The only global temperature report that I really trust is the UAH satellite readings that Dr Roy Spencer manages. The temperature in January took the expected drop.
Chart courtesy of Dr Spencer’s Global Warming blog. (click on chart to enlarge)
The January temperature is equivalent to the January 2011 but below 2009 and 2010 January temps. If the forecast of a very weak solar Cycle 25 comes to pass, we should see some record lows in coming years.
cbdakota
The last post reviewed a forecasted solar Cycle 25 based upon measuring the magnetic field of sunspots. This posting uses the speed of the Sun’s Great Conveyor Belt(GCB) to forecast Cycle 25. This method considers sunspots as an indicator but the GCB speed determines how many sunspots appear. I am not sure who, but perhaps Dibyendu Nandi of the Indian Institute of Science and Education and Research in Kolkata (aka, Calcutta) and his team can claim this theory. The GCB has been studied for a number of years. NASA Science says: “The Great Conveyor Belt is a massive circulating current of fire (hot plasma) within the sun. It has two branches, north and south, each taking about 40 years to complete one circuit.“ “The plasma flows travel along the Sun’s surface and plunge inward at the poles, and reappear again at the Sun’s equator. When the sunspots begin to decay, surface currents sweep up their magnetic remains and pull them down inside the star; 300,000km below the surface, the sun’s magnetic dynamo amplifies the decaying magnetic fields. Re-animated the sunspots become buoyant and bob up to the surface like a cork in water—voila! A new solar cycle is born.”
These belts can be likened to the Earth’s ocean currents.
NASA’s artistic sketch of the belt.
A May 2006 posting on Science News has Dr Hathaway predicting that Cycle 24 sunspots numbers would be perhaps greater than Cycle 23 (this part of the prediction is not faring well.) and Cycle 25 would be perhaps half of Cycle 23. Dr Hathaway said that these predictions were based on a deceleration of these belts to 0.75m/s in the North and 0.35m/s in the south. He said “We’ve never seen speeds so low”. Hathaway in a September 2011 posting said:”…….that as the number of sunspots increases on the Sun, the speed of the GCB decreases and vice versa: fewer sunspots and the faster the speed of the Belt.” This is somewhat contradictory, because if the GCB speed is slowing down, based on his theory, there would be more spots.
Dr. Nandi adds some clarification when he lays out his theory here: “The fast-moving belt rapidly dragged sunspot corpses down to sun’s inner dynamo for amplification. At first glance, this might seem to boost sunspot production, but no. When the remains of old sunspots reached the dynamo, they rode the belt through the amplification zone too hastily for full re-animation. Sunspot production was stunted.” Nandi then adds that late in the decade, “….according to the model, the Conveyor Belt slowed down again, allowing magnetic fields to spend more time in the amplification zone, but the damage was already done. New sunspots were in short supply. Adding insult to injury, the slow moving belt did little to assist re-animated sunspots on their journey back to the surface, delaying the onset of Solar Cycle 24.”
Hathaway’s sunspot predictions are in Red. Also on this chart, in Pink, are the Cycle 24 sunspot predictions by NCAR’s Mausumi Dikpata and her team based on their observations of the GCB.
Nandi has made a presentation “Forecasting the Solar Cycle”at the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, USA but I can not access the paper.
This theory says that the change of speed of the GCB predestines the solar çycle robustness or lack there of. For some insight of how they are able to track these plasma flows/GCBs/jet streams, click here.
Like the declining sunspot magnetic field, the theory of the GCB seem to me to be describing consequences of some other forcing that is not known or understood. I think it likely that Cycle 25 will be weak. However, until we know more about the functioning of the Sun, we will be forecasting like the weather casters—tomorrow will be rainy because rain clouds are blowing our way from the west. Like all of these theories, only time will tell if they are really capable of predicting accurately Cycle strength.
