wattsupwiththat--2020-12-09--CO2 Coalition: “The Global Mean Temperature Anomaly Record How it works and why it is misleading”

Guest “ putting it in context ” by David Middleton Our friends at the CO2 Coalition have published another excellent report .
This white paper by Richard Lindzen and John Christy explores the global mean temperature anomaly record .
Their focus isn ’ t on whether it ’ s right or wrong ; it ’ s on its significance relative to natural variability and its inherently low signal-to-noise ratio .
Here ’ s the executive summary : STUDIES AND RESOURCES , WHITE PAPERS AND OTHER PUBLICATIONS 4 DEC , 2020 The Global Mean Temperature Anomaly Record How it works and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lindzen and John R. Christy The CO2 Coalition is honored to present this Climate Issues in Depth paper by two of America ’ s most respected and prolific atmospheric physicists , MIT professor emeritus Richard Lindzen , who is a longtime member of the Coalition , and University of Alabama in Huntsville professor John Christy .
Professor Lindzen has published over 200 scientific articles and books over a five-decade career .
He has held professorships at the University of Chicago , Harvard University and MIT .
He is a fellow and award recipient @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American Geophysical Union .
He is also a member of the National Academy of Science and was a lead author of the UN IPCC ’ s third assessment report ’ s scientific volume .
His research has highlighted the scientific uncertainties about the impact of carbon dioxide emissions on temperature and climate more generally .
Professor Christy , the director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville , began studying global climate issues in 1987 .
He has been Alabama ’ s State Climatologist since 2000 and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ since 2002 .
He and CO2 Coalition member Dr. Roy W. Spencer developed and have maintained one of the key global temperature data sets relied on by scientists and government bodies , using microwave data observed in the troposphere from satellites since 1979 .
For this achievement , they were awarded NASA ’ s Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement .
The purpose of this paper is to explain how the data set that is referred to by policy-makers and the media as the global surface temperature record is actually obtained , and where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with climate alarm .
Executive Summary At the center of most discussions of global warming is the record of the global mean surface temperature anomaly—often somewhat misleadingly referred to as the global mean temperature record .
This paper addresses two aspects of this record .
First , we note that this record is only one link in a fairly long chain of inference leading to the claimed need for worldwide reduction in CO2 emissions .
Second , we explore the implications of the way the record is constructed and presented , and show @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is because the record is often treated as a kind of single , direct instrumental measurement .
However , as the late Stan Grotch of the Laurence Livermore Laboratory pointed out 30 years ago , it is really the average of widely scattered station data , where the actual data points are almost evenly spread between large positive and negative values .
The average is simply the small difference of these positive and negative excursions , with the usual problem associated with small differences of large numbers : at least thus far , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mean since 1900 is swamped by the normal variations at individual stations , and so bears little relation to what is actually going on at a particular one .
The changes at the stations are distributed around the one-degree global average increase .
Even if a single station had recorded this increase itself , this would take a typical annual range of temperature there , for example , from -10 to 40 degrees in 1900 , and replace it with a range today from -9 to 41 .
People , crops , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hard to tell this difference .
However , the increase looks significant on the charts used in almost all presentations , because they omit the range of the original data points and expand the scale in order to make the mean change look large .
The record does display certain consistent trends , but it is also quite noisy , and fluctuations of a tenth or two of a degree are unlikely to be significant .
In the public discourse , little attention is paid to magnitudes ; the focus is rather on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Given the noise and sampling errors , it is rather easy to “ adjust ” such averaging , and even change the sign of a trend from positive to negative .
The common presentations often suppress the noise by using running averages over periods from 5 to 11 years .
However , such processing can also suppress meaningful features such as the wide variations that are always being experienced at individual stations .
Finally , we show the large natural temperature changes that Americans in 14 major cities must cope with every @ @ @ @ @ @ @ difference between the coldest and warmest moments each year ranges from about 25 degrees Celsius in Miami ( a 45-degree Fahrenheit change ) to 55 degrees in Denver ( a 99-degree Fahrenheit change ) .
We contrast this with the easily manageable 1.2-degree Celsius increase in the global mean temperature anomaly in the past 120 years , which has caused so much alarm in the media and in policy circles .

Guest “putting it in context” by David Middleton
Our friends at the CO2 Coalition have published another excellent report.
This white paper by Richard Lindzen and John Christy explores the global mean temperature anomaly record. Their focus isn’t on whether it’s right or wrong; it’s on its significance relative to natural variability and its inherently low signal-to-noise ratio. Here’s the executive summary:
STUDIES AND RESOURCES, WHITE PAPERS AND OTHER PUBLICATIONS
4 DEC, 2020
The Global Mean Temperature Anomaly Record
How it works and why it is misleading
by Richard S. Lindzen and John R. Christy
The CO2 Coalition is honored to present this Climate Issues in Depth paper by two of America’s most respected and prolific atmospheric physicists, MIT professor emeritus Richard Lindzen, who is a longtime member of the Coalition, and University of Alabama in Huntsville professor John Christy.
Professor Lindzen has published over 200 scientific articles and books over a five-decade career. He has held professorships at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. He is a fellow and award recipient of the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union. He is also a member of the National Academy of Science and was a lead author of the UN IPCC’s third assessment report’s scientific volume. His research has highlighted the scientific uncertainties about the impact of carbon dioxide emissions on temperature and climate more generally.
Professor Christy, the director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville, began studying global climate issues in 1987. He has been Alabama’s State Climatologist since 2000 and a fellow of the American Meteorological Society since 2002. He and CO2 Coalition member Dr. Roy W. Spencer developed and have maintained one of the key global temperature data sets relied on by scientists and government bodies, using microwave data observed in the troposphere from satellites since 1979. For this achievement, they were awarded NASA’s Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement.
The purpose of this paper is to explain how the data set that is referred to by policy-makers and the media as the global surface temperature record is actually obtained, and where it fits into the popular narrative associated with climate alarm.
Executive Summary
At the center of most discussions of global warming is the record of the global mean surface temperature anomaly—often somewhat misleadingly referred to as the global mean temperature record. This paper addresses two aspects of this record. First, we note that this record is only one link in a fairly long chain of inference leading to the claimed need for worldwide reduction in CO2 emissions. Second, we explore the implications of the way the record is constructed and presented, and show why the record is misleading.
This is because the record is often treated as a kind of single, direct instrumental measurement. However, as the late Stan Grotch of the Laurence Livermore Laboratory pointed out 30 years ago, it is really the average of widely scattered station data, where the actual data points are almost evenly spread between large positive and negative values.
The average is simply the small difference of these positive and negative excursions, with the usual problem associated with small differences of large numbers: at least thus far, the one-degree Celsius increase in the global mean since 1900 is swamped by the normal variations at individual stations, and so bears little relation to what is actually going on at a particular one.
The changes at the stations are distributed around the one-degree global average increase. Even if a single station had recorded this increase itself, this would take a typical annual range of temperature there, for example, from -10 to 40 degrees in 1900, and replace it with a range today from -9 to 41. People, crops, and weather at that station would find it hard to tell this difference.
However, the increase looks significant on the charts used in almost all presentations, because they omit the range of the original data points and expand the scale in order to make the mean change look large.
The record does display certain consistent trends, but it is also quite noisy, and fluctuations of a tenth or two of a degree are unlikely to be significant. In the public discourse, little attention is paid to magnitudes; the focus is rather on whether this anomaly is increasing or decreasing. Given the noise and sampling errors, it is rather easy to “adjust” such averaging, and even change the sign of a trend from positive to negative.
The common presentations often suppress the noise by using running averages over periods from 5 to 11 years. However, such processing can also suppress meaningful features such as the wide variations that are always being experienced at individual stations. Finally, we show the large natural temperature changes that Americans in 14 major cities must cope with every year. For example, the average difference between the coldest and warmest moments each year ranges from about 25 degrees Celsius in Miami (a 45-degree Fahrenheit change) to 55 degrees in Denver (a 99-degree Fahrenheit change). We contrast this with the easily manageable 1.2-degree Celsius increase in the global mean temperature anomaly in the past 120 years, which has caused so much alarm in the media and in policy circles.


wattsupwiththat--2020-12-10--Anthropocene: human-made materials now weigh as much as all living biomass, say scientists

