
must have been largely due to the combined effect of US and USSR testing.
This affects the climate community
in two ways
1) Claims that the post-war cooling
against the tide of GH gases proves an absence of greenhouse cannot be
sustained if we now accept that cooling as artificial.
2) Comparisons by numerous temperature
and proxy studies between conditions in the 50s/60s and those of today
must also be considered invalid since the baseline period they use is an
artificially cooled one. For example ice mass studies of the Arctic Ocean
generally use the 1960s as their baseline, comparing them unfavourably
with today. But with the baseline being artificially cooled, such comparisons
can no longer be considered valid.
So the finding by Parish affects
everyone in some way, but I can find no significant flaws in his arguments.
John--
Being from a nuclear weapons design lab, and having been
involved or associated with efforts looking at the enviornmental impacts
of nuclear testing (from nuclear winter to holes
in the ozone layer, etc.), let me offer a couple of comments on
the Parish paper and your note.
If enough dust had been lofted to affect the climate,
we would all be glowing with radioactive fallout. The actual amounts lofted
were much less than are suggested here. First, it is true that it takes
a 0.5 to 1 MT explosion to loft materials into the stratosphere, so the
many smaller tests can't loft dust high enough to have an effect. However,
the main reason dust is not an issue is that the big explosions were generally
done far enough above the surface that dust was not entrained (the
testers needed to keep fallout amounts low--it could blow back on you,
etc.). There is a recent SCOPE book (from
Amazon.com) covering fallout issues from nuclear testing:
Atmospheric Nuclear Tests
: Environmental and Human Consequences (NATO Asi Series. Partnership
Sub-Series 2, Environment, V. 35.) Charles S. Shapiro (Editor) / Hardcover
/ Published 1998 Our Price: $130.00 (Special Order)
Dust injections just had to be kept to a minimum because
there were all sorts of concerns about fallout (and
lofted dust getting rained out in concentrated areas). Rrainout
from one Chinese test caused the shut down of a nuclear reactor in Pennsylvania
that had its gauges set very sensitively (it took
a while to figure out it was not a reactor leak, but fallout from the Chinese
test). Because of the threat of fallout, testers really did try
to avoid lofting dust (so tested over the oceans,
did above surface bursts, etc.). I am sure the big Soviet test that
is mentioned was exploded well, well above the surface--likely set off
in the stratophere so it did not create all the dust that is suggested.
On the other hand the heat from the explosions did create
nitric oxides that did have some effects on the ozone layer
(this was later a way that the stratospheric ozone models were tested--and
they found that early equilibrium chemistry models did not really work--the
models needed to be time dependent for this problem). I think this
notion of nuclear generated dust affecting the climate was covered in a
National Research Council Report of about 1975 that focused on the effects
of nitric oxides on the ozone layer and found that dust was just not an
issue.
We also know a good deal because the changes in carbon-14
created by the explosions are used as tracers to test models as well--both
chemistry and carbon cycle models.
Thus, while the correlation of nuclear testing with a
cooling climate might seem quite attractive (and
the big Soviet test did apparently have as much energy as a big volcanic
eruption), I just do not think there was anywhere near enough dust
to be causing the observed cooling (not to mention
that the really big tests were in the late 1950s and early 1960s, well
after cooling had started). I would note, however, that some Soviet
scientists at one point were suggesting that the nitric oxide--which then
reacted to become nitrogen dioxide (a brownish gas)
was also suggested as possibly having a cliamtic effect by absorbing solar
energy in the stratosphere. Again, although there is a good deal of NO2,
this also seems too small to explain the cooling.
Mike
Michael C. MacCracken, Ph.D.
National Assessment Coordination Office
U. S. Gobal change Research Program
Suite 750 400 Virginia Avenue Washington DC 20024
Tel: (202) 314-2230 (Main number for NACO and for Robert
Cherry, Admin. Asst.)
Tel: (202) 314-2233 (office and voicemail) Fax: (202) 488-8681 or (202)
488-8678
E-mail: mmaccrac@usgcrp.gov
National Assessment Home Page: http://www.nacc.usgcrp.gov/
Subject: Mike McCracken
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 16:04:13 +0930
From: Ken Parish <kparish@legalnet.net.au>
To: "John Daly" <daly@vision.net.au>
Dear John,
I have just read Mike McCracken's contribution. It is
obvious that he only read the article and not the open review. No doubt
he was too busy. Had he done so he would have discovered that all the points
he raised were canvassed in considerable depth and resolved to most contributors'
satisfaction (although I am still interested in stratospheric
temperatures in the late 1950s). As I previously observed, this
is a strong vindication of open peer review of the sort conducted on this
website.
Regards Ken Parish
Subject: What about water vapor
and NOx?
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 18:36:55 -0700
From: Steve Hemphill <steve@hemphill.net>
To: Mike MacCracken <mmaccrac@usgcrp.gov>
Dr. MacCracken,
No one's ever answered the question "what
does ejection of water vapor do to the stratosphere, what percentage did
it go up during the tests over water, and how long would it last up there?"
