wattsupwiththat--2020-12-06--U.S. Numerical Weather Prediction is Crippled by the Division between NOAA and the Academic Communit

U.S. Numerical Weather Prediction is Crippled by the Division between NOAA and the Academic Community. But a Rare Opportunity Beckons.

U.S. global weather prediction run by NOAA/National Weather Service is now in fourth place among national centers and FAR behind what one would expect from the world-leading U.S. weather research community .
The answer is clear : the vast U.S. weather community does not work together effectively in developing weather prediction models and transitioning research to operations .
NOAA has highly competent and motivated weather modeling researchers in its several labs and in the National Weather Service .
The center of U.S. academic research in meteorology and modeling is located at the National Center for Atmospheric Research ( NCAR ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ run by consortium of U.S. universities ( UCAR : the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research ) .
The U.S. Navy also does research and development on weather prediction models in places like the Naval Research Lab in Monterey .
But with all these labs and researchers , the U.S. can not field a world-leading weather prediction model .
Here is the issue : • NOAA/NWS has its own models and is developing its own global prediction system called UFS ( Unified Forecast System ) .
• UCAR/NCAR has its own models and is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ SIMA ( System for Integrated Modeling of the Atmosphere ) .
• The military ( mainly the U.S. Navy ) has its own models and developing its own global prediction system .
There are all trying to do the same thing .
Spending many tens of millions of dollars .
None are state of the art .
The separate development of the same type of global prediction model has been a disaster for the U.S. : • NOAA/NWS lacks the innovation , manpower , and ideas of the academic community .
• The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ misses the effective transfer of its research to societal needs .
• The Navy modeling system is lagging behind NOAA in forecast skill , with obvious implications for national security .
Thus , both government and academic efforts fall short of being state of the art in global weather modeling and prediction .
Progress is slowed .
Tens to hundreds of millions of dollars are used poorly .
The costs to society are huge .
You care about global warming ?
State-of-science numerical weather prediction is a first line of defense against severe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the Inefficiency of Big Bureaucracies How do I put this discreetly and without offending anyone ?
Big governmental bureaucracies are not known for efficiency and innovation .
Surely , I know of exceptions to this statement , but from what I have seen , folks get comfortable in safe government jobs .
Jobs in which excellence is not heavily rewarded and where failure in a Civil Service position does not risk job loss .
Government bureaucracies tend to expand over time , with little trimming of inefficient branches or activities .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ development are split over several , often competing , offices .
And frequently they don ’ t want to help each other or work together , attempting to protect their piece of the pie and turf .
Let me emphasize that I have great respect for NOAA researchers–they are working in a broken system .
And scientists in major government-supported labs ( like NCAR ) can also become content to play in their own scientific sandbox , seeing little reason to work with others .
Then there are the human frailties of scientists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I have heard NCAR weather modelers dissing NOAA folks , and sometimes the other way around .
At a meeting to discuss working together on a major joint effort ( the EPIC modeling center ) , an important university lab administrator said disparaging remarks about his counterpart in the National Weather Service .
Such toxic interactions make cooperation more difficult .
When I write blogs on this topic , inevitably someone brings up the point of competition ?
Isn ’ t it good to have many U.S. groups trying to do the same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have a lot of competition going on right now in the U.S. weather modeling community , and it doesn ’ t appear to lead to a superior approach .
• Global weather modeling is one of the most complex tasks our species attempts : simulating the future from the molecular to the global scales , requiring complex data assimilation , model development , and statistical post-processing .
Weather models ( often coupled to ocean , ice , wave and land-surface models ) encompass hundreds of thousands to millions of lines of code .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ planet .
A HUGE effort .
We didn ’ t have three Apollo programs in the 1960s .
Instead the complex problem was divided among groups around the nation .
But in weather prediction we have three groups attempted to do something even more complex .
• There are certain key problems that need to be solved by everyone , such as in model physics .
Only by dividing up the problem can we attend to all the issues .
Having three or more teams trying to do the same tasks , inevitably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well or at all .
• There is plenty of international competition , with other groups working on global prediction ( like the European Center ) Congress Knows There is a Problem .
They Proposed a Way Forward .
Problems with U.S. global weather prediction are well known and has been covered extensively in the media ( e.g .
here ) and in this blog.. Congress has had several hearings on the subject ( one in which I testified last year ) and they have passed legislation providing funding to NOAA for supporting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Congress , with full bi-partisan support , passed new legislation that set up an “ Earth Prediction Innovation Center ” focused on “ advancing weather modeling skill , reclaiming and maintaining international leadership in the area of numerical weather prediction , and improving the transition of research into operations.
” Congress intended the EPIC center to be a robust , independent entity that would bring together the entire U.S. weather research community to build the best weather prediction system in the world .
To FINALLY , break through the divisions and duplication @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Congress gave NOAA millions of dollars to make things happen .
But as I shall describe , some in the NOAA bureaucracy has installed roadblocks in the way of EPIC .
NOAA is about to make a big decision regarding EPIC : will NOAA work with the UCAR/NCAR–the weather academic community– to create it a viable center that will transform U.S. weather prediction ?
Or will the current stagnation continue ?
Leaders in my community testifying in Congress about U.S. weather prediction NOAA is about to make a decision that will determine whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ third rate , or will become the best in the world .
As noted above , Congress has authorized and funded an EPIC center that would promote cooperation and innovation , and gave the responsibility to NOAA to make it happen .
NOAA put out a request for proposals ( RFP ) for EPIC , but instead of following the will of Congress to create an independent center that would bring the entire community together to create the best global modeling system in the world , they altered the effort into a support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scientific research are not even in the document .
Bringing the community together is not in the document .
Innovation is not in the document .
NOAA retained complete control .
The intent was pretty transparent.Now a major hope for many of us was that UCAR/NCAR , which represents the research community , would win the EPIC contract , reducing the chasm between NOAA and the academic community ( UCAR/NCAR ) and bringing the two groups together .
NOAA personnel made EPIC as unattractive as possible to UCAR/NCAR , but miracle upon miracle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for EPIC , hoping that a small start might grow into the national center that Congress had in mind .
And let me be frank , there are others in UCAR/NCAR that want EPIC to fail or go elsewhere , allowing them to continue to do business in the same way .
During the next few weeks NOAA will decide on who gets the EPIC contract–and this decision may well decide the future of U.S. weather prediction .
UCAR is the obvious choice , with deep experience in model development , relevant software @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
No one is even close to their capabilities and experience .
This figure shows the skill of the U.S. global modeling versus other major groups If NOAA selects UCAR/NCAR , the U.S. weather modeling community can follow a new , and far better path .
But if NOAA selects some beltway bandit enterprise or some consortium of less experienced academic institutions , then the future of U.S. operational prediction will not be bright .
In many ways , this is NOAA ’ s last chance to get global modeling right .
Private @ @ @ @ @ @ @ starting to building global modeling capacity .
The competition ( like the European Center ) are surging ahead .
NOAA .
should be able to create a global modeling system that is the best in the world….not for some jingoist or nationalistic reason… but because better weather prediction would be of great benefit to humanity , providing a potent tool to protect mankind against a range of weather threats .