Jan Zalasiewicz , University of Leicester and Mark Williams , University of Leicester Our deficiencies have always driven us , even among our distant ancestors , back in the last Ice Age .
Having neither the speed and strength to hunt large prey , nor sharp teeth and claws to tear flesh , we improvised spears , flint knives , scrapers .
Lacking a thick pelt , we took the fur of other animals .
As the ice receded , we devised more means of survival and comfort – stone dwellings , ploughs , wheeled vehicles .
All these inventions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrested from a natural wilderness that seemed endless .
The idea of a natural world that dwarfed humanity and its creations long persisted , even into modern times – only to run , lately , into concerns that climate was changing , and species were dying through our actions .
How could that be , with us so small , and nature so large ?
Now a new study in Nature by a team of scientists from the Weizman Institute in Israel upends that perspective .
Our constructions have now – indeed , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same mass as that of all living organisms on Earth .
The human enterprise is growing fast , too , while nature keeps shrinking .
The science-fiction scenario of an engineered planet is already here .
It seems a simple comparison , and yet is fiendishly difficult in practice .
But this team has practice in dealing with such impossible challenges .
A couple of years ago they worked out the first part of the equation , the mass of all life on Earth – including that of all the fish in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , trees on land , birds in the air and much more besides .
Earth ’ s biosphere now weighs a little less than 1.2 trillion tonnes ( of dry mass , not counting water ) , trees on land making up most of it .
It was something like double that before humans started clearing forests – and it is still diminishing .
Now , the team has delved into the statistics of industrial production and mass flows of all kinds , and reconstructed the growth , from the beginning of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ anthropogenic mass ” .
This is all the things we build – houses , cars , roads , aeroplanes and myriad other things .
The pattern they found was strikingly different .
The stuff we build totted up to something like 35 billion tonnes in the year 1900 , rising to be roughly double that by the middle of the 20th century .
Then , that burst of prosperity after the second world war , termed the Great Acceleration , and our stuff increased several-fold to a little over half a trillion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In the past 20 years it has doubled again , to be equivalent to , this year , the mass of all living things .
In coming years , the living world will be far outweighed – threefold by 2040 , they say , if current trends hold .
What is this stuff that we make ?
It is now of extraordinary , and exploding , diversity .
The number of “ technospecies ” now far exceeds the estimated 9 million biological species on Earth , and counting them exceeds even the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But our stuff can be broken down into ingredients , of which concrete and aggregates take a gargantuan share – about four-fifths .
Then come bricks , asphalt and metals .
On this scale , plastics are a minor ingredient – and yet their mass is still greater , now , than that of all animals on Earth .
It ’ s a revealing , meticulous study , and nicely clear about what the measurements include and exclude .
They do not include , for instance , the rock and earth bulldozed and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nor all of the waste rock generated in mining the ingredients : currently , nearly a third of a trillion tonnes of such material is shifted each year .
Add in the Earth material that we use and abuse in other ways , in ploughing farmland , and letting sediment pile up behind dams , and humans have cumulatively used and discarded some 30 trillion tonnes of Earth ’ s various resources .
Whichever way that you cut the cake , the team ’ s final point in its groundbreaking study hits home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recent analysis we both worked on .
Since the mid-20th century , the Earth has been set on a new , human-driven trajectory – one that is leaving the stable conditions of the Holocene Epoch , and is entering the uncertain , and rapidly changing , new world of the Anthropocene .
The weight of evidence , here , seems unarguable .
Jan Zalasiewicz , Professor of Palaeobiology , University of Leicester and Mark Williams , Professor of Palaeobiology , University of Leicester This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

Jan Zalasiewicz, University of Leicester and Mark Williams, University of Leicester
Our deficiencies have always driven us, even among our distant ancestors, back in the last Ice Age. Having neither the speed and strength to hunt large prey, nor sharp teeth and claws to tear flesh, we improvised spears, flint knives, scrapers. Lacking a thick pelt, we took the fur of other animals. As the ice receded, we devised more means of survival and comfort – stone dwellings, ploughs, wheeled vehicles. All these inventions allowed small oases of civilisation to be wrested from a natural wilderness that seemed endless.
The idea of a natural world that dwarfed humanity and its creations long persisted, even into modern times – only to run, lately, into concerns that climate was changing, and species were dying through our actions. How could that be, with us so small, and nature so large?
Now a new study in Nature by a team of scientists from the Weizman Institute in Israel upends that perspective. Our constructions have now – indeed, spookily, just this year – attained the same mass as that of all living organisms on Earth. The human enterprise is growing fast, too, while nature keeps shrinking. The science-fiction scenario of an engineered planet is already here.
It seems a simple comparison, and yet is fiendishly difficult in practice. But this team has practice in dealing with such impossible challenges. A couple of years ago they worked out the first part of the equation, the mass of all life on Earth – including that of all the fish in the sea, microbes in the soil, trees on land, birds in the air and much more besides. Earth’s biosphere now weighs a little less than 1.2 trillion tonnes (of dry mass, not counting water), trees on land making up most of it. It was something like double that before humans started clearing forests – and it is still diminishing.
Ancient General Sherman Tree in Sequoia National Park, California. This tree is the largest known living single stem tree on Earth.
Now, the team has delved into the statistics of industrial production and mass flows of all kinds, and reconstructed the growth, from the beginning of the 20th century, of what they call “anthropogenic mass”. This is all the things we build – houses, cars, roads, aeroplanes and myriad other things. The pattern they found was strikingly different. The stuff we build totted up to something like 35 billion tonnes in the year 1900, rising to be roughly double that by the middle of the 20th century. Then, that burst of prosperity after the second world war, termed the Great Acceleration, and our stuff increased several-fold to a little over half a trillion tonnes by the end of the century. In the past 20 years it has doubled again, to be equivalent to, this year, the mass of all living things. In coming years, the living world will be far outweighed – threefold by 2040, they say, if current trends hold.
Most of the weight is in concrete.
What is this stuff that we make? It is now of extraordinary, and exploding, diversity. The number of “technospecies” now far exceeds the estimated 9 million biological species on Earth, and counting them exceeds even the formidable calculating powers of this team. But our stuff can be broken down into ingredients, of which concrete and aggregates take a gargantuan share – about four-fifths. Then come bricks, asphalt and metals. On this scale, plastics are a minor ingredient – and yet their mass is still greater, now, than that of all animals on Earth.
It’s a revealing, meticulous study, and nicely clear about what the measurements include and exclude. They do not include, for instance, the rock and earth bulldozed and landscaped as foundations for our constructions, nor all of the waste rock generated in mining the ingredients: currently, nearly a third of a trillion tonnes of such material is shifted each year. Add in the Earth material that we use and abuse in other ways, in ploughing farmland, and letting sediment pile up behind dams, and humans have cumulatively used and discarded some 30 trillion tonnes of Earth’s various resources.
Whichever way that you cut the cake, the team’s final point in its groundbreaking study hits home, and chimes with that of another recent analysis we both worked on. Since the mid-20th century, the Earth has been set on a new, human-driven trajectory – one that is leaving the stable conditions of the Holocene Epoch, and is entering the uncertain, and rapidly changing, new world of the Anthropocene. The weight of evidence, here, seems unarguable.
Jan Zalasiewicz, Professor of Palaeobiology, University of Leicester and Mark Williams, Professor of Palaeobiology, University of Leicester
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
0 0 votes Article Rating
Share this: Print
Email
Facebook
Twitter
GETTR
Telegram
Like this: Like Loading...


