"One Guy With a Marker..."

My granddaughter sent me a link to a video that claims:

“One Guy With A Marker Just Made The Global Warming Debate Completely Obsolete.”

I watched the video with interest. He says he has: “… An argument that leads to a conclusion even the most ardent skeptic and most panicked activist can agree on. No one I’ve shown it to so far has been able to poke a hole in it. …”

I found some logical errors in that video and posted This Topic to the world's most viewed climate website where it attracted some 17,000 page views and almost 200 comments, including this one:

[From John Coleman, Co-Founder of The Weather Channel]

Ira, please make a video that presents the counter argument so I can put the two videos together for a You Tube “gotcha”. This guy is getting lots of hits and needs to be answered on You Tube.

So, I made the suggested video, and here it is:


When John Coleman viewed my video he wrote:

Wow Ira. You did it and you did a great job of debunking the marker nut. I hope you get a lot of hits on You Tube. It is a huge job to debunk the bad science. We should all keep on trying every day. I am writing a daily blog, but maybe I need to make some new videos a well.

Indeed, within a couple days I had THOUSANDS of video views on You Tube! THANKS JOHN!
Click for John Coleman Weather Daily Blog

DECONSTRUCTION OF THE "ONE GUY WITH A MARKER ..." VIDEO




As the above frame grab from the One Guy With a Marker ... Video indicates, he divides the Global Warming debate into two extreme dichotomies:

• Global Climate Change (GCC) is “False” (Top Row) or “True” (Bottom Row), and
• We take Action “Yes” (Column A) or “No” (Column B)

Here are the results he gives for his four boxes:

1. GCC is False but we unnecessarily take Action. The result is a high “Cost” that results in a “Global Depression”.
2. GCC is False and we take No Action. The result is a happy face.
3. GCC is True and we take Action that stops GCC dead in its tracks. The result is a happy face.
4. GCC is True and we take No Action. The result is “CATASTROPHES [in the] ECONOMIC, POLITICAL, SOCIETAL, ENVIRONMENTAL, [and] and HEALTH” areas.

He ends with the inevitable: “The only choice is Column A” – we must take Action!


This is a great example of the well-known FALLACY OF THE EXCLUDED MIDDLE! Where EMOTION is used in place of REASON to give the viewer a false choice between two extremes.

“All or nothing”, “Camelot or Catastrophe” arguments have great emotional power in political discourse, where the (usually hidden) assumption is that some things are perfectly TRUE and others are perfectly FALSE. But the real world is mostly in shades of grey. He studiously avoids that complication, because, when shades of grey are considered, his argument, IMHO, falls apart.


Let us take a closer, more realistic look at his four boxes:

1. GLOBAL DEPRESSION: This box is included to make it appear he is being “fair” to Skeptics. He assumes that taking Action to stop GCC will be so costly that, if it turns out to have been unnecessary, the result will be a “Global Depression”. Certainly, maximum environmental spending will damage the world-wide economy, but I doubt that type of spending, alone, will trigger a “Global Depression”. When we get to box #3 we will see that he doesn’t really think so either!
2. HAPPY FACE: GCC is “False”, we take No Action, so all is well! But, is it? Does his “GCC” include NATURAL PROCESSES and CYCLES that have caused Global Warming (and Cooling), Floods (and Droughts), and Violent Storms (and Blessed Rain) prior to the advent of Humans on Earth, and before we Humans had the capability to affect the climate? Apparently not, else “GCC” could not be totally “False”. Therefore, by “GCC” he is referring ONLY to the HUMAN-CAUSED variety, totally ignoring the evidence from the geological, ice-core, and historical records of NATURAL Global Climate Change and some Catastrophes.
3. HAPPY FACE: This box is totally inconsistent with box #1! If Action to stop Human-Caused Global Warming is so costly as to cause a Global Depression in the first box, would it not also cause such a Global Depression in this box? So, why the Happy Face? Realistically, even if we in the US and other nations in the Developed World take maximum Action to reduce our CO2 emissions, it is totally unrealistic to expect those in the Developing World to do the same. Indeed, China, India, and other countries will continue to build power plants, nearly all of them coal-fired. CO2 levels are bound to continue their rapid increase for at least the coming several decades, no matter what we do.
4. TOTAL CATASTROPHE: This box is filled with terrible consequences and is intended to scare us into taking maximum Action. He assumes the worst-case Global Warming of several degrees predicted by Climate Models despite the failure of those Climate Models to predict the past 17 years of absolutely no net Global Warming. (The most realistic prediction is continued moderate change in Global Temperatures, mostly NATURAL but some small part HUMAN-CAUSED. As standards of living continue to improve world-wide, populations will stabilize which will allow reasonable action to be taken to moderate CO2 emissions, and Human Civilization will ADAPT to inevitable Natural and Human-Caused Climate Change as we have throughout history.)

Bottom Line: This “One Guy With A Marker” DID NOT MAKE “The Global Warming Debate Completely Obsolete.” His failures of logic:

• He assumes HUMAN-CAUSED Climate Change is the only kind we need to worry about, which flies in the face of the fact that most Global Climate Change has been and continues to be NATURAL, and not under Human control or influence.
• He assumes costly Action to prevent GCC will cause a GLOBAL DEPRESSION (box #1) if GCC is “False”, but the same costly Action will cause a HAPPY FACE (box #3) if GCC is “True”. Box #3 contradicts box #1.
• He ignores the fact that GCC models have way over-predicted Global Warming. For example, taking 1979 (when worldwide Satellite temperature data came available) as a starting point, the average of 102 Global Climate Models predicted warming of 0.9°C (1.5°F) by 2013. Actual warming from 1979 to 2013 has been less than a quarter of that, and there has been no net Global Warming since 1997. During this time period, CO2 levels have continued their rapid rise. (See http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/12/global-warming-is-real-but-not-a-big-deal-2/)
• He assumes “All or Nothing at all” and “Camelot or Catastrophe” which is the characteristic of irresponsible EMOTIONAL argument. He ignores the shades of grey in-between. He brings POLITICAL rhetoric to what should be a rational SCIENTIFIC discussion.

Ira Glickstein

Related: See Craven Attention, where Steve Mosher reports on the "Guy With a Marker ..." making a buffoon of himself at the AGU (American Geophysical Union).

Global Warming - REAL, but NOT a Big DEAL

[UPDATE: I reposted this at WUWT, the most viewed Climate website in the world, and have over 10,000 page views and 230 comments.]
We've reached a turning point where it is hard for any Global Warming Alarmist to claim (with a straight face) that the world as we know it is about to end in a decade or two or three unless we stop burning fossil fuels. Anyone deluded or foolish enough to make such a claim would be laughed at by many audiences.

GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL

Yes, the world has warmed 1°F to 1.5°F (0.6°C to 0.8°C) since 1880 when relatively good thermometers became available. Yes, part of that warming is due to human activities, mainly burning unprecedented quantities of fossil fuels that continue to drive an increase in carbon dioxide (CO2) levels. The Atmospheric "Greenhouse" Effect is a scientific fact!

BUT GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT A BIG DEAL

As the animated graphic clearly indicates, the theoretical climate models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are handcuffed to inordinately high estimates of climate sensitivity (how much temperatures are expected to rise given a doubling of CO2). Since the advent of good satellite-based global temperature data in 1979, observed temperatures have risen at a fraction of the IPCC predicted rate even as CO2 continues to rise. Relax, there is not and never has been any near-term "tipping point". The actual Earth Climate System is far less sensitive to CO2 than claimed the IPCC climate theory, as represented by their computer models. Global Warming since 1880 is mainly due to Natural Cycles and Processes not under human control. Yes, the same Natural Cycles and Processes that were responsible for the many Ice Age cycles that repeatedly occurred about every 100,000 years or so.

MY JANUARY 2014 PRESENTATION 

By a stroke of good fortune, last week I was scheduled to present "Visualizing the Atmospheric 'Greenhouse' Effect - Global warming is real, but how much is due to human activities and how big is the risk?" to the Philosophy Club in the Central Florida retirement community where I live. This is a great time for Global Warming Skeptics to put the Alarmists in their place.

Everyone in the highly interactive and supportive audience was aware of newspaper and TV reports of the drama of those ill-fated Global Warming "Research" activists whose Russian ship, the Academik Shokalskiy, got stuck in the summer ice of the Antarctic. (Fortunately, those people are safe, having been rescued by a helicopter from a Chinese icebreaker.) In addition to the Antarctic adventure gone wrong, in the week leading up to and following my talk, the media was overrun by stories of the "polar vortex" literally freezing large parts of the US and even causing Florida temperatures to drop below 30°F.

Of course, we realize that the cold wave is only anecdotal evidence and "weather is not climate". However, photos and videos of researchers stuck in the Antarctic summer ice as well as scenes of American life frozen in place for days on end, when combined with clear and irrefutable evidence of a slowdown in warming since 1979 and no statistically significant warming since 1996 (as depicted in the graphic above), has considerable emotional impact.

My animated PowerPoint Show, which should run on any Windows PC, is available for download here. (NOTE: I knew that many members of The Philosophy Club audience, while highly intelligent and informed, are not particularly scientifically astute. Therefore, I kept to the basics and  invited questions as I proceeded. Since most of them think in Fahrenheit, I was careful to give temperatures in that system. By contrast, my 2011 talk to the more scientifically astute members of our local Science and Technology Club Skeptic Strategy for Talking about Global Warming was more technical. Both presentations make use of animated PowerPoint charts and you are free to download and use them as you wish.)

My presentation is based on my five-part series for the most viewed climate website in the world, "Watts Up With That" (WUWT) where I am a Guest Contributor. The series is entitled "Visualizing the 'Greenhouse Effect'" - 1 - A Physical Analogy, 2 - Atmospheric Windows, 3 - Emission Spectra, 4 - Molecules and Photons, and 5 - Light and Heat.  The series, which ran in 2011, generated tens of thousands of page views at WUWT, along with thousands of comments.

I wrote the series because WUWT is a "skeptic" website and attracts some viewers who reject the basic physics of the Atmospheric "Greenhouse" Effect. (The owner of WUWT, Anthony Watts, like me, accepts the basic physics and the fact that some of the warming of the past century is indeed due to human activities, such as unprecedented burning of fossil fuels that have raised CO2 levels. However, we are skeptical about how much the Earth Surface has actually warmed, and how big a risk is posed by moderate increases in CO2 and temperature.)

HOW A REAL GREENHOUSE WORKS

I explained how a real physical Greenhouse works and how that is both similar and different from the Atmospheric "Greenhouse" Effect. The Greenhouse descriptions I learned in high school, as well as those available on the Internet, consider only the RADIATIVE effect. The glass roof of the Greenhouse allows visible light to pass through freely, heating the soil, plants, and air, but is opaque to the resultant infrared radiation, which is partly re-radiated back down into the Greenhouse, warming it further.  That part is true, but far from the whole story. The MAIN reason a Greenhouse stays warm is that it is airtight to restrict CONVECTION and it is insulated to restrict CONDUCTION. In fact, it is possible to construct a successful Greenhouse using a roof made from materials that allow both visible and infrared to pass freely, but is impossible to make a working Greenhouse that is not both airtight and insulated.

HOW THE ATMOSPHERIC "GREENHOUSE" EFFECT WORKS

All warm objects emit radiation at a wavelength dependent upon the temperature of the object. The Sun, at around 10,000 °F, emits "short-wavelength" infrared radiation, centered around 1/2 micron (one millionth of a meter). The soil, plants, and air in the Greenhouse, at around 60 to 100 °F, emit "long wavelength" radiation, centered around 10 microns (with most of the energy between 4 and 25 microns).   

The Atmospheric "Greenhouse" Effect works because:

1. Short-wavelength radiation from the Sun passes freely through the gases that make up  the Atmosphere,
2. About a third of this Sunlight is reflected back by white clouds, dust, and light-colored objects on the Surface, and that energy is lost to Space,
3. The remaining two-thirds of  the Sunlight energy is absorbed by the Sea and Land Surface and causes it to warm,
4. The warm Surface cools by emitting long-wavelength radiation at the Bottom of the Atmosphere, and this radiation passes towards the Top of the Atmosphere, where it is ultimately lost to Space,
5. On the way to the Top of the Atmosphere, much of this radiation is absorbed by so-called "Greenhouse" gases (mostly water vapor and carbon dioxide) which causes the Atmosphere to warm,
6. The warmed Atmosphere emits infrared radiation in all directions, some into Space where it is lost, and some back towards the Surface where it is once again absorbed and further warms the Surface.
7. In addition to the RADIATIVE effects noted in points 1 through 6, the Surface is cooled by CONVECTION and CONDUCTION (thunderstorms, winds, rain, etc.)

THANK GOODNESS OR THE ATMOSPHERIC "GREENHOUSE" EFFECT

If not for the warming effect of "Greenhouse" gases, the Surface of the Earth would average about -1 °F, which would prevent life as we know it. This effect is responsible for about 60 degrees F of warming.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the Earth Surface has warmed about 1.5 °F since good thermometer data became available around 1880. Some skeptics (including me) believe the actual warming is closer to 1 °F, and that government agencies have adjusted the thermometer record to exaggerate the warming by 30% or more.