Reposted from the Cliff Mass Weather Blog
U.S. global weather prediction run by NOAA/National Weather Service is now in fourth place among national centers and FAR behind what one would expect from the world-leading U.S. weather research community.
Why?
The answer is clear: the vast U.S. weather community does not work together effectively in developing weather prediction models and transitioning research to operations.
NOAA has highly competent and motivated weather modeling researchers in its several labs and in the National Weather Service. The center of U.S. academic research in meteorology and modeling is located at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado, an entity run by consortium of U.S. universities (UCAR: the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research). The U.S. Navy also does research and development on weather prediction models in places like the Naval Research Lab in Monterey. But with all these labs and researchers, the U.S. cannot field a world-leading weather prediction model.
Here is the issue:
NOAA/NWS has its own models and is developing its own global prediction system called UFS (Unified Forecast System).
UCAR/NCAR has its own models and is developing its own global prediction system called SIMA (System for Integrated Modeling of the Atmosphere).
The military (mainly the U.S. Navy) has its own models and developing its own global prediction system.
There are all trying to do the same thing. Spending many tens of millions of dollars. None are state of the art.
The separate development of the same type of global prediction model has been a disaster for the U.S.:
NOAA/NWS lacks the innovation, manpower, and ideas of the academic community.
The academic community work lacks sufficient resources and misses the effective transfer of its research to societal needs.
The Navy modeling system is lagging behind NOAA in forecast skill, with obvious implications for national security.
Thus, both government and academic efforts fall short of being state of the art in global weather modeling and prediction. Progress is slowed. Tens to hundreds of millions of dollars are used poorly. The costs to society are huge. You care about global warming? State-of-science numerical weather prediction is a first line of defense against severe weather.
Turf Battles, Ego, and the Inefficiency of Big Bureaucracies
How do I put this discreetly and without offending anyone?
Big governmental bureaucracies are not known for efficiency and innovation. Surely, I know of exceptions to this statement, but from what I have seen, folks get comfortable in safe government jobs. Jobs in which excellence is not heavily rewarded and where failure in a Civil Service position does not risk job loss. Government bureaucracies tend to expand over time, with little trimming of inefficient branches or activities. In NOAA model development and responsibility for model development are split over several, often competing, offices. And frequently they don’t want to help each other or work together, attempting to protect their piece of the pie and turf. Let me emphasize that I have great respect for NOAA researchers–they are working in a broken system.
And scientists in major government-supported labs (like NCAR) can also become content to play in their own scientific sandbox, seeing little reason to work with others.
Then there are the human frailties of scientists and scientific administrators. Too many times I have heard NCAR weather modelers dissing NOAA folks, and sometimes the other way around. At a meeting to discuss working together on a major joint effort (the EPIC modeling center), an important university lab administrator said disparaging remarks about his counterpart in the National Weather Service. Such toxic interactions make cooperation more difficult.
Why Isn’t Competition Working?
When I write blogs on this topic, inevitably someone brings up the point of competition? Isn’t it good to have many U.S. groups trying to do the same thing? My answer:
We have a lot of competition going on right now in the U.S. weather modeling community, and it doesn’t appear to lead to a superior approach.
Global weather modeling is one of the most complex tasks our species attempts: simulating the future from the molecular to the global scales, requiring complex data assimilation, model development, and statistical post-processing. Weather models (often coupled to ocean, ice, wave and land-surface models) encompass hundreds of thousands to millions of lines of code. They require the largest computers on the planet. A HUGE effort. We didn’t have three Apollo programs in the 1960s. Instead the complex problem was divided among groups around the nation. But in weather prediction we have three groups attempted to do something even more complex.
There are certain key problems that need to be solved by everyone, such as in model physics. Only by dividing up the problem can we attend to all the issues. Having three or more teams trying to do the same tasks, inevitably leads to important work not being done well or at all.
Money and science/technology talent are limited.
There is plenty of international competition, with other groups working on global prediction (like the European Center)
Congress Knows There is a Problem. They Proposed a Way Forward.
Problems with U.S. global weather prediction are well known and has been covered extensively in the media (e.g. here) and in this blog.. Congress has had several hearings on the subject (one in which I testified last year) and they have passed legislation providing funding to NOAA for supporting weather prediction research and development.
Importantly, Congress, with full bi-partisan support, passed new legislation that set up an “Earth Prediction Innovation Center” focused on “advancing weather modeling skill, reclaiming and maintaining international leadership in the area of numerical weather prediction, and improving the transition of research into operations.”Congress intended the EPIC center to be a robust, independent entity that would bring together the entire U.S. weather research community to build the best weather prediction system in the world. To FINALLY, break through the divisions and duplication that are crippling U.S. efforts. And Congress gave NOAA millions of dollars to make things happen.
But as I shall describe, some in the NOAA bureaucracy has installed roadblocks in the way of EPIC.
NOAA is about to make a big decision regarding EPIC: will NOAA work with the UCAR/NCAR–the weather academic community– to create it a viable center that will transform U.S. weather prediction? Or will the current stagnation continue?
Leaders in my community testifying in Congress about U.S. weather prediction
NOAA’s Big Decision
NOAA is about to make a decision that will determine whether U.S. operational numerical prediction is second or third rate, or will become the best in the world.
As noted above, Congress has authorized and funded an EPIC center that would promote cooperation and innovation, and gave the responsibility to NOAA to make it happen.
NOAA put out a request for proposals (RFP) for EPIC, but instead of following the will of Congress to create an independent center that would bring the entire community together to create the best global modeling system in the world, they altered the effort into a support services contract with NOAA. Science-development or scientific research are not even in the document. Bringing the community together is not in the document. Innovation is not in the document. NOAA retained complete control. The intent was pretty transparent.Now a major hope for many of us was that UCAR/NCAR, which represents the research community, would win the EPIC contract, reducing the chasm between NOAA and the academic community (UCAR/NCAR) and bringing the two groups together. NOAA personnel made EPIC as unattractive as possible to UCAR/NCAR, but miracle upon miracle, UCAR/NCAR did put in a proposal for EPIC, hoping that a small start might grow into the national center that Congress had in mind. And let me be frank, there are others in UCAR/NCAR that want EPIC to fail or go elsewhere, allowing them to continue to do business in the same way.
During the next few weeks NOAA will decide on who gets the EPIC contract–and this decision may well decide the future of U.S. weather prediction. UCAR is the obvious choice, with deep experience in model development, relevant software engineering, and in supporting outside users. No one is even close to their capabilities and experience.
This figure shows the skill of the U.S. global modeling versus other major groups
If NOAA selects UCAR/NCAR, the U.S. weather modeling community can follow a new, and far better path. But if NOAA selects some beltway bandit enterprise or some consortium of less experienced academic institutions, then the future of U.S. operational prediction will not be bright.
In many ways, this is NOAA’s last chance to get global modeling right. Private sector firms, like IBM, are starting to building global modeling capacity. The competition (like the European Center) are surging ahead. NOAA. should be able to create a global modeling system that is the best in the world….not for some jingoist or nationalistic reason… but because better weather prediction would be of great benefit to humanity, providing a potent tool to protect mankind against a range of weather threats.
HT/Cam_S
4 1 vote Article Rating
Share this: Print
Email
Facebook
Twitter
GETTR
Telegram
Like this: Like Loading...


wattsupwiththat--2020-12-05--Climate Report: $100-150 Trillion over 30 Years to Fix Global Warming