wattsupwiththat--2020-12-09--Sea surface skin temperature

Sea surface skin temperature

In previous posts , see here and here , I ’ ve tried to show that because the oceans cover 71 % of Earth and they contain 99 % of the thermal energy stored on the Earth ’ s surface , they dominate the speed and magnitude of climate changes .
In all my posts the Earth ’ s surface is defined as everything from the ocean floor to the top of the atmosphere .
The details of the calculation of ocean and atmospheric heat content is detailed in this spreadsheet .
The ocean ’ s huge heat capacity prevents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those that do occur .
Attempting to show the direction , speed , and magnitude of climate change by measuring and averaging atmospheric surface temperatures is pointless , in my opinion .
The record we have of atmospheric and ocean surface temperatures is too short and far too inaccurate to provide us with useful trends on a climatic ( 30 years + ) time scale .
Further , these records are sporadic measurements in a chaotic surface zone that has large temperature swings .
In Montana , United States , for example , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as -70°F ( -57°C ) and as high as 117°F ( 47°C ) .
These enormous swings make measuring year-to-year global average differences of 0.1°C exceedingly difficult .
Yet , this is the precision demanded if we are to properly characterize a climate that is only warming at a rate of roughly 1.4°C/century , which is 0.014°C per year and 0.14°C/decade .
The measurements are especially useful for predicting the weather but are inappropriate for measuring changes of less than half of a degree over climatic time spans .
We need to measure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this purpose .
This post and the next one present evidence that the mixed layer in the ocean seems to be well suited to the task .
In my opinion , to get a proper handle on the direction and speed of global warming , we must look to temperature changes in the ocean .
Especially those portions of the ocean that are in constant contact with the atmosphere .
Very long-time frame climate change , one-thousand years plus , involves the entire ocean .
But for time frames of one-hundred years or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the upper few hundred meters of the ocean .
The temperature profile of the upper ocean is very complex .
This is complicated by the poor quality of our ocean-surface temperature measurements , especially prior to the introduction of Argo floats and modern ocean buoy measurements , like the Triton buoys over the last 20 years .
Ships cover a limited area of the ocean and the depth , consistency and quality of their temperature measurements are uncertain .
Satellite measurements of the very top of the ocean are possible , but these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ocean skin effect .
At the ocean-air interface , temperatures change rapidly .
The magnitude of the change and the thickness of the uppermost ocean affected is determined by cloudiness , whether it is night or day , and wind speed .
This “ skin ” is thicker on calm cloudless days and thinner at night and on windy cloudy days .
The temperature at the ocean-air interface ( “ SST ” ) is what is measured by radiometers and satellites .
Unfortunately , the relationship between this temperature and the more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ temperature is unknown .
The relationship changes rapidly and is complicated .
Various models have been proposed ( Horrocks , O ’ Carroll , Candy , Nightingale , & Harris , 2003 ) , but none have the reliability and accuracy required .
To make matters worse , right at the surface there is a population of cyanobacteria that works to change the temperature and lower the salinity of the surface water ( Wurl , et al.
, 2018 ) .
The sea surface temperature problem is best illustrated with the diagram in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Group for High Resolution Sea Surface Temperature .
They are striving to understand the ocean skin layer so that satellite sea-surface temperature measurements can be properly combined with measured ocean temperatures .
The temperature difference between the SST and the stable portion of the mixed layer can be three to six degrees daily ( Wick & Castro , 2020 ) .
As Gary Wick and Sandra Castro explain : The temperatures in the quote are given in Kelvin ( K ) , and equivalent to degrees Celsius .
The main point is that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ occur in calm conditions on clear ( cloudless ) days .
Figure 1 shows that the temperature increases can affect water as deep as ten meters .
But differences of more than 0.5°C are almost always limited to the top meter of the ocean .
As we will see in the next post on the mixed layer , these known skin anomalies are ignored in ocean temperature datasets .
They often have a measurement labeled as zero depth , but it is taken under the surface , usually at a depth of 20 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is often defined as the temperature of the layer that has a temperature within 0.5°C of the surface temperature ( Levitus , 1982 ) .
This is not precise , what they mean is the temperature of the ocean just under the surface , perhaps 20 to 100 cm .
Except on clear windless days , this will be the “ foundation ” temperature .
At night and on cloudy or windy days , the temperature will always be the “ foundation ” temperature .
The mixed layer has homogenous properties due to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ limit of 0.5°C is a convenient definition , but it breaks down near the poles in the winter where a more complex definition is needed .
Numerous methods have been proposed , too many to list here , but the complex one described by James Holte and Lynne Talley ( Holte & Talley , 2008 ) is currently favored .
Their technique is widely used today to choose a “ mixed-layer depth , ” which is the bottom of the mixed layer .
It is necessary because in the polar regions , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by surface heat loss , can mix the water column to 2000 meters or even deeper .
As we will see in the next post , it is in these areas that thermal energy from the surface is transmitted to the deep ocean .
There are many ocean temperature datasets , and we will discuss the data from several of them in the next post .
Figure 2 is a plot of the global average December ocean temperatures from the surface to 140 meters from the University of Hamburg datasets .
This plot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discussed , with real global data .
The temperatures reported by the University of Hamburg are average temperatures over more than 12 years and do not represent any given year .
The NOAA MIMOC temperatures , which we will look at in the next post , are the same .
Figure 3 shows the average year of the measurements and the standard deviation of the years .
Both the University of Hamburg and NOAA recognize that the Argo data , which is the bulk of their raw data , is sparse .
There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and longitude ( ~32,913 sq .
miles at 40° North or South or 84,916 sq .
km . )
This float sends one complete profile to us every ten days .
The University and NOAA have decided that to combat the paucity of data , they should compile monthly averages of all data they could find .
As we will see in the next post the big changes in the mixed layer occur by month and location , so this makes some sense .
Above the foundation or mixed layer , there are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ These are defined by GHRSST as follows .
I ’ ve edited the GHRSST text for clarity , the original text can be viewed here .
At the exact air-sea interface a hypothetical temperature called the interface temperature ( SSTint ) is defined although this is of no practical use because it can not be measured using current technology .
The skin temperature ( SSTskin ) is defined as the temperature measured by an infrared radiometer typically operating at wavelengths 3.7-12 µm ( chosen for consistency with the majority of infrared satellite measurements @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conductive diffusion-dominated sub-layer at a depth of ~10-20 micrometers .
SSTskin measurements are subject to a large potential diurnal cycle including cool skin layer effects ( especially at night under clear skies and low wind speed conditions ) and warm layer effects in the daytime .
The subskin temperature ( SSTsubskin ) represents the temperature at the base of the conductive laminar sub-layer of the ocean surface .
For practical purposes , SSTsubskin can be well approximated to the measurement of surface temperature by a microwave radiometer operating in the 6-11 GHz frequency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ direct nor invariant to changing physical conditions or to the specific geometry of the microwave measurements .
The surface temperature at depth ( SSTz or SSTdepth )  All measurements of water temperature beneath the SSTsubskin are referred to as depth temperatures ( SSTdepth ) measured using a wide variety of platforms and sensors such as drifting buoys , vertical profiling floats ( like Argo ) , or deep thermistor chains at depths ranging from 10 to 750m ( like Triton and Tao ) .
These temperature observations are distinct from those obtained @ @ @ @ @ @ @ SSTsubskin ) and must be qualified by a measurement depth in meters .
The foundation SST , SSTfnd , is the temperature free of diurnal ( daily ) temperature variability .
That is , the top of the stable portion of the mixed layer .
Only in situ contact thermometry can measure SSTfnd .
In summary , SST and atmospheric surface temperatures are too affected by weather and diurnal variability to measure climate changes with any reliability or precision .
Total ocean or deep ocean temperatures give us a hint at long climatic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but they tell us little about changes in the one-hundred-year range .
The ocean mixed layer is a zone that begins between one millimeter and roughly ten meters below the ocean surface .
Above this depth , temperatures are affected minute-by minute by the atmosphere and sunlight .
At night , the top of the mixed layer moves closer to the surface but can be affected by windspeed , precipitation , and cloudiness .
Below the top of the mixed layer , the temperature is more stable than the atmosphere and ocean @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and density of the layer is nearly constant from the top to the bottom due to turbulence .
It reflects surface temperatures but is a function of an average of the previous several weeks .
The thickness of the mixed layer varies seasonally from a few tens of meters to several hundred meters .
We will discuss the mixed layer in much more detail in the next post .
None of this is in my new book Politics and Climate Change : A History but buy it anyway .
You can download the @ @ @

By Andy May
In previous posts, see here and here, I’ve tried to show that because the oceans cover 71% of Earth and they contain 99% of the thermal energy stored on the Earth’s surface, they dominate the speed and magnitude of climate changes. In all my posts the Earth’s surface is defined as everything from the ocean floor to the top of the atmosphere. The details of the calculation of ocean and atmospheric heat content is detailed in this spreadsheet. The ocean’s huge heat capacity prevents large temperature swings and dampens and delays those that do occur.
Attempting to show the direction, speed, and magnitude of climate change by measuring and averaging atmospheric surface temperatures is pointless, in my opinion. The record we have of atmospheric and ocean surface temperatures is too short and far too inaccurate to provide us with useful trends on a climatic (30 years +) time scale. Further, these records are sporadic measurements in a chaotic surface zone that has large temperature swings. In Montana, United States, for example, recent minimum/maximum temperatures have been as low as -70°F (-57°C) and as high as 117°F (47°C). These enormous swings make measuring year-to-year global average differences of 0.1°C exceedingly difficult. Yet, this is the precision demanded if we are to properly characterize a climate that is only warming at a rate of roughly 1.4°C/century, which is 0.014°C per year and 0.14°C/decade.
The measurements are especially useful for predicting the weather but are inappropriate for measuring changes of less than half of a degree over climatic time spans. We need to measure something more stable and less chaotic for this purpose. This post and the next one present evidence that the mixed layer in the ocean seems to be well suited to the task.
In my opinion, to get a proper handle on the direction and speed of global warming, we must look to temperature changes in the ocean. Especially those portions of the ocean that are in constant contact with the atmosphere. Very long-time frame climate change, one-thousand years plus, involves the entire ocean. But for time frames of one-hundred years or less, we are dealing mostly with the upper few hundred meters of the ocean.
The temperature profile of the upper ocean is very complex. This is complicated by the poor quality of our ocean-surface temperature measurements, especially prior to the introduction of Argo floats and modern ocean buoy measurements, like the Triton buoys over the last 20 years. Ships cover a limited area of the ocean and the depth, consistency and quality of their temperature measurements are uncertain. Satellite measurements of the very top of the ocean are possible, but these measurements are complicated by what is called the ocean skin effect.
The Ocean Skin