However, it doesn't really matter whether the actual warming is 1 °F or 1.5 °F because we are arguing about only 0.5 °F, which is less than 1% of the warming due to the Atmospheric "Greenhouse" Effect.

HOW SENSITIVE IS THE CLIMATE TO HUMAN ACTIVITIES?

The IPCC claims that the majority of the warming since 1880 is due to human activities. It is true that we are burning unprecedented amounts of fossil fuel (coal, oil, gas), and that we are making land use changes that may reduce the albedo (reflectiveness) of the Surface. Most of the increase in Atmospheric CO2 (a 40% rise from about 270 to nearly 400 parts per million by volume) is due to human activities.

The IPCC claims that Climate Sensitivity (the average increase in Surface temperatures due to a doubling of CO2) is between 3 °F and 8 °F.  Some skeptics (including me) believe they are off by at least a factor of two, and possibly a factor of three, and that Climate Sensitivity is closer to 1 °F to 3 °F.

As evidence for our conclusions, we point to the fact that virtually ALL of the IPCC climate models have consistently over-estimated future temperature predictions as compared to the actual temperature record. Indeed, for the past 17 years as CO2 levels continue their rapid climb, temperatures have leveled off, which is proof that Natural Cycles, not under human control or influence, have cancelled out warming due to CO2 increases. Thus, Natural Cycles must have a larger effect than CO2.

VISUALIZING THE ATMOSPHERIC "GREENHOUSE" EFFECT

As I noted above, I wrote the "Visualizing" series for WUWT (1 - A Physical Analogy, 2 - Atmospheric Windows, 3 - Emission Spectra, 4 - Molecules and Photons, and 5 - Light and Heat) because some WUWT viewers are "Disbelievers" who have had an "equal and opposite" reaction to the "end of the world" excesses of the Global Warming "Alarmists".  By failing to understand and accept the basic science of the Atmospheric "Greenhouse" Effect, they have, IMHO, "thrown the baby out with the bathwater".

1 - A Physical Analogy

Albert Einstein was a great theoretical physicist, with all the requisite mathematical tools. However, he rejected purely mathematical abstraction and resorted to physical analogy for his most basic insights. For example, he imagined a man in a closed elevator being transported to space far from any external mass and then subjected to accelerating speeds. That man could not tell the difference between gravity on Earth and acceleration in space, thus, concluded Einstein, gravity and acceleration are equivalent, which is the cornerstone of his theory of relativity. Einstein never fully bought into the mainstream interpretation of quantum mechanics that he and others have called quantum weirdness and spooky action at a distance. He had trouble accepting a theory that did not comport with anything he considered a reasonable physical analogy!

So, if you have trouble accepting the atmospheric “greenhouse” effect because of the lack of a good physical analogy, you are in fine company.

Well, getting back to the Atmospheric "Greenhouse Effect, a "disbelieving" commenter on WUWT, suggested we think of the Sunlight as truckloads of energy going from the Sun to the Earth Surface, and the infrared radiation from the Surface as equal truckloads going the other way. How, he asked, could these equal and opposite truckloads do anything but cancel each other out as far as the amount of energy on the Surface of the Earth? In reply, I posted a comment with an analogy of truckloads of orange juice, representing short-wave radiation from Sun to Earth, and truckloads of blueberry juice, representing longwave radiation between Earth and the Atmosphere and back out to Space.

That thought experiment triggered my creativity. I imagined the Sun as a ball-pitching machine, throwing Yellow balls towards the "Earth" Surface (representing short-wave radiation) and Purple balls (representing long-wave radiation) bouncing back towards Space and interacting with the Atmosphere. The graphic below is one of my depictions of the physical analogy. Follow this link for more graphics and detail.


I imagined the Earth as a well-damped scale. The Yellow balls would bounce off the Surface and turn into Purple balls (representing long-wave radiation as the Earth absorbed the short-wave radiation and then emitted an equal quantity of long-wave radiation). The scale would read "1" unit.

If there was no Atmosphere, or if the Atmosphere contained no "Greenhouse" gases to obstruct the flight of the Purple balls, they would fly out towards Space.

I then imagined the Atmosphere as an obstacle that absorbed the Purple balls, split them in two, and emitted half of the smaller balls to Space and the other half back towards the Earth. The balls going towards Earth would be absorbed, further heating the Earth, and the warmed Earth would emit them back towards the Atmosphere. The process would be repeated with the balls being absorbed by "Greenhouse" gases in the Atmosphere, and then emitted with half going out to Space, and half back to the Earth. The sum of 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 +1/16 ... = 2 (approximately), so the scale reads "2" units.

Thus, in my simplified analogy, the "Greenhouse" gases in the "Atmosphere" cause the scale reading to double. So, the Atmospheric "Greenhouse" Effect causes the Earth Surface to be warmer than it would be absent the "Greenhouse" gases. I think Einstein would be pleased!  Read more detail at WUWT, including the 340 responses (comments received and my brilliant replies!)...,

2 - Atmospheric Windows

A real greenhouse has windows. So does the Atmospheric “greenhouse effect”. They are similar in that they allow Sunlight in and restrict the outward flow of thermal energy. However, they differ in the mechanism. A real greenhouse primarily restricts heat escape by preventing convection while the “greenhouse effect” heats the Earth because “greenhouse gases” (GHG) absorb outgoing radiative energy and re-emit some of it back towards Earth.
There are two main “windows” in the Atmospheric “greenhouse effect”. The first, the Visible Light Window, on the left side of the graphic, allows visible and near-visible light from the Sun to pass through with small losses, and the second, the Longwave Window, on the right, allows the central portion of the longwave radiation band from the Earth to pass through with small losses, while absorbing and re-emitting the left and right portions.
Sunlight Energy In = Thermal Energy Out
The graphic is an animated depiction of the Atmospheric “greenhouse effect” process.