Let me check , I ’ m sure I ’ ve got some spare change in my pocket somewhere… A report estimates that trillions will be needed to transform the global economy Shifting the global economy to low-carbon mode will require an estimated US $ 100-trillion to US $ 150-trillion worth of investment over the next 30 years , according to a new report .
Industry trade group Global Financial Markets Association ( GFMA ) published a report , along with Boston Consulting Group , that examines the emerging climate finance market .
To generate this sort of investment , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to fully price in emissions , ” it suggested .
Given the scale of the challenge , the report called for coordinated action by the government and the private sector to significantly grow the climate finance market , with a view to developing the financial and risk management tools that are needed to catalyze investment .
“ The unprecedented call to action aims to help mitigate substantial mis-pricing and potential financial stability risks which would undermine the long-run ability of the financial system to direct finance to fully support the Paris-aligned transition , @ @ @ @ @

Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Let me check, I’m sure I’ve got some spare change in my pocket somewhere…
Funding the fight against global warming
A report estimates that trillions will be needed to transform the global economy
By: James Langton
December 4, 2020 15:41
Shifting the global economy to low-carbon mode will require an estimated US$100-trillion to US$150-trillion worth of investment over the next 30 years, according to a new report.
Industry trade group Global Financial Markets Association (GFMA) published a report, along with Boston Consulting Group, that examines the emerging climate finance market.
…
To generate this sort of investment, “the price of carbon must rise to fully price in emissions,” it suggested.
…
Given the scale of the challenge, the report called for coordinated action by the government and the private sector to significantly grow the climate finance market, with a view to developing the financial and risk management tools that are needed to catalyze investment.
“The unprecedented call to action aims to help mitigate substantial mis-pricing and potential financial stability risks which would undermine the long-run ability of the financial system to direct finance to fully support the Paris-aligned transition,” the GFMA said.
…


wattsupwiththat--2020-12-05--Lancing the Lancet’s global-warming pustule

The Lancet , once a respected medico-scientific journal and now just another me-too mouthpiece for theusual suspects , ran an editorial this week on climate change – on which subject it has neither expertise nor a missio canonica to pronounce .
Here is a letter to the editor in response : Sir , – Your notion of a “ climate crisis ” ( editorial , December 2 ) , though fashionable among the classe politique , is misplaced .
That notion sprang from an elementary error of physics perpetrated in the 1980s by climate scientists who had borrowed feedback formulism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ physics , without quite understanding it .
Interdisciplinary compartmentalization delayed its identification until now .
After correcting the error , anthropogenic global warming will be only one-third of current midrange projections , well within natural variability and net-beneficial to life and health .
CO fertilization ( for CO is plant food ) has assisted in steadily increasing crop yields – this year ’ s global harvest has set yet another record – and in improving drought resistance ( Hao et al.
, 2014 ) and greening the planet .
Your suggestion that warmer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ life , particularly among the world ’ s fast-declining population of poor people , is fashionable but misplaced .
Cold is a bigger killer than warmth .
Research conducted three years ago for the European Commission found that , for this reason , even if there were 5.4 C° global warming from 2020-2080 , there would be 100,000 more Europeans than with no warming at all .
However , now that nearly all major banks – citing “ global warming ” as their pretext – refuse to lend to developing countries for coal-fired @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to abandon the poor are below ) , a billion people lack the capacity to turn on a 60 W lightbulb for just four hours a day ( the International Energy Agency ’ s scarcely generous definition of “ access to electricity ” ) .
According to the WHO , 4 million annually die of particulate pollution from smoke in cooking fires because they lack domestic electrical power and , for the same lack , 500,000 women die in childbirth .
These are just two of the many causes of death from lack @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of millions annually .
The chief reason why so many can not turn on a light is not global warming but misconceived policies intended to address what is in reality a non-problem .
More than 90 % of all new greenhouse-gas emissions ( BP Annual Review of Energy , 2019 ) are in nations exempt from the Paris agreement , which , after correction of the error of physics , is in any event supererogatory .
You have said China must do more , but China – though it has its own space @ @ @ @ @ @ @ military force – is exempt from Paris on the ground that it is a “ developing country ” .
It is not required to forswear its sins of emission .
Your advocacy of “ low-carbon diets ” is fashionable but misplaced .
Like it or not , we have evolved over 2 million years to eat meat , which can provide all necessary energy , nutrients and vitamins .
Yet ill-informed official guidelines on both sides of the Atlantic recommend low-fat , high-carbohydrate diets .
Those recommendations have demonstrably been the chief cause @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in both the UK and the USA .
They were abandoned by court order a decade ago in Sweden at the instance of a brave doctor whom the medical authorities had attempted to prosecute because she cured all her diabetes patients by ignoring the guidelines and recommending a high-fat , low-carb diet .
Your advocacy of “ renewable ” energy is fashionable but misplaced .
Using 14th-century technology to address a 21st-century non-problem would be silly enough in itself .
What is worse , however , is that “ renewables ” have not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have also added to CO emissions .
The chief reason for this apparent paradox is that the more windmills and solar panels are connected to the grid the more grossly-inefficient , CO -emitting spinning reserve must be maintained in the often vain hope of preventing blackouts when the wind stops or the night falls .
Besides , the trillions that have been squandered on fashionable but misguided attempts to abate greenhouse-gas emissions have made no difference at all .
The radiative forcing from anthropogenic greenhouse gases has increased in a fashion very close @ @ @ @ @ @ @ line above ) for 40 years .
With respect , The Lancet should study more science and economics , however unfashionable , and peddle less totalitarian politics , however fashionable and profitable – and deadly .

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
The Lancet, once a respected medico-scientific journal and now just another me-too mouthpiece for theusual suspects, ran an editorial this week on climate change – on which subject it has neither expertise nor a missio canonica to pronounce. Here is a letter to the editor in response:
Sir, – Your notion of a “climate crisis” (editorial, December 2), though fashionable among the classe politique, is misplaced. That notion sprang from an elementary error of physics perpetrated in the 1980s by climate scientists who had borrowed feedback formulism from control theory, another branch of physics, without quite understanding it. Interdisciplinary compartmentalization delayed its identification until now.
After correcting the error, anthropogenic global warming will be only one-third of current midrange projections, well within natural variability and net-beneficial to life and health. CO 2 fertilization (for CO 2 is plant food) has assisted in steadily increasing crop yields – this year’s global harvest has set yet another record – and in improving drought resistance (Hao et al., 2014) and greening the planet.
Your suggestion that warmer worldwide weather has caused net loss of life, particularly among the world’s fast-declining population of poor people, is fashionable but misplaced. Cold is a bigger killer than warmth. Research conducted three years ago for the European Commission found that, for this reason, even if there were 5.4 C° global warming from 2020-2080, there would be 100,000 more Europeans than with no warming at all.
However, now that nearly all major banks – citing “global warming” as their pretext – refuse to lend to developing countries for coal-fired electricity (dates from which they decided to abandon the poor are below), a billion people lack the capacity to turn on a 60 W lightbulb for just four hours a day (the International Energy Agency’s scarcely generous definition of “access to electricity”).
According to the WHO, 4 million annually die of particulate pollution from smoke in cooking fires because they lack domestic electrical power and, for the same lack, 500,000 women die in childbirth. These are just two of the many causes of death from lack of access to electricity that kill tens of millions annually. The chief reason why so many cannot turn on a light is not global warming but misconceived policies intended to address what is in reality a non-problem.
More than 90% of all new greenhouse-gas emissions (BP Annual Review of Energy, 2019) are in nations exempt from the Paris agreement, which, after correction of the error of physics, is in any event supererogatory.
You have said China must do more, but China – though it has its own space programme and continues to occupy Tibet by military force – is exempt from Paris on the ground that it is a “developing country”. It is not required to forswear its sins of emission.
Your advocacy of “low-carbon diets” is fashionable but misplaced. Like it or not, we have evolved over 2 million years to eat meat, which can provide all necessary energy, nutrients and vitamins. Yet ill-informed official guidelines on both sides of the Atlantic recommend low-fat, high-carbohydrate diets. Those recommendations have demonstrably been the chief cause of the surge in obesity and diabetes in both the UK and the USA. They were abandoned by court order a decade ago in Sweden at the instance of a brave doctor whom the medical authorities had attempted to prosecute because she cured all her diabetes patients by ignoring the guidelines and recommending a high-fat, low-carb diet.
Your advocacy of “renewable” energy is fashionable but misplaced. Using 14th-century technology to address a 21st-century non-problem would be silly enough in itself. What is worse, however, is that “renewables” have not only quadrupled the price of electricity but have also added to CO 2 emissions. The chief reason for this apparent paradox is that the more windmills and solar panels are connected to the grid the more grossly-inefficient, CO 2 -emitting spinning reserve must be maintained in the often vain hope of preventing blackouts when the wind stops or the night falls.
Besides, the trillions that have been squandered on fashionable but misguided attempts to abate greenhouse-gas emissions have made no difference at all. The radiative forcing from anthropogenic greenhouse gases has increased in a fashion very close to a straight line (the dotted line above) for 40 years.
With respect, The Lancet should study more science and economics, however unfashionable, and peddle less totalitarian politics, however fashionable and profitable – and deadly.
Yours faithfully,
0 0 votes Article Rating
Share this: Print
Email
Facebook
Twitter
GETTR
Telegram
Like this: Like Loading...