At the ocean-air interface, temperatures change rapidly. The magnitude of the change and the thickness of the uppermost ocean affected is determined by cloudiness, whether it is night or day, and wind speed. This “skin” is thicker on calm cloudless days and thinner at night and on windy cloudy days. The temperature at the ocean-air interface (“SST”) is what is measured by radiometers and satellites. Unfortunately, the relationship between this temperature and the more stable mixed-layer temperature or “foundation” temperature is unknown. The relationship changes rapidly and is complicated. Various models have been proposed (Horrocks, O’Carroll, Candy, Nightingale, & Harris, 2003), but none have the reliability and accuracy required.
To make matters worse, right at the surface there is a population of cyanobacteria that works to change the temperature and lower the salinity of the surface water (Wurl, et al., 2018). The sea surface temperature problem is best illustrated with the diagram in Figure 1, from GHRSST or the Group for High Resolution Sea Surface Temperature. They are striving to understand the ocean skin layer so that satellite sea-surface temperature measurements can be properly combined with measured ocean temperatures.
Figure 1. The GHRSST diagram of the temperature at the ocean surface. Theocean conditions, especially the wind speed and daytime or nighttime can make a 2.5°C difference, or larger, in the temperature gradient from the surface to the foundation (stable portion of the mixed layer) temperature. The depth to the top of the stable portion of the mixed layer can vary from essentially zero to 10 meters. Source: GHRSST.
The temperature difference between the SST and the stable portion of the mixed layer can be three to six degrees daily (Wick & Castro, 2020). As Gary Wick and Sandra Castro explain:
“The daily cycle of solar radiation leads to periodic heating of the near-surface layer of the ocean. At low wind speeds, turbulent mixing is reduced, and a warm layer and diurnal thermocline can form near the ocean surface during the day. At night, mixing typically erodes this layer. While the amplitude of diurnal warming is relatively small on average [0.5 K], under conditions of very low wind speed and sufficient insolation, the warming at the surface sensed by satellites can be highly significant… In situ observations have shown warming in excess of 5K at depths of 0.3–0.6 m. Satellite observations from multiple sensors have observed extreme warming events up to 7K in magnitude at the surface, and it has been suggested that events exceeding 5K are not infrequent.” (Wick & Castro, 2020)
The temperatures in the quote are given in Kelvin (K), and equivalent to degrees Celsius. The main point is that exceptionally large differences in the ocean SST occur in calm conditions on clear (cloudless) days. Figure 1 shows that the temperature increases can affect water as deep as ten meters. But differences of more than 0.5°C are almost always limited to the top meter of the ocean. As we will see in the next post on the mixed layer, these known skin anomalies are ignored in ocean temperature datasets. They often have a measurement labeled as zero depth, but it is taken under the surface, usually at a depth of 20 cm or more. The mixed-layer temperature is often defined as the temperature of the layer that has a temperature within 0.5°C of the surface temperature (Levitus, 1982). This is not precise, what they mean is the temperature of the ocean just under the surface, perhaps 20 to 100 cm. Except on clear windless days, this will be the “foundation” temperature. At night and on cloudy or windy days, the temperature will always be the “foundation” temperature.
The mixed layer has homogenous properties due to turbulent mixing and using a temperature difference limit of 0.5°C is a convenient definition, but it breaks down near the poles in the winter where a more complex definition is needed. Numerous methods have been proposed, too many to list here, but the complex one described by James Holte and Lynne Talley (Holte & Talley, 2008) is currently favored. Their technique is widely used today to choose a “mixed-layer depth,” which is the bottom of the mixed layer. It is necessary because in the polar regions, in the winter, deep convection, driven by surface heat loss, can mix the water column to 2000 meters or even deeper. As we will see in the next post, it is in these areas that thermal energy from the surface is transmitted to the deep ocean.
There are many ocean temperature datasets, and we will discuss the data from several of them in the next post. Figure 2 is a plot of the global average December ocean temperatures from the surface to 140 meters from the University of Hamburg datasets. This plot illustrates the temperature profile terms we have discussed, with real global data.
Figure 2. Global average December temperature profile from the surface to 140 meters. This graph shows the “foundation” temperature in the mixed layer, the temperature is close to constant from the surface to about 20 meters, then begins to decline. Once it is 0.5°C different from the temperature just below the surface, the “mixed layer depth” is reached. Data source: University of Hamburg.
The temperatures reported by the University of Hamburg are average temperatures over more than 12 years and do not represent any given year. The NOAA MIMOC temperatures, which we will look at in the next post, are the same. Figure 3 shows the average year of the measurements and the standard deviation of the years.
Figure 3. The data used in Figure 2 is not from a single year, but the average of data from over 12 years. The central year for each depth is shown in blue (left scale) and the standard deviation of all years used is shown in orange (right scale). Data source: University of Hamburg.
Both the University of Hamburg and NOAA recognize that the Argo data, which is the bulk of their raw data, is sparse. There is one float per 3° of latitude and longitude (~32,913 sq. miles at 40° North or South or 84,916 sq. km.) This float sends one complete profile to us every ten days. The University and NOAA have decided that to combat the paucity of data, they should compile monthly averages of all data they could find. As we will see in the next post the big changes in the mixed layer occur by month and location, so this makes some sense.
Above the foundation or mixed layer, there are other zones identified in Figure 1. These are defined by GHRSST as follows. I’ve edited the GHRSST text for clarity, the original text can be viewed here.
The interface temperature (SSTint)

At the exact air-sea interface a hypothetical temperature called the interface temperature (SSTint) is defined although this is of no practical use because it cannot be measured using current technology.
The skin sea surface temperature (SSTskin)

The skin temperature (SSTskin) is defined as the temperature measured by an infrared radiometer typically operating at wavelengths 3.7-12 µm (chosen for consistency with the majority of infrared satellite measurements) that represents the temperature within the conductive diffusion-dominated sub-layer at a depth of ~10-20 micrometers. SSTskin measurements are subject to a large potential diurnal cycle including cool skin layer effects (especially at night under clear skies and low wind speed conditions) and warm layer effects in the daytime.
The sub-skin sea surface temperature (SSTsub-skin)

The subskin temperature (SSTsubskin) represents the temperature at the base of the conductive laminar sub-layer of the ocean surface. For practical purposes, SSTsubskin can be well approximated to the measurement of surface temperature by a microwave radiometer operating in the 6-11 GHz frequency range, but the relationship is neither direct nor invariant to changing physical conditions or to the specific geometry of the microwave measurements.
The surface temperature at depth (SSTz or SSTdepth)

All measurements of water temperature beneath the SSTsubskin are referred to as depth temperatures (SSTdepth) measured using a wide variety of platforms and sensors such as drifting buoys, vertical profiling floats (like Argo), or deep thermistor chains at depths ranging from 10 to 750m (like Triton and Tao). These temperature observations are distinct from those obtained using remote sensing techniques (SSTskin and SSTsubskin) and must be qualified by a measurement depth in meters.
The foundation temperature (SSTfnd)

The foundation SST, SSTfnd, is the temperature free of diurnal (daily) temperature variability. That is, the top of the stable portion of the mixed layer. Only in situ contact thermometry can measure SSTfnd.
Conclusions

In summary, SST and atmospheric surface temperatures are too affected by weather and diurnal variability to measure climate changes with any reliability or precision. Total ocean or deep ocean temperatures give us a hint at long climatic changes of a thousand years or more, but they tell us little about changes in the one-hundred-year range.
The ocean mixed layer is a zone that begins between one millimeter and roughly ten meters below the ocean surface. Above this depth, temperatures are affected minute-by minute by the atmosphere and sunlight. At night, the top of the mixed layer moves closer to the surface but can be affected by windspeed, precipitation, and cloudiness. Below the top of the mixed layer, the temperature is more stable than the atmosphere and ocean surface. The temperature, salinity, and density of the layer is nearly constant from the top to the bottom due to turbulence. It reflects surface temperatures but is a function of an average of the previous several weeks. The thickness of the mixed layer varies seasonally from a few tens of meters to several hundred meters. We will discuss the mixed layer in much more detail in the next post.
None of this is in my new book Politics and Climate Change: A History but buy it anyway.
You can download the bibliography here.
0 0 votes Article Rating
Share this: Print
Email
Facebook
Twitter
GETTR
Telegram
Like this: Like Loading...


wattsupwiththat--2020-12-09--Coral recovery during a prolonged heatwave offers new hope

University of Victoria biologists have discovered how some corals managed to survive a globally unprecedented heatwave , in a first-ever study that provides new hope for the long-term survival of coral reefs in the face of climate change .
“ The devastating effects of climate change on coral reefs are well known .
Finding ways to boost coral survival through marine heatwaves is crucial if coral reefs are to endure the coming decades of climate change , ” says UVic marine biologist Julia Baum , the study ’ s senior author .
Published today in Nature Communications , the study @ @ @ @ @ @ @ research team as they tracked hundreds of coral colonies on reefs around Christmas Island ( Kiritimati ) , throughout the 2015-2016 El Niño .
Heat stress from that El Niño triggered the third-ever global coral bleaching event , causing mass coral bleaching and mortality on reefs around the world .
Its epicentre was Christmas Island , where the heatwave lasted an unprecedented 10 months .
Worldwide , coral reef fisheries are worth US $ 6.8 billion annually , and are a vital source of food and income for hundreds of millions of people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lead-up to the United Nations Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development ( 2021-2030 ) , there is a renewed and global call to reverse the cycle of decline in ocean health .
“ Understanding how some corals can survive prolonged heatwaves could provide an opportunity to mitigate the impact of marine heatwaves on coral reefs , allowing us to buy time as we work to limit greenhouse gas emissions , ” says Danielle Claar , who led the study as a UVic doctoral student and is now a postdoctoral researcher at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the world ’ s coral reefs because corals are highly sensitive to the temperature of their surrounding waters .
During a heatwave , corals release the algae that live in their tissues and produce food for them , causing the coral to turn completely white–a phenomenon known as coral bleaching .
Prolonged bleaching often causes corals to die from starvation .
If they can reclaim their food source within a few weeks , they can usually recover .
To date , coral recovery from bleaching has only ever been observed after heat stress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that heatwaves will continue to increase in both frequency and duration , a coral ’ s ability to recover its food source during a prolonged heatwave is essential to its survival .
“ Observing corals recovering from bleaching while still baking in hot waters is a game changer , ” says Baum .
Baum adds that corals only exhibited this capacity if they were not also exposed to other types of human-caused stressors , such as water pollution .
Until now it ’ s been unclear if local reef management could help improve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ We ’ ve found a glimmer of hope that protection from local stressors can help corals , ” says Baum .
“ Although this pathway to survival may not be open to all corals or in all conditions , it demonstrates an innovative strategy for survival that could be leveraged by conservationists to support coral survival , ” adds Claar .
The research was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada , the US National Science Foundation , the David and Lucile Packard Foundation , The Pew Charitable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Conservation , the Rufford Foundation , the Canadian Foundation for Innovation and the Shedd Aquarium .

UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA
Research News
IMAGE: UVIC MARINE BIOLOGIST JULIA BAUM SAMPLING PLATYGYRA COLONIES ON KIRITIMATI (CHRISTMAS ISLAND), 2019. view more CREDIT: CREDIT: KRISTINA TIETJEN.
University of Victoria biologists have discovered how some corals managed to survive a globally unprecedented heatwave, in a first-ever study that provides new hope for the long-term survival of coral reefs in the face of climate change.
“The devastating effects of climate change on coral reefs are well known. Finding ways to boost coral survival through marine heatwaves is crucial if coral reefs are to endure the coming decades of climate change,” says UVic marine biologist Julia Baum, the study’s senior author.
Published today in Nature Communications, the study presents the discoveries made by the international research team as they tracked hundreds of coral colonies on reefs around Christmas Island (Kiritimati), throughout the 2015-2016 El Niño. Heat stress from that El Niño triggered the third-ever global coral bleaching event, causing mass coral bleaching and mortality on reefs around the world. Its epicentre was Christmas Island, where the heatwave lasted an unprecedented 10 months.
Worldwide, coral reef fisheries are worth US$6.8 billion annually, and are a vital source of food and income for hundreds of millions of people in tropical island nations. In the lead-up to the United Nations Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development (2021-2030), there is a renewed and global call to reverse the cycle of decline in ocean health.
“Understanding how some corals can survive prolonged heatwaves could provide an opportunity to mitigate the impact of marine heatwaves on coral reefs, allowing us to buy time as we work to limit greenhouse gas emissions,” says Danielle Claar, who led the study as a UVic doctoral student and is now a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Washington.
Climate change threatens the world’s coral reefs because corals are highly sensitive to the temperature of their surrounding waters. During a heatwave, corals release the algae that live in their tissues and produce food for them, causing the coral to turn completely white–a phenomenon known as coral bleaching. Prolonged bleaching often causes corals to die from starvation. If they can reclaim their food source within a few weeks, they can usually recover.
To date, coral recovery from bleaching has only ever been observed after heat stress subsides. With global climate models predicting that heatwaves will continue to increase in both frequency and duration, a coral’s ability to recover its food source during a prolonged heatwave is essential to its survival.
“Observing corals recovering from bleaching while still baking in hot waters is a game changer,” says Baum.
Baum adds that corals only exhibited this capacity if they were not also exposed to other types of human-caused stressors, such as water pollution. Until now it’s been unclear if local reef management could help improve corals chances of surviving climate change. “We’ve found a glimmer of hope that protection from local stressors can help corals,” says Baum.
“Although this pathway to survival may not be open to all corals or in all conditions, it demonstrates an innovative strategy for survival that could be leveraged by conservationists to support coral survival,” adds Claar.
###
The research was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, the US National Science Foundation, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, The Pew Charitable Trusts’ Pew Fellows Program in Marine Conservation, the Rufford Foundation, the Canadian Foundation for Innovation and the Shedd Aquarium.
From EurekAlert!
0 0 votes Article Rating
Share this: Print
Email
Facebook
Twitter
GETTR
Telegram
Like this: Like Loading...


wattsupwiththat--2020-12-10--Credit, Covid and Climate: ‘Rock Star’ Urges Central Banks To Join The Fight Against Climate Change

Not often does a central banker get called a “ rock star ” but that is among the accolades frequently cited in introductions to Mark Carney , the former Governor of the Bank of England ( 2013 – 2020 ) .
The BBC was no exception and recited the ‘ rock star ’ moniker in introducing Carney for the prestigious Reith Lecture last week .
Posing the ‘ triple threat ’ of credit , Covid and climate , the lecture starts off reminding its audience that there is always a ‘ moral dimension ’ to doing business .
Given the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , central banks as the supervisors of credit need to “ give shareholders the ammunition they need to impose their moral sentiments on the managers of their assets ” .
One would think that the appropriateness of the image of a central banker as a ‘ rock star ’ is the least of our worries in a world beset by the Covid-19 restrictions and widespread economic carnage .
But will Carney ‘ rock ’ the world ’ s central banks into abandoning their narrow mandate to ensure financial stability by managing liquidity and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cusp of seeing central banks wade into the murky politics of ESG ( environment , social and governance criteria ) , CSR ( corporate social responsibility ) and stakeholder capitalism ?
Those of us above a certain age were brought up with the rather droll image of central bankers as those whose job was to “ take away the punch bowl just when the party gets going ’ ” .
The narrow mandate for central banks was to avert financial crisis and achieve price stability by utilizing its tools of credit creation and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far larger – indeed , planetary — concerns in mind .
Appointed UN special envoy for climate action and finance in December last year , he is ‘ signed up ’ to galvanize action among financial institutions in the lead up to the global climate talks due to take place in Glasgow in November 2021 .
Carney tells us that it is time to abandon the laissez faire ideologues of right wing think tanks , and enlist the central banks to join the ‘ fight against climate change ’ .
The great founder @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Carney points out , was also the author of The Theory of Moral Sentiments and not just the The Wealth of Nations .
In Carney ’ s view , Milton Friedman — the famed Chicago economist , Nobel Laureate and advisor to Margaret Thatcher ’ s monetary policy — abused Adam Smith ’ s vision of a moral economy and led to the “ corrosion of the drift from moral to market sentiments ” .
Carney , to be sure , “ does not want to pin it all on Milton Friedman ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pendulum “ in the direction of the primacy of profit ” .
The caricatured economist hence became ‘ one who knows the price of everything but the value of nothing ’ .
The appointment of Mark Carney as UN special envoy encapsulates the move in a number of countries that seek to link central banks directly to the climate change cause .
Many Western private banks and multilateral financial institutions such as the World Bank , the Asian Development Bank , the European Investment Bank and the International Monetary Fund have already stopped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The European Central Bank now pursues policies to coerce European banks and private sector companies to defund ‘ dirty ’ industries .
Companies that issue debt will be pressured to avoid the fossil fuel sector and instead to make ‘ green ’ investments that have the approval of the ECB .
The European Central Bank will start accepting bonds linked to ‘ sustainability ’ goals in January as part of the ECB President Christine Lagarde ’ s drive to press ahead with the green agenda .
So a central bank will now be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ dirty ’ and which less , presumably depending on which global warming model it adopts for its internal planning and valuations .
One can imagine the ECB issuing reports on how its purchase plan for green bonds — no doubt at prices higher than what uninformed ‘ market sentiments ’ would value them at — will lead to lower earth temperatures 80 years hence .
In noting this dangerous ‘ mission creep ’ of central banks , Professor John Cochrane of the Hoover Institute warns us that the boardrooms of central banks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government .
The US Department of Energy ’ s $ 535 million failed loan to the solar-panel manufacturer Solyndra during President Obama ’ s administration is just one instance of the more scandalous examples of renewable energy subsidies that lost tax-payers ’ money .
If the historical record of governments successfully ‘ picking winners ’ is a skimpy one , that of cozy business-government relations ( ‘ cronyism ’ is a better word ) in pursuit of pet causes – one can ’ t improve on “ saving the planet ” – is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nobel Laureate economist , George Stigler , who first raised serious attention in the 1970s on the problem of “ regulatory capture ” as government departments increasingly become the creatures of those they are mandated to regulate .
There are few better illustrations of Stigler ’ s theory than Obama Environmental Protection Agency ’ s “ sue and settle “ practices — deals through which friendly environmental groups file lawsuits against federal agencies so that court-ordered “ consent decrees ” are issued based upon prearranged settlements crafted together by like-minded climate advocates behind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ banks in the climate cause , however , risks damage at orders of magnitude over what even a hyperactive , weaponized EPA could achieve .
The politicization of the capital allocation process risks an end to the free enterprise system itself .
The considerable power of the central bank over investment decisions and corporate behaviour is seen by environmental advocates as the key to achieving the global transformation needed to ‘ fight climate change ’ – the ‘ Great Reset ’ as elaborated by Klaus Schwab , founder of the World Economic Forum @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The argument that climate change is a risk to the financial system allows central banks to change the terms of the financial playing field in favour of ‘ ESG ’ businesses , and at a stroke destroys the impartiality of central banks towards different regions and sectors of the economy .
At the ECB conference on Monetary Policy in October , Prof. Cochrane notes the irony involved in this .
In his view , climate change does not play a role in financial risks facing private sector companies in the 1 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ companies have more than adequate means to handle the impacts of naturally variable weather .
To the contrary , the key risk facing private enterprise in the West is now posed by the financial regulators themselves .
Now that the ECB has already become the financial vanguard in the Global Reset and ‘ net zero emissions by 2050 ’ agendas under Christine Lagarde , all that is left is for the Biden administration to unleash Janet Yellen ( picked for the Treasury Secretary position ) when it presumably takes office on January 20th @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the wide-ranging regulatory and oversight powers of the Treasury department to fix not only the ‘ climate crisis ’ but also other causes of the progressive package such as gender and racial ’ inclusivity ’ .
U.S. corporate law requires that company directors and executives have a fiduciary duty to shareholders .
In open and competitive markets , enterprises which deliver goods and services at the best combination of quality and price as perceived by consumers are those that serve the shareholder interest best .
So long as they abide by the rules @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shareholder capitalism is the best game in town , as Prof. Friedman argued in a celebrated essay 50 years ago .
When central banks attenuate the shareholder rule , it is an invitation for special interests to encroach into the heart of the financial system .
The central banks ’ headlong rush into climate policy will fatally compromise their ability to fulfil their only legitimate role in a democracy : to ensure sound money and stem financial crises .
Not that they have excelled in this basic role , having floundered in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be well advised to avoid the moral sentiments of rock stars as their guide .