On the left side:
(1) Sunlight streams through the Atmosphere towards the surface of the Earth.
(2) A portion of the Sunlight is reflected by clouds and other high-albedo surfaces and heads back through the Atmosphere towards Space. The remainder is absorbed by the Surface of the Earth, warming it.
(3) The reflected portion is lost to Space.
On the right side:
(1) The warmed Earth emits longwave radiation towards the Atmosphere. According to the first graphic, above, this consists of thermal energy in all bands ~7μ, ~10μ, and ~15μ.
(2) The ~10μ portion passes through the Atmosphere with litttle loss. The ~7μ portion gets absorbed, primarily by H2O, and the 15μ portion gets absorbed, primarily by CO2 and H2O. The absorbed radiation heats the H2O and CO2 molecules and, at their higher energy states, they collide with the other molecules that make up the air, mostly nitrogen (N2), oxygen (O2), ozone (O3), and argon (A) and heat them by something like conduction. The molecules in the heated air emit radiation in random directions at all bands (~7μ, ~10μ, and ~15μ). The ~10μ photons pass, nearly unimpeded, in whatever direction they happen to be emitted, some going towards Space and some towards Earth. The ~7μ and ~15μ photons go off in all directions until they run into an H2O or CO2 molecule, and repeat the absorption and re-emittance process, or until they emerge from the Atmosphere or hit the surface of the Earth.
(3) The ~10μ photons that got a free-pass from the Earth through the Atmosphere emerge and their energy is lost to Space. The ~10μ photons generated by the heating of the air emerge from the top of the Atmosphere and their energy is lost to Space, or they impact the surface of the Earth and are re-absorbed. The ~7μ and ~15μ generated by the heating of the air also emerge from the top or bottom of the Atmosphere, but there are fewer of them because they keep getting absorbed and re-emitted, each time with some transfered to the central ~10μ portion of the longwave band.
 the infrared (long-wavelength). Read more detail at WUWT, including the 489 responses (comments received and my brilliant replies!)...

3 - Emission Spectra

The Atmospheric “greenhouse effect” has been analogized to a blanket that insulates the Sun-warmed Earth and slows the rate of heat transmission, thus increasing mean temperatures above what they would be absent “greenhouse gases” (GHGs). Perhaps a better analogy would be an electric blanket that, in addition to its insulating properties, also emits thermal radiation both down and up. The graphic below, based upon actual measurements of long-wave radiation as measured by a satellite LOOKING DOWN from the Top of the Atmosphere as well as from the Surface LOOKING UP from the Bottom of the Atmmsphere, depicts the situation.
,
Description of graphic (from bottom to top):
Earth Surface: Warmed by shortwave (~1/2μ) radiation from the Sun, the surface emits upward radiation in the ~7μ, ~10μ, and ~15μ regions of the longwave band. This radiation approximates a smooth “blackbody” curve that peaks at the wavelength corresponding to the surface temperature.
Bottom of the Atmosphere: On its way out to Space, the radiation encounters the Atmosphere, in particular the GHGs, which absorb and re-emit radiation in the ~7μ and ~15μ regions in all directions. Most of the ~10μ radiation is allowed to pass through.
The lower violet/purple curve (adapted from figure 8.1 in Petty and based on measurements from the Tropical Pacific looking UP) indicates how the bottom of the Atmosphere re-emits selected portions back down towards the surface of the Earth. The dashed line represents a “blackbody” curve characteristic of 300ºK (equivalent to 27ºC or 80ºF). Note how the ~7μ and ~15μ regions approximate that curve, while much of the ~10μ region is not re-emitted downward.
“Greenhouse Gases”: The reason for the shape of the downwelling radiation curve is clear when we look at the absorption spectra for the most important GHGs: H2O, H2O, H2O, … H2O, and CO2. (I’ve included multiple H2O’s because water vapor, particularly in the tropical latitudes, is many times more prevalent than carbon dioxide.)
Note that H2O absorbs at up to 100% in the ~7μ region. H2O also absorbs strongly in the ~15μ region, particularly above 20μ, where it reaches 100%. CO2 absorbs at up to 100% in the ~15μ region.
Neither H2O nor CO2 absorb strongly in the ~10μ region.
Since gases tend to re-emit most strongly at the same wavelength region where they absorb, the ~7μ and ~15μ are well-represented, while the ~10μ region is weaker.
Top of the Atmosphere: The upper violet/purple curve (adapted from figure 6.6 in Petty and based on satellite measurements from the Tropical Pacific looking DOWN) indicates how the top of the Atmosphere passes certain portions of radiation from the surface of the Earth out to Space and re-emits selected portions up towards Space. The dashed line represents a “blackbody” curve characteristic of 300ºK. Note that much of the ~10μ region approximates a 295ºK curve while the ~7μ region approximates a cooler 260ºK curve. The ~15μ region is more complicated. Part of it, from about 17μ and up approximates a 260ºK or 270ºK curve, but the region from about 14μ to 17μ has had quite a big bite taken out of it. Note how this bite corresponds roughly with the CO2 absorption spectrum.
See more graphics and detail at WUWT, including the 476 responses (comments received and my brilliant replies!)...

4 - Molecules and Photons

In this part, we consider the interaction between air molecules, including Nitrogen (N2), Oxygen (O2), Water Vapor (H2O) and Carbon Dioxide (CO2), with Photons of various wavelengths. This may help us visualize how energy, in the form of Photons radiated by the Sun and the Surface of the Earth, is absorbed and re-emited by Atmospheric molecules.

The animated graphic has eight frames, as indicated by the counter in the lower right corner. Molecules are symbolized by letter pairs or triplets and Photons by ovals and arrows. The view is of a small portion of the cloud-free Atmosphere.

1. During the daytime, Solar energy enters the Atmosphere in the form of Photons at wavelengths from about 0.1μ (micron – millionth of a meter) to 4μ, which is called “shortwave” radiation and is represented as ~1/2μ and symbolized as orange ovals. Most of this energy gets a free pass through the cloud-free Atmosphere. It continues down to the Surface of the Earth where some is reflected back by light areas (not shown in the animation) and where most is absorbed and warms the Surface.
2. Since Earth’s temperature is well above absolute zero, both day and night, the Surface radiates Photons in all directions with the energy distributed approximately according to a “blackbody” at a given temperature. This energy is in the form of Photons at wavelengths from about 4μ to 50μ, which is called “longwave” radiation and is represented as ~7μ, ~10μ, and ~15μ and symbolized as violet, light blue, and purple ovals, respectively. The primary “greenhouse” gases (GHG) are Water Vapor (H2O) and Carbon Dioxide (CO2). The ~7μ Photon is absorbed by an H2O molecule because Water Vapor has an absorption peak in that region, the ~10μ Photon gets a free pass because neither H2O nor CO2 absorb strongly in that region, and one of the 15μ Photons gets absorbed by an H2O molecule while the other gets absorbed by a CO2 molecule because these gases have absorption peaks in that region.
3. The absorbed Photons raise the energy level of their respective molecules (symbolized by red outlines).
4. The energized molecules re-emit the Photons in random directions, some upwards, some downwards, and some sideways. Some of the re-emitted Photons make their way out to Space and their energy is lost there, others back down to the Surface where their energy is absorbed, further heating the Earth, and others travel through the Atmosphere for a random distance until they encounter another GHG molecule.
5. This frame and the next two illustrate another way Photons are emitted, namely due to collisions between energized GHG molecules and other air molecules. As in frame (2) the Surface radiates Photons in all directions and various wavelengths.
6. The Photons cause the GHG molecules to become energized and they speed up and collide with other gas molecules, energizing them. NOTE: In a gas, the molecules are in constant motion, moving in random directions at different speeds, colliding and bouncing off one another, etc. Indeed the “temperature” of a gas is something like the average speed of the molecules. In this animation, the gas molecules are fixed in position because it would be too confusing if they were all shown moving and because the speed of the Photons is so much greater than the speed of the molecules that they hardly move in the time indicated.
7. The energized air molecules emit radiation at various wavelengths and in random directions, some upwards, some downwards, and some sideways. Some of the re-emitted Photons make their way out to Space and their energy is lost there, others back down to the Surface where their energy is absorbed, further heating the Earth, and others travel through the Atmosphere for a random distance until they encounter another GHG molecule.
8. Having emitted the energy, the molecules cool down.