We are not through with Cycle prediction theories. Next posting will discuss the bicentennial decrease in Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) unbalancing the Earth’s thermal budget.
cbdakota
What is the source of geothermal energy? According to Terrestial Energy, written by William Tucker, if you drill a 1000 feet (305 meters) deep hole, the temperature at the bottom of the hole is 16F (10C) higher than at the top. Tucker says that the average temperature of the ground is 54F (11C) so the bottom of that hole would be 70F.
The Homestake Gold mine in Lead SD, discovered in 1876, produced 40 million ounces of gold and 9 million ounces of silver. At the time of its closure in 2002, the mine was more than 8000 feet below the surface Based on Tucker’s formula, the temperature at the 8000 foot level would be around 180F unless cooling air was introduced. . At one time, one of my relatives (by marriage) was the engineer responsible for keeping the temperature in the mine at a level that would allow people to work. And his description of what was needed to do that was pretty impressive.
Tucker goes on to say: “At 80 miles down we hit the Mohorovicic Discontinuity, discovered by Yugoslav seismologist Andrija Mohorovicic in 1909. At this point the temperature reaches 900o C and rock turns to liquid “magma.” At 1500 miles deep the temperature rises to 3700o C and another discontinuity – the Gutenberg – marks the place where molten rock becomes pure iron and nickel. Below that tremendous pressures turn the iron core solid once again and temperatures reaching 7,000o C – hotter than the surface of the sun.”
He explains that the source of this heat energy as follows: “Some of it is due to gravitational forces. As the earth is pulled inward, some of this force is translated into heat. Another portion is residual heat from the earth’s formation. According to the commonly accepted theory, originally proposed by Immanuel Kant, the solar system precipitated out of a huge swirling dust cloud, where particles kept colliding with each other until they agglomerated into the sun and the planets.
In the later stages, this involved huge collisions among very large objects. These impacts generate large amounts of heat, some of which still remains in the earth’s core. Together gravitational forces and residual heat probably account for about 40 percent of the earth’s temperature – the exact figure has still not been determined.
The other half of the earth’s heat, however, comes from a remarkable diminutive source – the slow breakdown of two of the 90 elements, uranium and thorium. With 92 protons, uranium is the largest natural atom, while thorium (90) is the third largest. Because of their size, they are unstable, meaning they are “radioactive.”
The internal “binding energy” that overrides the mutual repulsion among positively charged protons is occasionally overcome itself. This releases large quantities of energy, which sets subatomic particles in motion, creating large amounts of heat. Incredibly, the slow breakdown of these two radioactive elements, uranium and thorium, is enough to raise the earth’s internal temperature beyond the level of the surface of the sun.”
Tucker draws some conclusions from this when he says: “Why don’t we just take the source of that heat – the uranium or thorium – bring it to the surface, and reproduce or even accelerate the process that produces this heat in a controlled environment?
This is what we do in a “nuclear reactor.” “A nuclear reactor is nothing more than terrestrial energy brought to the surface. There is nothing sinful or diabolical about it. We are not defying the laws of nature. Rather, we are working with a process that already takes place in nature.”
h/t Master Resource
cbdakota
So “global warming” is not killing the honeybees. So much for another panic announcement by the Alarmists. It seems that there are a number of reasons for high levels of bee deaths (Colony Collapse Disorder) and the latest find is a little fly that bores into the bee. It causes the worker bee to leave the hive and then die. On average, 7 days later larva emerges from the dead bee. The study
“A New Threat to Honey Bees, the Parasitic Phorid Fly Apocephalus borealis” has been posted on the Plosone.org website and the abstract can be read by clicking here. Two photos from the study are shown below:
Parasitic Fly on Bee –above
Larva Emerging From Dead Bee–below.
Studies of Colony Collapse find that parasites and fungal diseases as well as pesticides are also partially responsible for the bee deaths.