wattsupwiththat--2020-12-05--New Climate Theory – Jupiter Herding Micrometeors Towards Earth?

New theory suggests Earth ’ s 60‐Year climate cycle may be driven by planetary oscillations directing micrometeors toward Earth , creating more dust – which change cloud cover .
A paper published in Geophysical Research Letters claims there is increasing evidence that Earth ’ s 60-year climate cycle may be driven by planetary oscillations .
They claim a 60-year climate cycle is found in the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation , aurora sightings , rainfall , and ocean climatic records .
“ …the orbital eccentricity of Jupiter presents prominent oscillations with a period of quasi 60 years due to its gravitational coupling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the planetary system modulates the interplanetary dust falling on Earth and modifying the cloud coverage .
The orbital eccentricity of Jupiter presents a strong 60‐year oscillation that is well correlated with several climatic records and with the 60‐year oscillation found in long meteorite fall records since the 7th century .
Since meteorite falls are the most macroscopic aspect of infalling space dust , we conclude that the interplanetary dust should modulate the formation of the clouds and , thus , drive climate changes.
” A 60‐Year Cycle in the Meteorite Fall Frequency Suggests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Earth ’ s Climate Driven by Planetary Oscillations One of the most famous climate oscillations has a period of about 60 years .
Although this oscillation might emerge from internal variability , increasing evidence points toward a solar or astronomical origin , as also argued herein .
We highlight that the orbital eccentricity of Jupiter presents prominent oscillations with a period of quasi 60 years due to its gravitational coupling with Saturn .
This oscillation is found to be well correlated with quite a number of climatic records and also with a 60‐year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relative to the periods 619–1943 CE .
Since meteorite falls are the most macroscopic aspect of incoming space dust and their motion is mostly regulated by Jupiter , we propose that the interplanetary dust influx also presents a 60‐year cycle and could be forcing the climate to oscillate in a similar manner by modulating the formation of the clouds and , therefore , the Earth ’ s albedo .
All data are available from references and public domain repositories : Figure 1 uses the ephemerides data of the orbit of Jupiter available , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ web interface ( https : //ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons.cgi ) ; Figure 2 uses the temperature reconstruction of Ljungqvist ( 2010 , https : //www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo-search/study/9924 ) ; Figure 3 uses the HadCRUT4 record ( Morice et al.
, 2012 , https : //www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/ ) , the Indian summer monsoon record ( Agnihotri & Dutta , 2003 ; Sontakke et al.
, 1993 ) ( http : //iridl.ldeo.columbia.edu/SOURCES/.Indices/.india/index.html ) ; and the G. Bulloides abundance variations data by Black et al .
( 1999 , https : //www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo-search/study/2532 ) ; Figures 4 and 5 use the record @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 619 to 1943 published in Yu et al .
( 1983 ) .
A caveat : In the past , I have dismissed much of Scafetta ’ s work as being little more than “ cyclomania ” , i.e .
finding spurious cyclic correlations in data where there really isn ’ t any .
That said , there is a bit of plausibility in this idea that the gravitation of Jupiter might herd more micrometeors into Earths orbital path , and it is plausible that with more meteor dust in Earth ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nuclei .
Changes in cloud cover would modulate sunlight over time , and thus climatic records .
Or , it may be just another spurious correlation .
Either way , I thought it was worth discussing .
– Anthony

New theory suggests Earth’s 60‐Year climate cycle may be driven by planetary oscillations directing micrometeors toward Earth, creating more dust – which change cloud cover.
A paper published in Geophysical Research Letters claims there is increasing evidence that Earth’s 60-year climate cycle may be driven by planetary oscillations. They claim a 60-year climate cycle is found in the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation, aurora sightings, rainfall, and ocean climatic records.
The paper says:
“…the orbital eccentricity of Jupiter presents prominent oscillations with a period of quasi 60 years due to its gravitational coupling with Saturn.” The authors propose that the planetary system modulates the interplanetary dust falling on Earth and modifying the cloud coverage. The orbital eccentricity of Jupiter presents a strong 60‐year oscillation that is well correlated with several climatic records and with the 60‐year oscillation found in long meteorite fall records since the 7th century. Since meteorite falls are the most macroscopic aspect of infalling space dust, we conclude that the interplanetary dust should modulate the formation of the clouds and, thus, drive climate changes.”
The paper and abstract:
A 60‐Year Cycle in the Meteorite Fall Frequency Suggests a Possible Interplanetary Dust Forcing of the Earth’s Climate Driven by Planetary Oscillations
Nicola Scafetta Franco Milani Antonio Bianchini First published: 14 September 2020 https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL089954
Abstract
One of the most famous climate oscillations has a period of about 60 years. Although this oscillation might emerge from internal variability, increasing evidence points toward a solar or astronomical origin, as also argued herein. We highlight that the orbital eccentricity of Jupiter presents prominent oscillations with a period of quasi 60 years due to its gravitational coupling with Saturn. This oscillation is found to be well correlated with quite a number of climatic records and also with a 60‐year oscillation present in long meteorite fall records relative to the periods 619–1943 CE. Since meteorite falls are the most macroscopic aspect of incoming space dust and their motion is mostly regulated by Jupiter, we propose that the interplanetary dust influx also presents a 60‐year cycle and could be forcing the climate to oscillate in a similar manner by modulating the formation of the clouds and, therefore, the Earth’s albedo.
Data Availability Statement
All data are available from references and public domain repositories: Figure 1 uses the ephemerides data of the orbit of Jupiter available, for example, from the NASA HORIZONS web interface (https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons.cgi); Figure 2 uses the temperature reconstruction of Ljungqvist (2010, https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo-search/study/9924); Figure 3 uses the HadCRUT4 record (Morice et al., 2012, https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/), the Indian summer monsoon record (Agnihotri & Dutta, 2003; Sontakke et al., 1993) (http://iridl.ldeo.columbia.edu/SOURCES/.Indices/.india/index.html); and the G. Bulloides abundance variations data by Black et al. (1999, https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo-search/study/2532); Figures 4 and 5 use the record of meteorite fall in China from AD 619 to 1943 published in Yu et al. (1983).
A caveat: In the past, I have dismissed much of Scafetta’s work as being little more than “cyclomania”, i.e. finding spurious cyclic correlations in data where there really isn’t any.
That said, there is a bit of plausibility in this idea that the gravitation of Jupiter might herd more micrometeors into Earths orbital path, and it is plausible that with more meteor dust in Earth’s atmosphere, that could form more cloud nuclei. Changes in cloud cover would modulate sunlight over time, and thus climatic records.
Or, it may be just another spurious correlation. Either way, I thought it was worth discussing. – Anthony
0 0 votes Article Rating
Share this: Print
Email
Facebook
Twitter
GETTR
Telegram
Like this: Like Loading...