Read more detail at WUWT, including the 743 responses (comments received and my brilliant replies!)...

5 - Light and Heat

Solar “light” radiation in = Earth “heat” radiation to Space out! That’s old news to those of us who understand all energy is fungible (may be converted to different forms of energy) and energy/mass is conserved (cannot be created nor destroyed).
My Visualizing series [Physical Analogy, Atmospheric Windows, Emission Spectra, and Molecules/Photons] has garnered almost 2000 comments, mostly positive. I’ve learned a lot from WUWT readers who know more than I do. However, some commenters seem to have been taken in by scientific-sounding objections to the basic science behind the Atmospheric “Greenhouse Effect”. Their objections seemed to add more heat than light to the discussion. This posting is designed to get back to basics and perhaps transform our heated arguments into more enlightened understanding :^)

Solar "light" energy in is equal to Earth "heat" energy out.

Read more detail at WUWT, including the 958 responses (comments received and my brilliant replies!)...

ANSWERING THREE OBJECTIONS TO BASIC ATMOSPHERIC “GREENHOUSE EFFECT” SCIENCE

First of all, let me be clear where I am coming from. I’m a Lukewarmer-Skeptic who accepts that H2O, CO2 and other so-called “greenhouse gases” in the Atmosphere do cause the mean temperature of the Earth Surface and Atmosphere to be higher than they would be if everything was the same (Solar radiation, Earth System Albedo, …) but the Atmosphere was pure nitrogen.

The main scientific question for me, is how much does the increase in human-caused CO2 and human-caused albedo reduction increase the mean temperature above what it would be with natural cycles and processes? My answer is “not much”, because perhaps 0.1ºC to 0.2ºC of the supposed 0.8ºC increase since 1880 is due to human activities. The rest is due to natural cycles and processes over which we humans have no control. The main public policy question for me, is how much should we (society) do about it? Again, my answer is “not much”, because the effect is small and a limited increase in temperatures and CO2 may turn out to have a net benefit.

So, my motivation for this Visualizing series is not to add to the Alarmist “the sky is falling” panic, but rather to help my fellow Skeptics avoid the natural temptation to fall into an “equal and opposite” falsehood, which some of those on my side, who I call “Disbelievers”, do when they fail to acknowledge the basic facts of the role of H2O and CO2 and other gases in helping to keep temperatures in a livable range.

Objection #1: Visual and near-visual radiation is merely “light” which lacks the “quality” or “oomph” to impart warmth to objects upon which it happens to fall.

Answer #1: A NASA webpage targeted at children is sometimes cited because they say the near-IR beam from a TV remote control is not warm to the touch. Of course, that is not because it is near-visual radiation, but rather because it is very low power. All energy is fungible, and can be changed from one form to another. Thus, the 240 Watts/m^2 of visible and near-visible Solar energy that reaches and is absorbed by the Earth System, has the effect of warming the Earth System exactly as much as an equal number of Watts/m^2 of “thermal” mid- and far-IR radiation.

Objection #2: The Atmosphere, which is cooler than the Earth Surface, cannot warm the Earth Surface.

Answer #2: The Second law of Thermodynamics is often cited as the source of this falsehood. The correct interpretation is that the Second Law refers to net warming, which can only pass from the warmer to the cooler object. The back-radiation from the Atmosphere to the Earth Surface has been measured (see lower panel in the above illustration). All matter above absolute zero emits radiation and, once emitted, that radiation does not know if it is travelling from a warmer to a cooler surface or vice-versa. Once it arrives it will either be reflected or absorbed, according to its wavelength and the characteristics of the material it happens to impact.

Objection #3: The Atmospheric “Greenhouse Effect” is fictional. A glass greenhouse works mainly by preventing or reducing convection and the Atmosphere does not work that way at all.

Answer #3: I always try to put “scare quotes” around the word “greenhouse” unless referring to the glass variety because the term is misleading. Yes, a glass greenhouse works by restricting convection, and the fact that glass passes shortwave radiation and not longwave makes only a minor contribution.

Thus, I agree it is unfortunate that the established term for the Atmospheric warming effect is a bit of a misnomer. However, we are stuck with it. But, enough of semantics. Notice that the Earth System mean temperature I had to use to provide 240 Watts/m^2 of radiation to Space to balance the input absorbed from by the Earth System from the Sun was 255 K. However, the actual mean temperature at the Surface is closer to 288 K. How to explain the extra 33 K (33ºC or 58ºF)? The only rational explanation is the back-radiation from the Atmosphere to the Surface.

Ira Glickstein

Sunspots - Prediction of New "Dalton Minimum"

Global COOLING Anyone?

Nearly TWO YEARS ago (January 2009 and December 2009 [nearly FIVE years ago now]) I predicted that the now current Sunspot Cycle #24 would peak at 80. I am now revising that down to a peak of only 60, based on a great posting by David Archibald at Watts Up With That, the most widely read and respected climate website in the world.

We may be in for a new Dalton Minimum similar to the period from 1790 to 1830 when temperatures were unusually low. Indeed, we may come to welcome the cushion of warmth, perhaps 0.1 to 0.2ºC, that may be due to recent human activities. (The IPCC Climate "Team" claims 0.6 to 0.8ºC rise mostly due to human-caused Global Warming, but that is most likely an over-estimate.)

As the graphic shows, at the time I made the 80 prediction, NASA was predicting a peak of 104, having revised it downwards a couple of times from their original, wildly high estimate of a 156 peak. The most recent NASA projection is 90.

Description of the Graphic

[Click graphic for larger version] The base for the graphic is from Archibald's posting (Figure 9). The BROWN curve plots actual data from Solar Cycles #3, #4, #5, and #6 (late 1700's through early 1800's). The GREEN curve plots the corresponding actual data for Solar Cycles #22, #23, and the first part of #24, (1990 through December 2010)

I have added the annotations in RED and GRAY, indicating NASA's incredible string of highly incorrect predictions from 2006 to most recent (red hoops) and my original January 2009 prediction and my revised prediction (gray hoops).