This goes for the water vapor of jet exhaust as well. While any one of
the three causes (dust, NOx, water vapor)
may have been insignificant by themselves, is it a foregone conclusion
the combination had no effect?
What other cause could there have been? Do you believe
El Nino is a cause or an effect?
Thank you, Steve
Subject: Re: What about water
vapor and NOx?
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 08:12:39 -0500
From: Mike MacCracken <mmaccrac@usgcrp.gov>
To: Steve Hemphill <steve@hemphill.net>
Dear Steve--
Your questions are testing my memory--so a tentative qualitative
response rather than an answer with high confidence.
As to water injections, an asmt was done of the potential
effects of water vapor (and sulfur dioxide emissions)
on the stratosphere from supersonic transport aircraft
(also known, confusingly in our field, as SSTs) at the same time
the first asmt (called CIAP) was done of the
effect on the ozone layer of nitric oxide emissions. One can figure out
how much water is in the stratosphere by multiplying its concentration
(a few ppmv) by the mass of the stratosphere (about
10 to 15 percent of the atmosphere), and correcting for molecular
weight differences. This is a pretty big number, and, given a lifetime
of a few years, one can calculate the relative effect of an injection of
various size--from a continuous aircraft fleet or an injection due to an
explosion. I don't remember the numbers on all this and no time to recalculate
( I think there was a 1975 NRC report on this--my
copy is likely hidden away in some boxes now well buried in warehouses--maybe
check a major library), but I believe these various factors were
all looked at and were found to be pretty small (of course, the tropospheric
cooling was pretty small too, but I don't think there was a big signal
in the stratospheric radiosonde record either--Angell's record could be
looked at).
Another way to think about it would be to compare the
nuclear tests to major weather phenomena. I did this once for a hurricane,
and the latent heat release of a major hurricane (say
a couple of hundred miles in diameter and, I think I assumed, 6 inches
of rain per day--maybe a foot) converts to something like a megaton
nuclear explosion (which is 10 to the 15 calories
if you want to do the calculation) every few seconds (though
more spread out than a nuclear explosion). Thus, a hurricane releases
a lot of energy into the atmosphere (no wonder they
do so much damage), and much would carry upward (as
for a nuclear explosion). Major thunderstorm systems are also likely
are comparable to small nuclear explosions. Basically, nuclear explosions
can do a lot of damage to a particular place, but in geophysical terms,
they are not as important as major storms or the release of GHGs that stay
in the atmosphere a century or so and trap energy over the whole planet
over a much longer period (the nuclear winter issue
arose becuase it was hypothesized that the explosions would start (urban
or oil field) fires that would loft particles that would have an effect
on solar--cooling if they were lofted above the greenhouse gases and absorbed
solar there instead of letting it reach the surface; the major problem
there was getting the smoke particles that high without rainout, etc.--very
hard to do in practice).
Mike
Subject: What about water vapor
and NOx?
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 09:27:51 -1000
From: George and Teresa Birchard <gfb@aloha.net>
To: Steve Hemphill <steve@hemphill.net>, Mike MacCracken
<mmaccrac@usgcrp.gov>
I searched the net for data on water vapor in the stratosphere
and found an excellent site that has recent data but could not find data
going back to the bomb testing period. Normally, the very cold temperatures
at the base of the stratosphere freeze dry the air leaving the stratosphere
very dry. The bomb tests would have caused broken through the natural barrier
to water vapor and allowed an influx of water vapor into the middle stratosphere.
However, sitting here on a small Pacific island without a research library,
I am at a loss to provide data.
From what I understand ice core data from the Andes shows
that El Nino events occurred in the last ice age. Global warming or cooling
is not necessarily related to El Nino. El Nino releases heat that builds
up in the equatorial western Pacific http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/toga-tao/realtime.html
as a result of a natural cycle that has been going on since before man
discovered fire. Right now, as a result of 2 years of strong cool trades
blowing across the equatorial Pacific, a deep pool of warm water has formed
and the Pacific is "ripe" for another El Nino. Whatever happens,
man did not cause it. Perhaps global warming could affect El Nino, but
it's speculation.
The fact is that complex natural cycles obscure the effects
of human activities on the climate. I still think that the combination
of increased water vapor and NOx in the stratosphere could have increased
stratospheric ice clouds in the Arctic. NOx contributes to ice cloud formation
below -75°C.
I remember having conversations with Jim Angell about
warming that had occurred in the southern hemisphere that was not observed
in the northern hemisphere in his balloon data. Perhaps the bomb testing
caused an imbalance between the northern and southern hemispheres, or perhaps
we were just observing natural variability. However, if the bombs had an
effect, one would expect the northern hemisphere to be affected more. I
agree that the effect of dust from bombs was negligible.
Regards, George
Return to the "Climate
Change Guest Papers" Page
Return to "Still
Waiting For Greenhouse" Main Page