wattsupwiththat--2020-12-07--Claim: The climate changed rapidly alongside sea ice decline in the north

Researchers from the Niels Bohr Institute , University of Copenhagen have , in collaboration with Norwegian researchers in the ERC Synergy project , ICE2ICE , shown that abrupt climate change occurred as a result of widespread decrease of sea ice .
This scientific breakthrough concludes a long-lasting debate on the mechanisms causing abrupt climate change during the glacial period .
It also documents that the cause of the swiftness and extent of sudden climate change must be found in the oceans .
Scientific evidence for abrupt climate change in the past finally achieved During the last glacial period , app @ @ @ @ @ @ @ northern hemisphere was covered in glacial ice and extensive sea ice , covering the Nordic seas .
The cold glacial climate was interrupted by periods of fast warmup of up to 16.5 degrees Celsius over the Greenland ice sheet , the so called Dansgaard Oeschger events ( D-O ) .
These rapid glacial climate fluctuations were discovered in the Greenland ice core drillings decades ago , but the cause of them have been hotly contested .
D-O events are of particular significance today as the rate of warming seems to be very much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parts of the Arctic nowadays .
The new results show that the abrupt climate change in the past was closely linked to the quick and extensive decline in sea ice cover in the Nordic seas .
Very important knowledge as sea ice is presently decreasing each year .
“ Our , up until now , most extensive and detailed reconstruction of sea ice documents the importance of the rapid decrease of sea ice cover and the connected feedback mechanisms causing abrupt climate change ” , says Henrik Sadatzki , first author of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ data were combined in order to achieve the result The Norwegian researchers investigated two sediment cores from the Norwegian sea and the Danish researchers investigated an ice core from East Greenland for changes in the sea ice cover .
Both sediment and ice cores were meticulously dated and further linked to one another through several volcanic layers of ash ( tephra ) identified in both .
Past sea ice cover was reconstructed in the marine cores by observing the relation between specific organic molecules produced by algea living in sea ice and others @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In the Renland ice core from East Greenland the researchers looked at the content of Bromin .
This content is connected to newly formed sea ice , since Bromin contents increase when sea ice is formed .
A robust chronology and sea ice information in both sediment cores and the ice core could be established and used to investigate the extent of the sea ice changes in the Nordic seas during the last glacial period .
“ We have investigated how the sea ice cover changed during the last glacial period in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ With the high resolution in our data sets we are able to see that the Nordic seas , during the rapid climate changes in the glacial period , change from being covered in ice all year round to having seasonal ice cover .
This is knowledge we can apply in our improved understanding of how the sea ice decline we observe today may impact the climate in the Arctic ” , says Helle Astrid Kjær , Associate professor at the Ice , Climate and Geophysics section at the Niels Bohr Institute .
Sea @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the climate today can change abruptly The data the group of researchers present shows that the Nordic seas were covered by extensive sea ice in cold periods , while warmer periods are characterized by reduced , seasonal sea ice , as well as rather open ice free oceans .
“ Our records show that the extensive decline in sea ice could have happened during a period of 250 years or less , simultaneously with a phase in which the water in the oceans to the north mixed with the Nordic sea , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in atmospheric warming ” , says Henrik Sadatzki .
As the Nordic seas changed abruptly from ice covered to open sea , the energy from the warmer ocean water was released to the cold atmosphere , leading to amplification of sudden warming of the climate .
The result of the study documents that sea ice is a “ tipping element ” in the tightly coupled ocean-ice-climate system .
This is particularly relevant today , as the still more open ocean to the north can lead to similar abrupt climate change .

UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN
Research News
IMAGE: “WE HAVE INVESTIGATED HOW THE SEA ICE COVER CHANGED DURING THE LAST GLACIAL PERIOD IN BOTH MARINE CORES AND ICE CORES, ” SAYS HELLE ASTRID KJÆR, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR AT THE NIELS… view more CREDIT: UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN
Researchers from the Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen have, in collaboration with Norwegian researchers in the ERC Synergy project, ICE2ICE, shown that abrupt climate change occurred as a result of widespread decrease of sea ice. This scientific breakthrough concludes a long-lasting debate on the mechanisms causing abrupt climate change during the glacial period. It also documents that the cause of the swiftness and extent of sudden climate change must be found in the oceans.
Scientific evidence for abrupt climate change in the past finally achieved
During the last glacial period, app. 10,000 – 110,000 years ago the northern hemisphere was covered in glacial ice and extensive sea ice, covering the Nordic seas. The cold glacial climate was interrupted by periods of fast warmup of up to 16.5 degrees Celsius over the Greenland ice sheet, the so called Dansgaard Oeschger events (D-O).
These rapid glacial climate fluctuations were discovered in the Greenland ice core drillings decades ago, but the cause of them have been hotly contested. D-O events are of particular significance today as the rate of warming seems to be very much like what can be observed in large parts of the Arctic nowadays. The new results show that the abrupt climate change in the past was closely linked to the quick and extensive decline in sea ice cover in the Nordic seas. Very important knowledge as sea ice is presently decreasing each year.
“Our, up until now, most extensive and detailed reconstruction of sea ice documents the importance of the rapid decrease of sea ice cover and the connected feedback mechanisms causing abrupt climate change”, says Henrik Sadatzki, first author of the study.
Sediment core and ice core data were combined in order to achieve the result
The Norwegian researchers investigated two sediment cores from the Norwegian sea and the Danish researchers investigated an ice core from East Greenland for changes in the sea ice cover. Both sediment and ice cores were meticulously dated and further linked to one another through several volcanic layers of ash (tephra) identified in both.
Past sea ice cover was reconstructed in the marine cores by observing the relation between specific organic molecules produced by algea living in sea ice and others by algea living in ice free waters. In the Renland ice core from East Greenland the researchers looked at the content of Bromin. This content is connected to newly formed sea ice, since Bromin contents increase when sea ice is formed. A robust chronology and sea ice information in both sediment cores and the ice core could be established and used to investigate the extent of the sea ice changes in the Nordic seas during the last glacial period.
“We have investigated how the sea ice cover changed during the last glacial period in both marine cores and ice cores. With the high resolution in our data sets we are able to see that the Nordic seas, during the rapid climate changes in the glacial period, change from being covered in ice all year round to having seasonal ice cover. This is knowledge we can apply in our improved understanding of how the sea ice decline we observe today may impact the climate in the Arctic”, says Helle Astrid Kjær, Associate professor at the Ice, Climate and Geophysics section at the Niels Bohr Institute.
Sea ice changes in the past show how the climate today can change abruptly
The data the group of researchers present shows that the Nordic seas were covered by extensive sea ice in cold periods, while warmer periods are characterized by reduced, seasonal sea ice, as well as rather open ice free oceans. “Our records show that the extensive decline in sea ice could have happened during a period of 250 years or less, simultaneously with a phase in which the water in the oceans to the north mixed with the Nordic sea, and that this situation led to sudden changes in atmospheric warming”, says Henrik Sadatzki.
As the Nordic seas changed abruptly from ice covered to open sea, the energy from the warmer ocean water was released to the cold atmosphere, leading to amplification of sudden warming of the climate. The result of the study documents that sea ice is a “tipping element” in the tightly coupled ocean-ice-climate system. This is particularly relevant today, as the still more open ocean to the north can lead to similar abrupt climate change.
###
From EurekAlert!
0 0 votes Article Rating
Share this: Print
Email
Facebook
Twitter
GETTR
Telegram
Like this: Like Loading...