Historical Correlation of the Dalton and Maunder Minima with Sunspot Activity

The very cold temperatures from 1790 through 1830 are usually explained as being due to increased volcanic activity, including the Mount Tambora eruption of 1815 that caused the Year Without a Summer, 1816. However, low solar activity, with peak Sunspot counts of only 45 for Sunspot Cycles #5 and #6, is most likely the major cause. Even lower Sunspot counts (below 10) occurred during the earlier Maunder Minimum (1650 to 1700). These periods of Global Cooling were marked by crop failures that are inimicable to human life.

Explanation of the Effect of Sunspot Counts on Climate

The NY Times interviewed Henrik Svensmark last year about his theory of Sunspots and Climate:

One possibility proposed a decade ago by Henrik Svensmark and other scientists at the Danish National Space Center in Copenhagen looks to high-energy interstellar particles known as cosmic rays. When cosmic rays slam into the atmosphere, they break apart air molecules into ions and electrons, which causes water and sulfuric acid in the air to stick together in tiny droplets. These droplets are seeds that can grow into clouds, and clouds reflect sunlight, potentially lowering temperatures.

The Sun, the Danish scientists say, influences how many cosmic rays impinge on the atmosphere and thus the number of clouds. When the Sun is frenetic, the solar wind of charged particles it spews out increases. That expands the cocoon of magnetic fields around the solar system, deflecting some of the cosmic rays.

But, according to the hypothesis, when the sunspots and solar winds die down, the magnetic cocoon contracts, more cosmic rays reach Earth, more clouds form, less sunlight reaches the ground, and temperatures cool.

“I think it’s an important effect,” Dr. Svensmark said, although he agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that has certainly contributed to recent warming.

Dr. Svensmark and his colleagues found a correlation between the rate of incoming cosmic rays and the coverage of low-level clouds between 1984 and 2002. They have also found that cosmic ray levels, reflected in concentrations of various isotopes, correlate well with climate extending back thousands of years.

Conclusion

Before we destroy industrial economies with extreme measures to reduce carbon emissions, it will be a good idea to consider how that might not only not be effective in reducing human-caused Global Warming, but how a bit of carbon-warming could be welcome during the coming period of Global Cooling. By the way, I am still in favor of an across-the-board Carbon Tax because the steady rise in CO2 levels is unprecedented and that is the most intelligent way to utilize our market-based economic system to speed the development of renewable energy sources. However, that effort has a multi-decade time horizon and is no emergency.

Ira Glickstein

US Version of Climategate Coming?

Will NASA GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies) join the UK Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in the Climategate mess? Could be!

The UK CRU version of Climategate centered around whether the 1990's were warmer than any time in the past 1000 years. The US GISS version could be about whether 1998 was warmer than 1934!

It seems the temperature readings were adjusted six times after analysis in July 1999 indicated that the temperature anomaly for 1934 was nearly 60% higher than for 1998. See the above graphic for how GISS adjusted 1934 down and 1998 up until 1998 was warmer than 1934 (the January 2007 analysis) or at least virtually indistinguishable (the March and August 2007 analyses).

Explaining Away Climategate - 4

See the detailed timeline for Climategate, posted at ClimateAudit yesterday, and my previous postings on Climategate: Original posting, Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.


Although VP Al Gore has had no direct part in the recent Climategate controversy, it was his 2006 movie An Inconvenient Truth that most activated the ALARMISTs, outraged the DENIERs, and animated the reaction by the Skeptics.

When I watched Gore's impressive movie several years ago, I was most struck by the scene in the above photo [Click it for a larger version - The base photo is from the movie, the annotations are mine.]

Frozen FLORIDA Fishpond

Two koi shiver under the ice in my frozen FLORIDA fishpond this morning! Our remote temperature sensor reads 23ºF, but it is located under the eves and so subject to an "urban heat island" effect. It is probably colder, perhaps 22ºF or less, more than ten degrees below freezing. [Click images for larger versions]

Explaining Away Climategate - 3

Climategate was triggered by the release of thousands of emails and computer programs from the UK Climactic Research Unit (CRU) late in 2009. See the video attempt at Explaining Away Climategate for a defence of the Warmists. This is the third of my series. See Part 1 and part 2.

Even the IPCC has admitted the truth of the Medieval Warming Period (MWP). See the image above that appeared in their 1990 report, indicating that temperatures between 1100 and 1300 were higher than the most recent decades. [I added the red annotation - more about that below.]

Explaining Away Climategate - 2

Climategate was triggered by the release of thousands of emails and computer programs from the UK Climactic Research Unit (CRU) late in 2009. See the video attempt at Explaining Away Climategate for a defence of the Warmists.

This is the second of a series of new Topic postings that detail the viewpoints of the major groups involved in the controversy. See first part here.

Explaining Away Climategate - 1

Climategate was triggered by the release of thousands of emails and computer programs from the UK Climactic Research Unit (CRU) late in 2009. See Jon Stewart's hilarious and surprisingly fact-filled take and this attempt at Explaining Away Climategate.

This is the first of a series of new Topic postings that detail the viewpoints of the major groups involved in the controversy:

Sunspots Coming 'Round the Mountain When They Come?

The best experts at NASA have been predicting the imminent ramp-up of Sunspot cycle #24 since 2006. Well, here it is almost 2010, over three years later, and there has been a bit of an upsurge in Sunspot activity. At long last, it appears a Sunspot ramp-up may be coming 'round the mountain* pretty soon - but they won't be drivin' six white horses when they come!

The base figure above is from NASA/NOAA and shows their latest prediction (May 2009) which is the lowest and latest of the four red hoops. You can see that the actual Sunspot observations (black jig-jags with blue smoothing) do not quite match up with NASA's latest prediction. They also fall far short of the previous predictions which I have annotated into the figure as the three higher red hoops. [Click on image for larger version.]

National Science Board Prediction: Global COOLING

The US National Science Board (part of the National Science Foundation) issued a report titled Science and the Challenges Ahead that makes six interesting science-based observations and predictions. (Three relevant paragraphs from pages 24-25 of the linked document are reproduced here. Click on image to make it larger.)

Direct quotes are indicated by numbered arrows:

1- "Human activity may be involved on an even broader scale in changing the global climate."

2- "During the last 20-30 years, world temperature has fallen ..."

3- "... there is increasing concern that man himself may be implicated, not only in the recent cooling trend but also in the warming temperatures ...