Perhaps you remember that frog deaths and malformations were also said to be caused by global warming. Now it seems clear that it is flukes, unrelated to global warming, that are largely responsible for these deaths and malformations. See here
It is well known in the scientific community that if you say the problem is caused by global warming, there are monies available from our government and environmental advocate associations for the researcher to continue studying this “alarming” discovery. But this could result in destruction of the researcher reputation when real scientist determine the actual cause. Think Michael Mann.
cbdakota
Posted in AGW, crop yields, Environment, Famine, frog malformation, Global Temperatures, honey bee
November Cycle 24 monthly sunspot count was nearly 100, which is by far the most active period since the cycle began. The same goes for the F 10.7 Radio Flux that racked up a value of about 155. But of these numbers are well below those of Cycle 23 at its peak. Cycle 23 peak sunspot count was 170 and its F10.7 was about 235. See the November NOAA/SWPC charts below:
CLICK ON CHARTS FOR BETTER VIEW
Solar Activity/Geomagnetism
The Ap index is a good proxy for overall solar activity. For two months it has declined. We are seeing Cycle 24 peaks in F10.7, and sunspots simultaneously with this drop in Ap. It may mean that the spots and F10.7 may soon be trending downward as well.
If you are interested, the following is a brief explanation of the various ways geomagnetism is expressed.
The magnetic activity indices K, Kp and ap are designed to measure the variations in the geomagnetic field that arise from current systems caused by regular solar radiation changes. Other irregular current systems produce magnetic field changes caused by the interaction of the solar wind with the magnetosphere, by the magnetosphere itself, by the interactions between the magnetosphere and ionosphere, and by the ionosphere itself.
The planetary 3-hour range index Kp is the mean K-index from 13 geomagnetic observatories. The scale is 0 to 9 expressed in thirds of a unit, 5- is 4 2/3, 5 is 5 and 5+ is 5 1/3. This planetary index is designed to measure particle radiation by its magnetic effects. The 3-hourly ap (equivalent range) index is derive from the Kp index as follows:
Kp = 0o 0+ 1- 1o 1+ 2- 2o 2+ 3- 3o 3+ 4- 4o 4+
ap = 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 12 15 18 22 27 32
Kp = 5- 5o 5+ 6- 6o 6+ 7- 7o 7+ 8- 8o 8+ 9- 9o
ap = 39 48 56 67 80 94 111 132 154 179 207 236 300 400
Now one more derivation to get to the Ap index. The Ap index is defined as the earliest occurring maximum 24-hour value obtained by computing an 8-point running average of successive 3-hour ap indices during a geomagnetic storm event.
cbdakota
If the first release of Climategate emails in November of 2009 wasn’t enough to convince people that a small group of superwarmer scientists have been advancing the theory of man-made global warming through manipulation, this newly released batch (generally called Climategate 2) should convince them.
First of all, why should anyone care if this “small” group of superwarmers is doing bad things? The reason is that this small group controls the dialogue on this subject. It manipulates the data to comply with their point of view; it writes the critical parts of the IPCC reports; it decides what is published and what is not published; and, it punishes scientists and organizations that don’t toe the line. While we are being squeezed financially, they are pulling in millions of dollars in grants and honors.
The people that need to step up and put an end to this charade are the good and descent scientists that have been taken in by the superwarmers. They suffer from a confirmation bias that has to be pretty hard to sustain these days of no global temperature rise, falling sea levels and all the climategate email revelations, just to name a few things. These scientists must stand up against the blind allegiance that their professional societies maintain to catastrophic man-made global warming theory. Certainly there are enough reasons for them to become skeptics. They should be comfortable in saying that until there is more proof and open discussions of the science of the global climate, they no longer are going to support the warmer supergroup. Until that happens, the media will continue to uncritically pass on to the public anything the superwarmers tell them because they always use in their defense “almost all scientist agree with the supergroup”.
By the way, for those of you are under the impression that members of the warmer supergroup have been investigated and exonerated, you need to read up on this and you will learn that the exoneration was predetermined. For one good read on this, see here.
cbdakota
Just released are a new batch of emails from that group of global warming alarmist matching those released two years ago. These new emails show the same pattern as before— manipulating data (“hiding the decline”); not allowing anything that did not conform to their theory of global warming get into the IPCC climate report; intimidating Journals to prevent them from publishing studies that refuted man-made global warming; and destroying or concealing data/ correspondence requested by Freedom Of Information Acts.