wattsupwiththat--2020-12-06--Biden’s Coming China Headache: Climate Change And “Developing Countries”

A Biden presidency , which now seems most likely , will have plenty on its foreign policy plate , ranging from relations with Russia , China and Europe to the Iran question in the Middle East .
But it is likely that global climate change policy , especially in relation to China ’ s position in it , will be among the most contentious challenges it will face in international diplomacy .
If we are slated for a Biden presidency , we will get the most climate change-conscious administrations in US history .
The climate agenda has been elevated to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , straddling the key portfolios of national security , foreign policy , and economy and finance .
From January 20th 2021 , “ fighting global warming ” will be elevated to a primary concern of the vast US government bureaucracies ranging from the EPA and the Federal Reserve to the Pentagon and the State Department .
A Biden administration would “ use every tool of American foreign policy to push the rest of the world to raise their ambitions alongside with the US ” and it would “ pursue strong measures ” to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ climate commitments .
No doubt a future Biden presidency would seek to emulate the lauded bargain between Obama and China ’ s President Xi that set the foundations of the non-binding Paris Agreement .
The 2015 agreement was hailed as ex-President Obama ’ s “ breakthrough ” understanding with China that the latter too would join in the global effort to cut emissions .
In a move welcomed by European leaders , Biden has vowed that the US would re-join the Paris climate accord on his first day in the White House in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President Trump ’ s formal withdrawal notice from the Paris Agreement issued in November 2019 .
To steer this vision — an example of an enlightened , “ lead from behind ” multilateral approach in concert with Europe — Biden has appointed the aristocratic Europhile John Kerry to a Cabinet-level role as “ climate tsar ” .
Kerry oversaw the negotiations that led to the Paris Agreement and signed the accord on the behalf of the US in 2016 as ex-President Obama ’ s Secretary of State ( 2013 – 2017 ) .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” , Kerry does not require Senate confirmation .
He has vowed that under his watch “ America will soon have a government that treats the climate crisis as the urgent national security threat it is ” .
To the proponents of “ climate crisis ” , a Biden-Xi collaboration is an opportunity to set the terms for meaningful global cooperation on climate change policies .
For the more hard headed diplomats — not least China ’ s ‘ wolf warriors ’ – more at home reading Machiavelli ’ s The Prince than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Land , the hopes of a US-China ‘ grand bargain ’ will seem naïve .
The celebrated Paris Agreement was only so much of smoke and mirrors as far as China ’ s practitioners of strategic statecraft were concerned .
For Obama ’ s end of the bargain , his administration unleashed such punitive measures on US ’ s own economic interests as the Clean Power Plan and the Waters Of The US Act by Executive Orders ( since the Paris Agreement was conveniently not a “ treaty ” requiring an impossible Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ end , China promised to peak its emissions by 2030 at a level and a rate of subsequent decline that were not specified .
Nor were Chinese planners unaware that research showed that China ’ s commitment to peak by 2030 was actually less ambitious than continuing business as usual , that the country ’ s emissions would have peaked by then anyway whatever it did ( or not ) .
Meanwhile , signing the agreement did not stop China from approving 23 gigawatts of new coal-power projects the first half of 2020 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ combined .
Note that China had commissioned more coal power capacity than the rest of the world combined in those two years .
From the earliest UN negotiations starting in 1994 under the Framework Convention on Climate Change ( UNFCCC ) , China firmly and consistently played the ‘ Third World ’ position .
Developing countries carried “ common but differentiated responsibilities ” .
This meant that while developed countries ( primarily the West , but also including Japan ) adopted binding commitments to reduce carbon emissions by specified amounts , the developing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ binding policy commitments but were expected to receive considerable sums in “ climate finance ” to assist mitigating and adapting to climate change .
The BASIC group ( Brazil , South Africa , India and China – the world ’ s four largest ‘ developing countries ’ ) formed a bloc in 2009 to act jointly at the Copenhagen climate summit , including a possible united walk-out if their “ common minimum position ” was not met by the developed nations .
Effectively , the Kyoto Protocol , brought into force in 2005 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ income distribution , as senior UN officials openly admitted .
To be sure , the ‘ third world ’ position is not necessarily a cynical one .
The rationale behind the ‘ developing country ’ position is based on the reasonable grounds of equity and historical responsibility .
Since the major portion of the stock of man-made greenhouse gases ( GHGs ) in the earth ’ s atmosphere is accounted for by the industrialised West , the developed countries should launch serious efforts to reduce their own emissions before calling upon the developing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump came into office in 2016 , China was already the world ’ s largest emitter of GHGs by far .
By then it was also long evident that it was a stretch to call China a ‘ developing ’ country in any meaningful sense .
President Trump boiled over last year on China ‘ s “ developing country ” status : among his many tweets , “ The WTO is BROKEN when the world ’ s RICHEST countries claim to be developing countries to avoid WTO rules and get special treatment .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s emergence as an economic and military power challenging US dominance in Asia and beyond is a fact not denied even by the left wing of the US Democratic party .
China is one of the prime movers of global commodity and financial markets .
Its investments in the much hyped Belt and Road Initiative ( BRI ) , often grossly inflated in the business press , have nevertheless grown into an extensive web of infrastructure construction and investments in over a hundred countries .
As a source of loans for deficit-ridden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Africa and Europe , China has emerged as the major competitor to the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund , the Washington-based pillars of the post-WWII economic international system .
Indeed , David Malpass , whose appointment in 2019 as World Bank chief was supported by President Trump , was an outspoken critic of the World Bank ’ s loans to China ( and India ) .
Malpass quite rightly argued that these countries had become rich enough to tap global capital markets on reasonable terms .
If China is no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ little responsibility in the West-led global “ fight against climate change ” , then just what can a Biden administration extract from the Chinese government in decarbonization commitments ?
China ’ s state planners are likely to have a keener appreciation for the laws of physics and economics in their assessments of decarbonization than their counterparts in the West who are busy pursuing a quixotic Green Industrial Revolution .
They will insist on delivering to their people an Industrial Revolution first , of the sort enjoyed by the West since its birth over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to anything that might come in the way .
For President-for-life Mr. Xi , who does not have elections to contend with , it is a one-shot gamble on regime stability .
It would be the height of folly to imagine that President Xi would turn to Rudyard Kipling ’ s bravado “ If you can make one heap of all your winnings… And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss ” in some kind of moral turn towards international cooperation with the climate crusaders in a Biden administration .
Regime survival , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ predicated on meeting the material aspirations of ordinary citizens , the only source of legitimacy afforded to unelected governments throughout history .
China ’ s government fended off — with a mixture of confrontation and unstable interim agreements — President Trump ’ s explosive tariff diplomacy against China ’ s intellectual property theft , gaming of the WTO system and other US complaints .
It will do so no less with the threats of border taxes on its carbon-intensive exports if that were to be John Kerry ’ s and his European allies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ To the Trump-voting “ deplorables ” , John Kerry is “ that guy who ’ s hanging out in Europe enjoying it , talking about the climate and flying around on his private jet ” .
But it will be an aged President Biden who will be landed with a policy headache of monumental proportions if he is to handle climate change and China in no uncertain manner .