Climategate - Cooking the Books on Global Warming

WHISTLEBLOWER'S REVENGE

If documents from any corporation or government office included the phrases "hide the decline" or "Mike's Nature trick" or asked colleagues to destroy certain emails ahead of a freedom of information request, the media would be all over it. Wouldn't they?

If the whistleblower released computer programs with programmer's notes that said:

shouldn't usually plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted

stop in 1940 to avoid the decline

There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations

What the hell is supposed to happen here? Oh yeah - there is no 'supposed', I can make it up. So I have :-)

Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!

that would be absolute proof the data was invalid. Wouldn't it?

Well, all this, and much more, has happened over the past two weeks, but, so far, the media is treading softly.

WHY?

Because the alleged malfactors are the very scientists who gave us the Global Warming scare. They "cooked the books" to push Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) - the idea that humans are mostly responsible for recent warming and the idea the Earth is close to a "tipping point". AGW is a sacred cow to politicos who have long planned to ride to riches and control of the global economic system.

Well, that old AGW sacred cow ain't going nowhere anytime soon.


WELCOME TO CLIMATEGATE

Today I Googled "climategate" and got 10,600,000 hits, a Google on "global warming" yielded fewer, 10,200,000 hits. The new term was invented only a week ago!

In my March 2009 postings on the Global Warming "Tiger" (see figure above) I allocated 30% of the apparent warming over the past 150 years to "Data Bias", defined as unintentional exaggeration of the amount of waming, primarily due to the encroachment of artificial heat sources on the measurement devices. I assumed the AGW scientists were basically honest, but unintended experimental bias had marred their results by about 30%.

Well, a couple weeks ago, thousands of emails and computer programs were released, possibly by an inside whistleblower from the major UK Climate Research Unit (CRU). Accuweather quotes Eduardo Zorita, a contributing author of the 4th assessment report of the IPCC: "research in some areas of climate science has been and is full of machination, conspiracies, and collusion, as any reader can interpret from the CRU-files."

Just as Madoff got into trouble when the declining stock market caught him short and exposed his Ponzi scheme, the AGW climate scientists have been caught short by the unexpected stabilzation and small decline in global temperatures, probably due to changes in sunspot activity and other natural cycles that are undoubtedly the major cause of long-term climate changes.

WHY IT IS ABSURD TO ESTIMATE CLIMATE CHANGE TO TENTHS OF A DEGREE PER DECADE

The whole idea of accurately estimating changes that average a tenth of a degree per decade in global climate over centuries is absurd because, as we all know, temperature varies by tens of degrees every day!

We have recorded temperature readings that go back about 150 years, most manually read by volunteers or weather station employees who had to trudge 30 to 100 feet or more out to remote thermometers morning and night in all sorts of weather. If they were five (or fifteen) minutes early or late, the data would easily be off by tenths of a degree or more. If a new person took the job, he or she might follow a different schedule. With the advent of automatic reading, over the past few decades, the devices required electrical power and that caused many of them to be moved closer to buildings, where artificial heat sources biased the readings. Over the years, as hot air conditioner vents were added to buildings and asphalt driveways expanded, many thermometers were further biased by new heat sources. All this added to the experimental bias.

Data prior to about 150 years ago must be obtained from proxies, such as tree-ring data that give an indication of temperature on the basis of the rate of growth. However, variables other than temperature affect tree growth, such as rainfall and atmospheric CO2. Such data cannot approach accuracies of even one degree, much less precision to tenths of a degree.

Recognizing the possibility of bias and lack of precision, the experimenters wrote computer programs to process the data to adjust these biases. Of course, that opened the possibility some scientists would exploit the processing to hide inconvenient temperature declines and exaggerate AGW. It is clear from the emails and computer programs that have been released that some scientists took that opportunity to adjust the data to fit the story they wanted to tell. They believed that Global Warming was mostly due to human activity. They manipulated the data to tell that story!

You will hear much about Climategate in the main stream media soon.

Ira Glickstein

PS: Let me be clear, I believe there has been actual warming over the past 150 years, and some percentage of it is due to human burning of previously sequestered carbon (coal, oil, natural gas). I favor reasonable action, including a revenue-neutral Carbon Tax, to reduce the rapid rate of increase of atmospheric carbon gases.

Arctic NOT Ice-Free till 2060 at the Earliest!

According to the UK Met Office the Arctic will NOT be ice-free by the summer of 2020 as many climate "experts" continue to predict. Nope, it will be at least 2060 before that happens. Mark it on your calendars!

Also mark my prediction that "pigs will fly" in 2060, and "hell will freeze over" in the same year :^) Seriously, I have made predictions for 2052 and beyond in my free online novel. The beauty of making predictions fifty years in the future is that most of us will be dead by then and those who are alive will have forgotten.

Good news for the polar bears! Not so good for the shipping companies that planned trans-Arctic routes for transporting oil. Or for Global Warming alarmists.

The full text of the UK Met Office October 15th release is here. Key excerpts (with emphasis added):

"Modelling of Arctic sea ice by the Met Office Hadley Centre climate model shows that ice invariably recovers from extreme events, and that the long-term trend of reduction is robust — with the first ice-free summer expected to occur between 2060 and 2080. It is unlikely that the Arctic will experience ice-free summers by 2020.

"Analysis of the 2007 summer sea-ice minimum has subsequently shown that this was due, in part, to unusual weather patterns. ..."

"The high variability has made it difficult to attribute the observed trend to man-made emissions of greenhouse gases, ...

"About half of the climate models involved in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change fourth assessment report, show that ice declines in steps — failing to recover from extreme years. The observed temporary recovery from the 2007 minimum in 2008 and 2009 indicates that the Arctic ice has not yet reached a tipping point, if such exists."

In other words, the low point for Arctic ice in 2007 was mostly due to Natural Cycles in the ocean currents and solar phenomena, and not Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) due to human release of formerly sequestered carbon. About half of the most recent IPCC climate models are wrong about Arctic ice. We are nowhere near any kind of tipping point.

Don't get me wrong, I'm still concerned about the continuing rapid increase in atmospheric CO2. However, we have decades to figure out how to deal with it most effectively without further wrecking our economies via the Cap and Trade scam. I hope the coming decades of stable temperatures, and perhaps a bit of Global Cooling, will allow cooler heads to prevail and chose something like a revenue-neutral Carbon Tax. That kind of Carbon Tax would require minimum government enforcement and political chicanery. It would be hard to cheat on. Most importantly, it would actually work to reduce carbon emissions over time, harnessing market forces to do so.

Ira Glickstein

BBC NEWS: What Happened to Global Warming?

OK, if you don't trust me on Global Warming, how about the good old BBC NEWS? (09 Oct 2009).