The irony of this new release is that the “scientists” claimed that the first release was theft and asked the police to find the guilty party. The police are said to have accumulated about 250,000 emails during their investigation. The police have just released 5000 of them!!! Maybe the police thought the bigger villains were the writers of these email.
Several posting have lifted some of the emails from the list of 500. To get a look at these, check out these sites. Here, here and here
Several months ago, I wrote about the current Administrations efforts to sink coal, natural gas and oil. They are still planning to do that. Today the Obama Administration announced that they needed more time to ponder the question of the Keystone XL pipeline that will bring Canadian crude oil to the US where we would refine it and market it. They have studied this issue for 18 months without making a final decision. The Washington Post’s publication Politico.com said today: President Barack Obama was caught between a green and a blue place on the Keystone XL oil pipeline — the environmentalists who insisted he reject the proposal in order to earn their support in 2012 and labor unions excited at the prospect of jobs.
On Thursday, Obama’s State Department punted a verdict on Keystone until 2013, and while his administration is busy claiming the decision has nothing to do with politics, try telling that to everyone in Washington.
The Politico gave the reason: Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune had recently told reporters Obama’s decision on Keystone would “have a very big impact” on whether the nation’s largest environmental group funnels resources more toward congressional races rather than the race for the White House.
To read more of the Politico.com story click here.
The following excerpt is from my posting Obama Plans to Nationalize the Energy Companies
Classic wrong headedness is illustrated by diddling over access to Canada’s rich tar sands. From the IBD posting “China has its eye on Canada’s oil”:
Together, the U.S. and Canada have enough oil and natural gas locked up in shale formations, tar sands, Alaska, the Canadian Arctic and the Outer Continental Shelf to make OPEC pound sand. But we won’t drill for ours and apparently; we don’t want Canada’s.
With more than 170 billion barrels, Alberta has the world’s third-largest oil reserves, behind only Saudi Arabia and Venezuela and ahead of Russia and Iran. Daily production of 1.5 million barrels from the oil sands is expected to nearly triple to 3.7 million by 2025. The only question is, will this crude be flowing south to U.S. refineries or west for export to China?
At issue is the Keystone XL pipeline, parts of which have already been built, that would bring Alberta oil to Texas Gulf Coast refineries. The pipeline also could transport oil extracted from shale formations in the Rocky Mountain West. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates the region, dubbed the Persia of the West, may hold more than 1.5 trillion barrels of oil, six times the proven reserves of Saudi Arabia, and enough to meet U.S. oil needs for the next two centuries. By 2015, oil executives and industry analysts say, the oil-rich lands of the West, including North Dakota’s booming Bakken formation, could produce 2 million barrels a day, more than the pre-Deepwater Horizon production rate in the Gulf of Mexico.
Environmental groups oppose Keystone XL on the grounds that tar-sands extraction harms the environment through water pollution, greenhouse gas emissions and potential pipeline leaks. The State Department, which must approve any pipeline entering the U.S. across international borders, has withheld its approval pending a final decision Nov. 1. The Chinese aren’t waiting. Sinopec, a Chinese state-controlled oil company, has a stake in a $5.5 billion plan to build the Northern Gateway Pipeline from Alberta to the Pacific Coast province of British Columbia. Alberta Finance Minister Lloyd Snelgrove met this month with Sinopec and CNOOC, China’s other big oil company, and representatives of China’s banks.
While the U.S. dithers with concerns about “dirty oil” from Alberta’s rich tar sands, energy-hungry China makes Ottawa an offer it might not refuse. Memo to Washington: Pipelines can run west as well as south.