Reposted from Forbes
By Tilak Doshi,
Not often does a central banker get called a “rock star” but that is among the accolades frequently cited in introductions to Mark Carney, the former Governor of the Bank of England (2013 – 2020). The BBC was no exception and recited the ‘rock star’ moniker in introducing Carney for the prestigious Reith Lecture last week. Posing the ‘triple threat’ of credit, Covid and climate, the lecture starts off reminding its audience that there is always a ‘moral dimension’ to doing business. Given the existential threats of climate change and Covid-19, central banks as the supervisors of credit need to “give shareholders the ammunition they need to impose their moral sentiments on the managers of their assets”.
One would think that the appropriateness of the image of a central banker as a ‘rock star’ is the least of our worries in a world beset by the Covid-19 restrictions and widespread economic carnage. But will Carney ‘rock’ the world’s central banks into abandoning their narrow mandate to ensure financial stability by managing liquidity and interest rates? Are we on the cusp of seeing central banks wade into the murky politics of ESG (environment, social and governance criteria), CSR (corporate social responsibility) and stakeholder capitalism?
Those of us above a certain age were brought up with the rather droll image of central bankers as those whose job was to “take away the punch bowl just when the party gets going’”. The narrow mandate for central banks was to avert financial crisis and achieve price stability by utilizing its tools of credit creation and interest rate guidance. But Carney has far larger – indeed, planetary — concerns in mind. Appointed UN special envoy for climate action and finance in December last year, he is ‘signed up’ to galvanize action among financial institutions in the lead up to the global climate talks due to take place in Glasgow in November 2021.
Carney tells us that it is time to abandon the laissez faire ideologues of right wing think tanks, and enlist the central banks to join the ‘fight against climate change’. The great founder of classical political economy Adam Smith, Carney points out, was also the author of The Theory of Moral Sentiments and not just the The Wealth of Nations. In Carney’s view, Milton Friedman — the famed Chicago economist, Nobel Laureate and advisor to Margaret Thatcher’s monetary policy — abused Adam Smith’s vision of a moral economy and led to the “corrosion of the drift from moral to market sentiments”. Carney, to be sure, “does not want to pin it all on Milton Friedman”, but the Nobel Laureate moved the pendulum “in the direction of the primacy of profit”. The caricatured economist hence became ‘one who knows the price of everything but the value of nothing’.
The appointment of Mark Carney as UN special envoy encapsulates the move in a number of countries that seek to link central banks directly to the climate change cause. Many Western private banks and multilateral financial institutions such as the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, the European Investment Bank and the International Monetary Fund have already stopped the funding of fossil fuel-based projects.
The European Central Bank now pursues policies to coerce European banks and private sector companies to defund ‘dirty’ industries . Companies that issue debt will be pressured to avoid the fossil fuel sector and instead to make ‘green’ investments that have the approval of the ECB. The European Central Bank will start accepting bonds linked to ‘sustainability’ goals in January as part of the ECB President Christine Lagarde’s drive to press ahead with the green agenda.
So a central bank will now be involved in defining which industry is more ‘dirty’ and which less, presumably depending on which global warming model it adopts for its internal planning and valuations. One can imagine the ECB issuing reports on how its purchase plan for green bonds — no doubt at prices higher than what uninformed ‘market sentiments’ would value them at — will lead to lower earth temperatures 80 years hence.
In noting this dangerous ‘mission creep’ of central banks, Professor John Cochrane of the Hoover Institute warns us that the boardrooms of central banks risk becoming politicized like other arms of government. The US Department of Energy’s $535 million failed loan to the solar-panel manufacturer Solyndra during President Obama’s administration is just one instance of the more scandalous examples of renewable energy subsidies that lost tax-payers’ money.
If the historical record of governments successfully ‘picking winners’ is a skimpy one, that of cozy business-government relations (‘cronyism’ is a better word) in pursuit of pet causes – one can’t improve on “saving the planet” – is a rich one. It was another Nobel Laureate economist, George Stigler, who first raised serious attention in the 1970s on the problem of “regulatory capture” as government departments increasingly become the creatures of those they are mandated to regulate. There are few better illustrations of Stigler’s theory than Obama Environmental Protection Agency’s “sue and settle “ practices — deals through which friendly environmental groups file lawsuits against federal agencies so that court-ordered “consent decrees” are issued based upon prearranged settlements crafted together by like-minded climate advocates behind closed doors.
The involvement of central banks in the climate cause, however, risks damage at orders of magnitude over what even a hyperactive, weaponized EPA could achieve. The politicization of the capital allocation process risks an end to the free enterprise system itself. The considerable power of the central bank over investment decisions and corporate behaviour is seen by environmental advocates as the key to achieving the global transformation needed to ‘fight climate change’ – the ‘Great Reset’ as elaborated by Klaus Schwab, founder of the World Economic Forum and chief impresario of the Davos jet-set.
The argument that climate change is a risk to the financial system allows central banks to change the terms of the financial playing field in favour of ‘ESG’ businesses, and at a stroke destroys the impartiality of central banks towards different regions and sectors of the economy. At the ECB conference on Monetary Policy in October, Prof. Cochrane notes the irony involved in this. In his view, climate change does not play a role in financial risks facing private sector companies in the 1, 5 or even 10-year range and insurance companies have more than adequate means to handle the impacts of naturally variable weather. To the contrary, the key risk facing private enterprise in the West is now posed by the financial regulators themselves.
Now that the ECB has already become the financial vanguard in the Global Reset and ‘net zero emissions by 2050’ agendas under Christine Lagarde, all that is left is for the Biden administration to unleash Janet Yellen (picked for the Treasury Secretary position) when it presumably takes office on January 20th. Yellen has already promised to use the wide-ranging regulatory and oversight powers of the Treasury department to fix not only the ‘climate crisis’ but also other causes of the progressive package such as gender and racial ’inclusivity’.
U.S. corporate law requires that company directors and executives have a fiduciary duty to shareholders. In open and competitive markets, enterprises which deliver goods and services at the best combination of quality and price as perceived by consumers are those that serve the shareholder interest best. So long as they abide by the rules and ethical norms of the game, shareholder capitalism is the best game in town, as Prof. Friedman argued in a celebrated essay 50 years ago.
When central banks attenuate the shareholder rule, it is an invitation for special interests to encroach into the heart of the financial system. The central banks’ headlong rush into climate policy will fatally compromise their ability to fulfil their only legitimate role in a democracy: to ensure sound money and stem financial crises. Not that they have excelled in this basic role, having floundered in the last financial crisis. Central banks would be well advised to avoid the moral sentiments of rock stars as their guide.
4 4 votes Article Rating
Share this: Print
Email
Facebook
Twitter
GETTR
Telegram
Like this: Like Loading...


wattsupwiththat--2020-12-10--NSF-funded deep ice core to be drilled at Hercules Dome, Antarctica