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

"What happened to global warming?

"By Paul Hudson
"Climate correspondent, BBC News

"This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.

"But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.

"And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.

"... last month Mojib Latif, a member of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) says that we may indeed be in a period of cooling worldwide temperatures that could last another 10-20 years. Professor Latif is based at the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University in Germany and is one of the world's top climate modellers. But he makes it clear that he has not become a sceptic; he believes that this cooling will be temporary, before the overwhelming force of man-made global warming reasserts itself. ...

"One thing is for sure. It seems the debate about what is causing global warming is far from over. Indeed some would say it is hotting up."

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

I've been on this case for quite a while. See my postings that go back over a year.

Ira Glickstein

AccuWeather.com - Joe Bastardi on Climate Change

The graph contrasts temperature rise, with error bounds, predicted by the IPCC in 2001 (upper pink fan of lines) with the jig-jag variations, with a generally downward trend we have actually experienced since 2001.

The John Madden-like scribbles in the image are by Joe Bastardi, Accuweather.com's tropical and long range weather expert, from his recent appearance on the highest rated national cable news program

See the text of Joe Bastardi's "open letter" and a link to the video on the AccuWeather site: http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2009/09/california_fires_oreilly_facto_1.html

Here are some excerpts from Bastardi's "open letter" on the AccuWeather site:

An open letter to Accuweather.com viewers from Accuweather.com's tropical and long range weather expert Joe Bastardi.

... I have always had an open mind on man's input into the climate system. However because I have to be acquainted with long term patterns of changing weather, which is what climate is for any one site, I need to know where we stand against the course of history.

Because of that, I have to be acquainted with the global warming issue in much more than a casual way. It is to my advantage as the chief long range and hurricane forecaster here to develop a working knowledge of where we are and where we are going in the overall global pattern.

To be sure, the cooling now is happening faster than it should because it got so warm in the first place via the super nino of 97-98. The last warm cycle reached its peak in the late 50s when we actually surfaced submarines at the north pole in 1959... IN MARCH! I often wonder what global temps would have been measured at then if we had the ways of measuring we do now. ...

One can pull out as many cases of bad weather in the 30s, 40s and 50s as they can now. I still believe the 3 greatest examples of how bad a hurricane can get in relation to latitude are the 1938 hurricane with 186 mph wind gusts at Blue Hill Mass, the 1944 hurricane that destroyed the Atlantic City boardwalk, and Hurricane Donna which gave hurricane force winds to every state from Florida to Maine. The 1944 hurricane had winds 600 miles in diameter ...

Unlike many people, I am well acquainted and respect the co2 warming idea, but in its pure form, which actually allows for the cooling coming now! There in lies the problem. We can't know till after the period that is coming up through 2030 whether co2 is really a player or not. The threat of not only oceanic cycles cooling the earth, but the suns lack of intensity and increased volcanic and seismic activity could mean that as some papers in the early 90s (and dismissed by many) opined we would be as cold as back in the early 1800s. ...

Common sense dictates that a trace gas needed for life on the planet would not be the cause for destroying life on the planet. Common sense dictates that what has happened before without man can happen again with man. ...

Bastardi's views are similar to mine, as expressed in various Topics on this Blog, see all my related postings at http://tvpclub.blogspot.com/search/label/sunspots

Also of interest is this 2007 ABC news video ABC 20/20 "Give me a Break" Video.

Ira Glickstein

The Sunspots are Coming! The Sunspots are Coming?

This colorful image is not an aboriginal prayer rug, but plenty of folks at NASA are "praying" it is evidence long-delayed Solar Cycle #24 has started or is about to start. As I reported last month in An "Inconvenient" Minimum and back in January in Where Have All the Sunspots Gone?, NASA previously predicted SC#24 would start late 2006 or early 2007. It is at least two years late.

No one can tell if the old cycle has ended until the new cycle has built up some steam over about a six month period. Well, the above Sunspot Prayer Rug may provide new evidence they may be able to declare SC#24 actually started last December or January.

DESCRIPTION OF FIGURE

The vertical axis is latitudes on the Sun, with the Sun's equator at the middle. The horizontal axis is years, from mid-1994 to the present. The red-yellow bands represent solar jet streams, thousands of miles below the surface of the Sun.

The vertical blue line at the left indicates when SC#22 ended and SC#23 started. Note that the start of a solar cycle is marked by a jet stream that initiates at about 45º North and South latitudes and spreads up and down as the years go by. SC#23 began in 1997 when the jet stream from SC#22 got down to what they call the "critical latitude" of 22º. NASA is excited that the jet stream from SC#23 is now down to about that critical latitude! That, they say, could (finally) mark the start of (long-awaited) SC#24.

DISCUSSION

Well, they could be correct - or not. The black contours on the Sunspot Prayer Rug represent sunspot activity. Note that the black contours representing SC#22 end in 1997. Nearly simultaneously, new black contours representing SC#23 sunspots begin in the mid-latitudes.

A possible problem with the NASA interpretation is that the SC#23 sunspots end in mid-2008, but the SC#24 sunspots have not cranked up yet, a year later. This is very different from the transition between SC#22 and SC#24 when the new cycle started in earnest immediately after the old cycle ended. Why is this transition so different from the previous one? Could the year-long sunspot pause indicate a more fundamental change in the Sun's internal, natural cycle behavior? Perhaps the idea that a new cycle will begin when the jet stream gets to 22º latitude does not apply in the current and very different situation?

HOW YOU CAN HELP NASA

A few weeks ago, I added a new feature to this Blog where you can watch the day-to-day development of the next sunspot cycle. Have a look in the right-hand column, just below the Dilbert comic for a NASA-supplied image of the Sun. That image will change daily and allow you to help NASA look for sunspots.

WHY DO YOU CARE ABOUT SUNSPOTS?

As described in a previous posting on this Blog, there is an historical connection between periods of low sunspot activity and cooling trends. If the start of SC#24 is further delayed, it is likely it will peak later and at a lower level than originally expected. If we are lucky enough to get a series of weak sunspot cycles, that may provide decades of cooling that may counteract the estimated 0.5ºC actual warming our Earth has experienced over the past 150 years.

Although CO2 levels continue to increase at a rapid pace, it appears the Global Warming trend has abated, or perhaps reversed a bit, over the past ten years. A bit of Global Cooling will give us breathing room to correct our excessive release of previously-sequestered carbon (coal, oil, gas) into the atmosphere. Right now, the politicos are hell-bent on imposing the Cap & Trade Scam that will further destroy our economy and not reduce Global Warming very much. Let's hope they will reject that approach and work on something more conservative that will actually work, such as the Revenue-Neutral Carbon Tax .

Ira Glickstein