Reposted from Forbes
By Tilak Doshi,
A Biden presidency, which now seems most likely, will have plenty on its foreign policy plate, ranging from relations with Russia, China and Europe to the Iran question in the Middle East. But it is likely that global climate change policy, especially in relation to China’s position in it, will be among the most contentious challenges it will face in international diplomacy.
If we are slated for a Biden presidency, we will get the most climate change-conscious administrations in US history. The climate agenda has been elevated to a “whole of government” approach, straddling the key portfolios of national security, foreign policy, and economy and finance. From January 20th 2021, “fighting global warming” will be elevated to a primary concern of the vast US government bureaucracies ranging from the EPA and the Federal Reserve to the Pentagon and the State Department. A Biden administration would “use every tool of American foreign policy to push the rest of the world to raise their ambitions alongside with the US” and it would “pursue strong measures” to stop other countries from cheating on their climate commitments.
The “Grand Bargain” of Paris
No doubt a future Biden presidency would seek to emulate the lauded bargain between Obama and China’s President Xi that set the foundations of the non-binding Paris Agreement. The 2015 agreement was hailed as ex-President Obama’s “breakthrough” understanding with China that the latter too would join in the global effort to cut emissions. In a move welcomed by European leaders, Biden has vowed that the US would re-join the Paris climate accord on his first day in the White House in January. It will seek to reverse President Trump’s formal withdrawal notice from the Paris Agreement issued in November 2019.
To steer this vision — an example of an enlightened , “lead from behind” multilateral approach in concert with Europe — Biden has appointed the aristocratic Europhile John Kerry to a Cabinet-level role as “climate tsar”. Kerry oversaw the negotiations that led to the Paris Agreement and signed the accord on the behalf of the US in 2016 as ex-President Obama’s Secretary of State (2013 – 2017). As “special presidential envoy for climate”, Kerry does not require Senate confirmation. He has vowed that under his watch “America will soon have a government that treats the climate crisis as the urgent national security threat it is”.
To the proponents of “climate crisis”, a Biden-Xi collaboration is an opportunity to set the terms for meaningful global cooperation on climate change policies. For the more hard headed diplomats — not least China’s ‘wolf warriors’ – more at home reading Machiavelli’s The Prince than Obama’s latest bestseller A Promised Land, the hopes of a US-China ‘grand bargain’ will seem naïve.
The celebrated Paris Agreement was only so much of smoke and mirrors as far as China’s practitioners of strategic statecraft were concerned. For Obama’s end of the bargain, his administration unleashed such punitive measures on US’s own economic interests as the Clean Power Plan and the Waters Of The US Act by Executive Orders (since the Paris Agreement was conveniently not a “treaty” requiring an impossible Senate approval). At Xi’s end, China promised to peak its emissions by 2030 at a level and a rate of subsequent decline that were not specified.
Nor were Chinese planners unaware that research showed that China’s commitment to peak by 2030 was actually less ambitious than continuing business as usual, that the country’s emissions would have peaked by then anyway whatever it did (or not). Meanwhile, signing the agreement did not stop China from approving 23 gigawatts of new coal-power projects the first half of 2020, more than the previous two years combined. Note that China had commissioned more coal power capacity than the rest of the world combined in those two years.
The Developing Country Position
From the earliest UN negotiations starting in 1994 under the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), China firmly and consistently played the ‘Third World’ position. Developing countries carried “common but differentiated responsibilities”. This meant that while developed countries (primarily the West, but also including Japan) adopted binding commitments to reduce carbon emissions by specified amounts, the developing countries not only did not have any binding policy commitments but were expected to receive considerable sums in “climate finance” to assist mitigating and adapting to climate change.
The BASIC group (Brazil, South Africa, India and China – the world’s four largest ‘developing countries’) formed a bloc in 2009 to act jointly at the Copenhagen climate summit, including a possible united walk-out if their “common minimum position” was not met by the developed nations. Effectively, the Kyoto Protocol, brought into force in 2005, became an exercise in massive international income distribution, as senior UN officials openly admitted.
To be sure, the ‘third world’ position is not necessarily a cynical one. The rationale behind the ‘developing country’ position is based on the reasonable grounds of equity and historical responsibility. Since the major portion of the stock of man-made greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the earth’s atmosphere is accounted for by the industrialised West, the developed countries should launch serious efforts to reduce their own emissions before calling upon the developing countries to contribute.
By the time Trump came into office in 2016, China was already the world’s largest emitter of GHGs by far. By then it was also long evident that it was a stretch to call China a ‘developing’ country in any meaningful sense. President Trump boiled over last year on China‘s “developing country” status: among his many tweets, “The WTO is BROKEN when the world’s RICHEST countries claim to be developing countries to avoid WTO rules and get special treatment. NO more!!!”
China’s emergence as an economic and military power challenging US dominance in Asia and beyond is a fact not denied even by the left wing of the US Democratic party. China is one of the prime movers of global commodity and financial markets. Its investments in the much hyped Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), often grossly inflated in the business press, have nevertheless grown into an extensive web of infrastructure construction and investments in over a hundred countries.
As a source of loans for deficit-ridden governments in Asia, the Middle East, Africa and Europe, China has emerged as the major competitor to the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, the Washington-based pillars of the post-WWII economic international system. Indeed, David Malpass, whose appointment in 2019 as World Bank chief was supported by President Trump, was an outspoken critic of the World Bank’s loans to China (and India). Malpass quite rightly argued that these countries had become rich enough to tap global capital markets on reasonable terms.
China’s Red Line
If China is no more a ‘developing country’ with little responsibility in the West-led global “fight against climate change”, then just what can a Biden administration extract from the Chinese government in decarbonization commitments? China’s state planners are likely to have a keener appreciation for the laws of physics and economics in their assessments of decarbonization than their counterparts in the West who are busy pursuing a quixotic Green Industrial Revolution. They will insist on delivering to their people an Industrial Revolution first, of the sort enjoyed by the West since its birth over two centuries ago, before signing up to anything that might come in the way.
For President-for-life Mr. Xi, who does not have elections to contend with, it is a one-shot gamble on regime stability. It would be the height of folly to imagine that President Xi would turn to Rudyard Kipling’s bravado “If you can make one heap of all your winnings… And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss” in some kind of moral turn towards international cooperation with the climate crusaders in a Biden administration.
Regime survival, China’s red line, is predicated on meeting the material aspirations of ordinary citizens, the only source of legitimacy afforded to unelected governments throughout history. China’s government fended off — with a mixture of confrontation and unstable interim agreements — President Trump’s explosive tariff diplomacy against China’s intellectual property theft, gaming of the WTO system and other US complaints. It will do so no less with the threats of border taxes on its carbon-intensive exports if that were to be John Kerry’s and his European allies’ stick in climate policy negotiations.
To the Trump-voting “deplorables”, John Kerry is “that guy who’s hanging out in Europe enjoying it, talking about the climate and flying around on his private jet”. But it will be an aged President Biden who will be landed with a policy headache of monumental proportions if he is to handle climate change and China in no uncertain manner.
0 0 votes Article Rating
Share this: Print
Email
Facebook
Twitter
GETTR
Telegram
Like this: Like Loading...