Antarctica ’ s next deep ice core , drilling down to ice from 130,000 years ago , will be carried out by a multi-institutional U.S. team at Hercules Dome , a location hundreds of miles from today ’ s coastline and a promising site to provide key evidence about the possible last collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet .
The National Science Foundation has funded the roughly five-year , $ 3 million project involving the University of Washington , the University of New Hampshire , the University of California , Irvine and the University of Minnesota .
Work has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but drilling the 1.5-mile ice core likely will begin in 2024 .
“ The ice at this site goes back to a time when sea level was about 6 meters ( 20 feet ) higher than it is now , ” said project leader Eric Steig , a UW professor of Earth and space sciences .
“ One of the most likely reasons that sea level was higher is that a large area of Antarctic , known as the West Antarctic Ice Sheet , was gone.
” Scientists hope to understand the most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sheet in order to better gauge its potential risk in today ’ s warming climate .
Deeper ice layers at this site reach back to Eemian times — the most recent period that , like now , was between ice ages .
The Eemian was even warmer than today ’ s climate and oceans were higher .
“ This location , which is now hundreds of miles from the ocean , may have been waterfront property 125,000 years ago , ” Steig said .
“ We should be able to determine this from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ example , the salt concentration may be higher if there was open water nearby , instead of more than a thousand miles away .
Understanding that event will help guide our understanding of how quickly sea level may rise in the future due to ongoing anthropogenic climate change.
” The Hercules Dome site , remote even by Antarctic standards , lies near a mountain range that divides East and West Antarctica .
UW researchers visited the site in early 2020 to survey potential locations for drilling .
They used ice-penetrating radar to find @ @ @ @ @ @ @ uninterrupted back more than 125,000 years , when oceans rose dramatically .
Ice and air bubbles trapped in the ice layers can provide researchers with various information about past conditions The most recent deep ice core in Antarctica was completed in 2016 at the South Pole by many of the same team members .
“ The Hercules Dome ice core will be the first U.S. ice core with the potential to yield a detailed climate record during the last interglacial period , ” said principal investigator Murat Aydin at the University of California @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with online workshops over the next year to seek new collaborators and work to broaden participation in polar science .
The initial investment by the National Science Foundation covers the costs of the drilling project , but over the next few years , many more scientists can seek additional funding to analyze the core .
The delays caused by the pandemic offer more time to try to bring new people into the discipline .
“ Earth sciences is known for being particularly white and male , and polar Earth sciences is even more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ It ’ s well established that having a more diverse community leads to better outcomes — that is , we ’ ll do better science with more kinds of people involved .
But also it ’ s the right thing to do .
Anyone who is interested in being involved in this science should have the opportunity to do it.
” The University of New Hampshire will provide logistics and science support planning for the field project .
Researchers will live in tents on the ice sheet hundreds of miles from any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Our planning will detail , for example , how we will get ourselves and all of the required science cargo and camp materials to Hercules Dome , likely through a combination of overland traverse and aircraft support ; specifics on the field camp , such as camp population , camp structures and layout , power and fuel requirements , camp equipment ; and the fieldwork schedule , ” said Joe Souney , research project manager at the University of New Hampshire .
The project has plans to coordinate with artists , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ organizations and museums to share the effort and the science of climate change .
Heidi Roop , a climate scientist at the University of Minnesota , will lead the engagement programming and will work to connect the science through this project to different audiences including those who are actively planning and preparing for the impacts sea level rise — from coastal planners and water utility engineers to homeowners and elected officials .
“ This is the first U.S. deep ice core drilling project with a lead researcher dedicated to the integration of community @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the project , ” Roop said .
“ With this investment by NSF , we are confident we can more effectively connect this science to action .
”

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
Science Business
IMAGE: THE NEW ICE CORE WILL BE DRILLED AT HERCULES DOME AT 86 DEGREES SOUTH, ABOUT 400 KILOMETERS (250 MILES) FROM THE SOUTH POLE AND 1,000 KM (650 MILES) FROM TODAY’S… view more CREDIT: UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
Antarctica’s next deep ice core, drilling down to ice from 130,000 years ago, will be carried out by a multi-institutional U.S. team at Hercules Dome, a location hundreds of miles from today’s coastline and a promising site to provide key evidence about the possible last collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.
The National Science Foundation has funded the roughly five-year, $3 million project involving the University of Washington, the University of New Hampshire, the University of California, Irvine and the University of Minnesota. Work has been delayed by the novel coronavirus, but drilling the 1.5-mile ice core likely will begin in 2024.
“The ice at this site goes back to a time when sea level was about 6 meters (20 feet) higher than it is now,” said project leader Eric Steig, a UW professor of Earth and space sciences. “One of the most likely reasons that sea level was higher is that a large area of Antarctic, known as the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, was gone.”
Scientists hope to understand the most recent collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet in order to better gauge its potential risk in today’s warming climate. Deeper ice layers at this site reach back to Eemian times — the most recent period that, like now, was between ice ages. The Eemian was even warmer than today’s climate and oceans were higher.
“This location, which is now hundreds of miles from the ocean, may have been waterfront property 125,000 years ago,” Steig said. “We should be able to determine this from the chemistry of the ice — for example, the salt concentration may be higher if there was open water nearby, instead of more than a thousand miles away. Understanding that event will help guide our understanding of how quickly sea level may rise in the future due to ongoing anthropogenic climate change.”
The Hercules Dome site, remote even by Antarctic standards, lies near a mountain range that divides East and West Antarctica. UW researchers visited the site in early 2020 to survey potential locations for drilling. They used ice-penetrating radar to find places where the layers of ice are uninterrupted back more than 125,000 years, when oceans rose dramatically.
Ice and air bubbles trapped in the ice layers can provide researchers with various information about past conditions The most recent deep ice core in Antarctica was completed in 2016 at the South Pole by many of the same team members.
“The Hercules Dome ice core will be the first U.S. ice core with the potential to yield a detailed climate record during the last interglacial period,” said principal investigator Murat Aydin at the University of California, Irvine.
The project will begin with online workshops over the next year to seek new collaborators and work to broaden participation in polar science. The initial investment by the National Science Foundation covers the costs of the drilling project, but over the next few years, many more scientists can seek additional funding to analyze the core. The delays caused by the pandemic offer more time to try to bring new people into the discipline.
“Earth sciences is known for being particularly white and male, and polar Earth sciences is even more that way,” Steig said. “It’s well established that having a more diverse community leads to better outcomes — that is, we’ll do better science with more kinds of people involved. But also it’s the right thing to do. Anyone who is interested in being involved in this science should have the opportunity to do it.”
The University of New Hampshire will provide logistics and science support planning for the field project. Researchers will live in tents on the ice sheet hundreds of miles from any inhabited areas for the months-long field seasons.
“Our planning will detail, for example, how we will get ourselves and all of the required science cargo and camp materials to Hercules Dome, likely through a combination of overland traverse and aircraft support; specifics on the field camp, such as camp population, camp structures and layout, power and fuel requirements, camp equipment; and the fieldwork schedule,” said Joe Souney, research project manager at the University of New Hampshire.
The project has plans to coordinate with artists, computer scientists, media outlets, educational organizations and museums to share the effort and the science of climate change.
Heidi Roop, a climate scientist at the University of Minnesota, will lead the engagement programming and will work to connect the science through this project to different audiences including those who are actively planning and preparing for the impacts sea level rise — from coastal planners and water utility engineers to homeowners and elected officials.
“This is the first U.S. deep ice core drilling project with a lead researcher dedicated to the integration of community engagement and communication across the full lifespan of the project,” Roop said. “With this investment by NSF, we are confident we can more effectively connect this science to action.”
###
0 0 votes Article Rating
Share this: Print
Email
Facebook
Twitter
GETTR
Telegram
Like this: Like Loading...


wattsupwiththat--2020-12-10--Peter Ridd: It’s the science that’s rotten, not the Great Barrier Reef

Reposted from Paul Homewood ’ s NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT The International Union for Conservation of Nature has released its latest report on the state of the Great Barrier Reef .
It has turned up the volume by one notch , claiming the threat to the reef has gone from “ significant concern ” to “ critical ” .
It blames climate change , agricultural pollution , coastal development , industry , mining , shipping , overfishing , disease , problematic native species , coal dust — you name it , it is killing the reef .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of old , mostly wrong or misleading information produced by generally untrustworthy scientific institutions with an activist agenda and no commitment to quality assurance .
It is remarkable that the world has been convinced that one of its most pristine ecosystems is on its last legs .
Part of the problem is that , being underwater and a long way from the coast , very few people visit the reef .
The truth is hidden .
Those of us in North Queensland living adjacent to the reef , and tourists from elsewhere , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ blue and totally unpolluted .
The fish and coral are fabulous .
The reef occasionally conspires to give the impression it is dying .
An area of coral the size of Belgium can be killed by cyclones ( hurricanes ) , native starfish plagues or bleaching .
All these events are entirely natural and are part of life on the reef .
In fact , each of the 3000 individual reefs , along the entire 2000km length of the Great Barrier Reef , is a 50-100m high plateau of dead coral rubble that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ live coral lives on the surface of this pile of dead ancestors .
Sixty years ago , when these cycles of death and destruction were first being discovered by scientists , it was legitimate to be concerned about whether they were unnatural .
But there is now abundant evidence , almost totally ignored by the International Union for Conservation of Nature , that the reef is fine .
The coral always recovers vigorously after major mortality events .
Coral remains abundant on all 3000 reefs .
The amount of coral , while fluctuating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the same today as when records began in the 1980s .
The coral growth rates have not declined — if anything they have increased , as would be expected from the slight increase in temperature over the past century .
Corals like it hot and grow faster in warmer water .
Ignoring evidence of the obvious good condition of the reef is not the least of the problems with this IUCN report .
It also uses evidence that is patently false .
For example , the report claims that coal dust blowing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the reef , which is 100-1000km from the ports .
This ridiculous claim is based on a report that was discredited by unquestioned experts on this subject , Dr Simon Apte and other scientists from the CSIRO , who showed that the results were in error by 3000 per cent .
It is also highly doubtful that the original scientists were actually measuring coal dust .
They were measuring poly-aromatic hydrocarbons , which are common , naturally occurring molecules not specific to coal .
It is not surprising that the IUCN report made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dust report .
Other major Australian reports on the reef also quote it .
It is notable that when Apte tried to get the scientific journal and the Australian Institute of Marine science , which was responsible for the coal dust data , to correct the mistake , they refused to do anything .
The science institutions have become untrustworthy .
The IUCN makes other equally scandalous mistakes .
It claims that agricultural pollution is a problem despite all the measurements showing concentrations of pesticides so low they are generally undetectable with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of mud washed from farms is equally negligible .
The fundamental problem with the IUCN report is that it is based upon scientific evidence that is poorly quality assured .
The scientific foundations are rotten and none of the science organisations want to remedy the problem — partly because the science organisations , and the IUCN , stopped being scientific long ago .
They have recognised their political power .
We must recognise they have become political .
Until genuine quality assurance measures can be put in place at the reef science institutions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , reported and repeated ad nauseam , will continue .
The only good news is that the next IUCN report on the reef in 2023 will not be worse than “ critical ” because this seems to be the worst category they have .