Some of you maybe saying, if you have read this far, ‘well we have to get off fossil fuels before the Earth experiences a catastrophe from man-made global warming’. I don’t know how much attention you have been paying to this subject but the Global temperatures have not been increasing for the past 10 to 13 years! The temperature is not rising while at the same time, the boogeyman in all of this controversy, atmospheric CO2 content has been increasing throughout this period. Just so you don’t think I have invented the idea of a decade or more of flat temperatures, those that favor the theory of man-made global warming agree. Last week, Greenwire published the thoughts of the major warmer scientists (Hansen, Trenberth, Santer, Solomon, Wild, etc.) about the fact that the temperature is at a standstill. They are at a loss to explain why the temperature is not rising. They have many theories but no answers. Some in that group are beginning to see that the quieter-than-usual Sun may be the real reason. To see the Greenwire story, “Provoked scientists try to explain lag in global temperatures” click here.
cbdakota
The Fisker Karma hybrid is a good looking car but perhaps beauty is only skin deep, as the old saying goes.
This baby weighs in at about 5000 pounds. It is 16.5 feet long and has a 403 hp powerplant. It costs $96,000. EPA uses “inside volume” to determine the class and because it has less than 100 cu.ft., it is categorized a “Subcompact”. The EPA fuel rating is 52 mpg-equivalent combined city and highway driving and it has a range on a full battery charge of 32 miles!!!!
The gasoline driven generator come on when the battery is exhausted, and then it is rated at 20 mpg.
Fisker is promoting the test results they got using the European regulatory body TUV. (It is said that their ratings are typically twice the EPA ratings.) The TUV proclaimed the range 51.6 miles equivalent on electric-only mode.
cbdakota
On Sunday, October 30, the London Daily Mail published the following two graphs.
The first graph labeled “Graph That Fooled The World” came from the BEST study that was released prior to peer review and publication. The lead author Professor Richard Muller and his team from Berkley (University of California) Earth Surface Team (BEST) claimed that the chart showed that–the planet has warmed by almost a degree centigrade since 1950 and is warming continuously. He said according to the Mail that the research: “proved you should not be a sceptic, at least not any longer.” This graph was presented to the MSM over a week ago. It was reprinted for today’s edition along with the second graph which is new.
From the Mail:
It was cited uncritically by, among others, reporters and commentators from the BBC, The Independent, The Guardian, The Economist and numerous media outlets in America.
The Washington Post said the BEST study had ‘settled the climate change debate’ and showed that anyone who remained a sceptic was committing a ‘cynical fraud’.
But today The Mail on Sunday can reveal that a leading member of Prof Muller’s team has accused him of trying to mislead the public by hiding the fact that BEST’s research shows global warming has stopped.
Prof Judith Curry, who chairs the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at America’s prestigious Georgia Institute of Technology, said that Prof Muller’s claim that he has proven global warming sceptics wrong was also a ‘huge mistake’, with no scientific basis.
The second graph titled The Inconvenient Truth uses the BEST data that show global temperatures at a standstill. This Graph was not sent to the media by Muller.
The Mail adds these comments by Professor Curry:
As for the graph disseminated to the media, she said: ‘This is “hide the decline” stuff. Our data show the pause, just as the other sets of data do. Muller is hiding the decline.
‘To say this is the end of scepticism is misleading, as is the statement that warming hasn’t paused. It is also misleading to say, as he has, that the issue of heat islands has been settled.’
Yesterday Prof Muller insisted that neither his claims that there has not been a standstill, nor the graph, were misleading because the project had made its raw data available on its website, enabling others to draw their own graphs.
However, he admitted it was true that the BEST data suggested that world temperatures have not risen for about 13 years. But in his view, this might not be ‘statistically significant’, although, he added, it was equally possible that it was – a statement which left other scientists mystified. (added emphasis)
And you should probably not hold your breath waiting for a mea culpa from the MSM for their jumping on a story that was at a minimum misleading if not intentionally wrong.
There is another posting that Greenwire titled “Provoked scientists try to explain lag in global warming.” The expert warmer scientists, in their own words, can not answer this question. Interestingly, they have many theories but no CONSENSUS. Obivouly nothing any of them say can possibly be correct if there is no CONSENSUS. I will comment on that posting next.
For a full reading of the Mail story, click here.
cbdakota
Climate Change Sanity 