wattsupwiththat--2020-12-06--Using Milankovitch Cycles to create high-resolution astrochronologies

To quote ( and H/T ) Leif Svalgaard : This year marks the 100th anniversary of Milutin Milankovitch ’ s first paper about Earth ’ s climate .
Milankovitch argued that the amount of solar radiation Earth receives , and hence its climate , varies cyclically as its orbit changes due to gravitational tugs from the other planets .
His climate theory fell into disrepute during the 1950 ’ s but was rehabilitated in the 1970 ’ s .
Today , many people are aware that cyclic changes in Earth ’ s orbit , now known as Milankovitch Cycles , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ glacial episodes during the last 2.7 million years .
Less well known , however , is the control those same cycles have exerted to form rhythmically oscillating sedimentary sequences throughout Earth history , thanks to the changes in depositional conditions they induce .
Stratigraphers “ tune ” the chronology of a rhythmic rock sequence to Milankovitch Cycle beats and then anchor those beats to the geologic time scale using radiometric and paleomagnetic dates to produce an astrochronology .
Such astrochronologies , because of their unusually high temporal resolution , provide profound insights into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and the Earth-Moon system .
Milankovitch orbital cycles have four primary periods .
Earth ’ s rotation axis precesses on an approximately 20 thousand year cycle and changes its tilt ( called obliquity ) on an approximately 40 thousand year cycle .
Changing gravitational tugs from Jupiter and the inner planets cause our orbit ’ s eccentricity ( the elliptical nature of our orbit ) to oscillate in two modes , one approximately 100 thousand years and the other a steady 405 thousand years .
The remarkable stability of the 405 thousand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jupiter and Venus , makes it the Milankovitch Cycle of choice to construct astrochronologies .
The stratigraphy of the eastern USA ’ s Newark Basin allowed scientists to construct one important early example .
This Triassic rift basin hosts rhythmically alternating lake and fluvial sediments that reflect lake expansion and shrinkage as the climate changed .
Scientists tuned the Newark Basin astrochronology to the 405 thousand year Milankovitch Cycle and then tied it to the geologic time scale using magnetic polarity reversals and high-resolution radiometric dates from basalt interbedded with the uppermost sediment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ high temporal resolution appeared to represent a big leap forward , some scientists worried about missing cycles due to unrecognized sedimentary hiatuses ; they didn ’ t trust the astrochronology because it lacked a radiometric date to anchor the sequence ’ s base .
Clearly , a test of the Newark astrochronology ’ s accuracy was needed .
The scientists had to find a comparably aged section that could be tied to radiometric dates at its top and bottom .
In 2013 , they found the ideal candidate : a 500-meter-long core drilled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Petrified Forest National Park .
This core possesses cyclic sequences deposited in rivers and lakes that drained a volcanically active area .
The youngest detrital zircons in each sediment layer likely record that layer ’ s depositional age , so the scientists dated those zircons in key layers to provide radiometric pinpoints at the core ’ s top and bottom .
The team then applied the same strategy to the Petrified Forest core as they had to the one from Newark Basin .
By 2018 , they had produced an identical astrochronology @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the Newark Basin section and therefore “ cements ” its reliability .
The Petrified Forest/Newark Basin astrochronology has had many important implications .
For example , paleontologists have long believed that the Late Triassic fossil record suggests dinosaurs achieved ecological dominance at mid-to-high latitudes millions of years before they achieved this in the tropics .
This conclusion , however , has been controversial because of dating uncertainties .
Application of the Petrified Forest/Newark Basin astrochronology to mid-latitude fossil sites in Argentina and Greenland , and to low-latitude sites in Canada ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confirm the delay in tropical dinosaur dominance is real .

To quote (and H/T) Leif Svalgaard:
From EGU Blogs
Lon Abbott November 20, 2020 Stratigraphy, Sedimentology and Palaeontology
This year marks the 100th anniversary of Milutin Milankovitch’s first paper about Earth’s climate. Milankovitch argued that the amount of solar radiation Earth receives, and hence its climate, varies cyclically as its orbit changes due to gravitational tugs from the other planets. His climate theory fell into disrepute during the 1950’s but was rehabilitated in the 1970’s.
Today, many people are aware that cyclic changes in Earth’s orbit, now known as Milankovitch Cycles, repeatedly plunged Earth into and out of glacial episodes during the last 2.7 million years. Less well known, however, is the control those same cycles have exerted to form rhythmically oscillating sedimentary sequences throughout Earth history, thanks to the changes in depositional conditions they induce. Stratigraphers “tune” the chronology of a rhythmic rock sequence to Milankovitch Cycle beats and then anchor those beats to the geologic time scale using radiometric and paleomagnetic dates to produce an astrochronology. Such astrochronologies, because of their unusually high temporal resolution, provide profound insights into the evolution of Earth, its inhabitants, and the Earth-Moon system.
Milankovitch orbital cycles have four primary periods. Earth’s rotation axis precesses on an approximately 20 thousand year cycle and changes its tilt (called obliquity) on an approximately 40 thousand year cycle. Changing gravitational tugs from Jupiter and the inner planets cause our orbit’s eccentricity (the elliptical nature of our orbit) to oscillate in two modes, one approximately 100 thousand years and the other a steady 405 thousand years. The remarkable stability of the 405 thousand year cycle, which is modulated by Jupiter and Venus, makes it the Milankovitch Cycle of choice to construct astrochronologies.
The stratigraphy of the eastern USA’s Newark Basin allowed scientists to construct one important early example. This Triassic rift basin hosts rhythmically alternating lake and fluvial sediments that reflect lake expansion and shrinkage as the climate changed. Scientists tuned the Newark Basin astrochronology to the 405 thousand year Milankovitch Cycle and then tied it to the geologic time scale using magnetic polarity reversals and high-resolution radiometric dates from basalt interbedded with the uppermost sediment layers. Although the chronology’s high temporal resolution appeared to represent a big leap forward, some scientists worried about missing cycles due to unrecognized sedimentary hiatuses; they didn’t trust the astrochronology because it lacked a radiometric date to anchor the sequence’s base.
Clearly, a test of the Newark astrochronology’s accuracy was needed. The scientists had to find a comparably aged section that could be tied to radiometric dates at its top and bottom. In 2013, they found the ideal candidate: a 500-meter-long core drilled in the Chinle Formation of Arizona’s Petrified Forest National Park. This core possesses cyclic sequences deposited in rivers and lakes that drained a volcanically active area. The youngest detrital zircons in each sediment layer likely record that layer’s depositional age, so the scientists dated those zircons in key layers to provide radiometric pinpoints at the core’s top and bottom. The team then applied the same strategy to the Petrified Forest core as they had to the one from Newark Basin. By 2018, they had produced an identical astrochronology that confirms that no cycles are missing from the Newark Basin section and therefore “cements” its reliability.
The Petrified Forest/Newark Basin astrochronology has had many important implications. For example, paleontologists have long believed that the Late Triassic fossil record suggests dinosaurs achieved ecological dominance at mid-to-high latitudes millions of years before they achieved this in the tropics. This conclusion, however, has been controversial because of dating uncertainties. Application of the Petrified Forest/Newark Basin astrochronology to mid-latitude fossil sites in Argentina and Greenland, and to low-latitude sites in Canada’s Fundy Basin and Petrified Forest, now confirm the delay in tropical dinosaur dominance is real.