Reposted from Paul Homewood’s NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
DECEMBER 7, 2020 tags: coral
By Paul Homewood
The International Union for Conservation of Nature has released its latest report on the state of the Great Barrier Reef. It has turned up the volume by one notch, claiming the threat to the reef has gone from “significant concern” to “critical”. It blames climate change, agricultural pollution, coastal development, industry, mining, shipping, overfishing, disease, problematic native species, coal dust — you name it, it is killing the reef.
But the report is just a rehash of old, mostly wrong or misleading information produced by generally untrustworthy scientific institutions with an activist agenda and no commitment to quality assurance.
It is remarkable that the world has been convinced that one of its most pristine ecosystems is on its last legs. Part of the problem is that, being underwater and a long way from the coast, very few people visit the reef. The truth is hidden. Those of us in North Queensland living adjacent to the reef, and tourists from elsewhere, can report the water is iridescent clear blue and totally unpolluted. The fish and coral are fabulous.
An aerial view of the world-famous Heart Reef in the Whitsundays. Picture: Brooke Miles/Riptide Creative
The reef occasionally conspires to give the impression it is dying. An area of coral the size of Belgium can be killed by cyclones (hurricanes), native starfish plagues or bleaching. All these events are entirely natural and are part of life on the reef. In fact, each of the 3000 individual reefs, along the entire 2000km length of the Great Barrier Reef, is a 50-100m high plateau of dead coral rubble that has built up over millennia. The live coral lives on the surface of this pile of dead ancestors.
Sixty years ago, when these cycles of death and destruction were first being discovered by scientists, it was legitimate to be concerned about whether they were unnatural. But there is now abundant evidence, almost totally ignored by the International Union for Conservation of Nature, that the reef is fine. The coral always recovers vigorously after major mortality events. Coral remains abundant on all 3000 reefs. The amount of coral, while fluctuating dramatically from year to year, is about the same today as when records began in the 1980s. The coral growth rates have not declined — if anything they have increased, as would be expected from the slight increase in temperature over the past century. Corals like it hot and grow faster in warmer water.
Ignoring evidence of the obvious good condition of the reef is not the least of the problems with this IUCN report. It also uses evidence that is patently false. For example, the report claims that coal dust blowing from ship-loading facilities is a risk to the reef, which is 100-1000km from the ports. This ridiculous claim is based on a report that was discredited by unquestioned experts on this subject, Dr Simon Apte and other scientists from the CSIRO, who showed that the results were in error by 3000 per cent. It is also highly doubtful that the original scientists were actually measuring coal dust. They were measuring poly-aromatic hydrocarbons, which are common, naturally occurring molecules not specific to coal.
It is not surprising that the IUCN report made the error of using this discredited coal dust report. Other major Australian reports on the reef also quote it. It is notable that when Apte tried to get the scientific journal and the Australian Institute of Marine science, which was responsible for the coal dust data, to correct the mistake, they refused to do anything. The science institutions have become untrustworthy.
Dr Peter Ridd at the Quoin Island Turtle Rehabilitation Centre. Picture: Rodney Stevens
The IUCN makes other equally scandalous mistakes. It claims that agricultural pollution is a problem despite all the measurements showing concentrations of pesticides so low they are generally undetectable with the most sensitive scientific equipment. The effect of mud washed from farms is equally negligible.
The fundamental problem with the IUCN report is that it is based upon scientific evidence that is poorly quality assured. The scientific foundations are rotten and none of the science organisations want to remedy the problem — partly because the science organisations, and the IUCN, stopped being scientific long ago. They have recognised their political power. We must recognise they have become political.
Until genuine quality assurance measures can be put in place at the reef science institutions, the problem of untrustworthy scientific evidence, reported and repeated ad nauseam, will continue. The only good news is that the next IUCN report on the reef in 2023 will not be worse than “critical” because this seems to be the worst category they have.
https://www.thegwpf.com/peter-ridd-its-the-science-thats-rotten-not-the-great-barrier-reef/
4.5 2 votes Article Rating
Share this: Print
Email
Facebook
Twitter
GETTR
Telegram
Like this: Like Loading...


wattsupwiththat--2020-12-10--The natural ‘Himalayan aerosol factory’ can affect climate

Large amounts of new particles can form in the valleys of the Himalayas from naturally emitted gases and can be transported to high altitudes by the mountain winds and injected into the upper atmosphere .
The emitted particles may eventually affect climate by acting as nuclei for cloud condensation .
These new findings about particles formation and sources will contribute to a better understanding of past and future climate .
“ To understand how the climate has changed over the last century we need to know as reliably as possible the natural atmospheric conditions before the industrialization , ” says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Helsinki ’ s Institute for Atmospheric and Earth System Research ( INAR ) .
In order to do that scientists are looking for pristine locations around the world where human influence is minimal .
An international group of researchers has now completed a comprehensive study at the Nepal Climate Observatory at Pyramid station , located in the proximity of the Everest base camp at 5050 m above sea level .
There , they were able to investigate the formation of atmospheric particles far from human activities .
The results were published today @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The study shows that up-valley winds bring vapours emitted by vegetation at the Himalayan foothills to higher altitudes .
During this transport , these gases are transformed by photochemical reactions into compounds of very low volatility , which rapidly form a large number of new aerosol particles .
These are then transported into the free troposphere , a region of the atmosphere with very low human influence .
“ You can think of the whole Himalayas as an ‘ aerosol factory ’ that continuously produces a large amount of particles and then directly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ above the Everest ” , says Bianchi .
We calculate from these measurements that the transport of particles may increase present-day particle concentration above the Himalayas by a factor of up to two or more .
It ’ s the first time the scientists consider mountain venting as a big potential source of atmospheric particles in the free troposphere .
Additionally , the freshly formed particles have natural origin with little evidence of the involvement of anthropogenic pollutants .
This process is therefore likely to be essentially unchanged since the pre-industrial period , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ major sources contributing to the upper atmosphere aerosol population during that time .
These new observations are therefore important to better estimate the pre-industrial baseline of aerosol concentrations in this large region .
The inclusion of such processes in climate models may improve the understanding of climate change and predictions of future climate .
Future studies shall focus on a better quantification of this phenomenon and investigate it also in other high mountain regions .
Federico Bianchi , Heikki Junninen , Alessandro Bigi , Victoria A. Sinclair , Lubna Dada , Cristopher R. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Lauri R. Ahonen , Paolo Bonasoni , Stephany Buenrostro Mazon , Manuel Hutterli , Paolo Laj , Katrianne Lehtipalo , Juha Kangasluoma1 , Veli-Matti Kerminen , Jenni Kontkanen , Angela Marinoni , Sander Mirme , Ugo Molteni , Tuukka Petäjä , Matthieu Riva , Clemence Rose , Karine Sellegri , Chao Yan , Douglas R. Worsnop , Markku Kulmala , Urs Baltensperger & Josef Dommen .
Biogenic particles formed in the Himalaya as an important source of free tropospheric aerosols .
Nature Geoscience , December 2020 .

UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI
Research News
IMAGE: PRISTINE LOCATIONS LIKE THE HIMALAYAS ARE USEFUL WHEN TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE NATURAL ATMOSPHERIC CONDITIONS BEFORE THE INDUSTRIALIZATION. view more CREDIT: FEDERICO BIANCHI
Large amounts of new particles can form in the valleys of the Himalayas from naturally emitted gases and can be transported to high altitudes by the mountain winds and injected into the upper atmosphere.
The emitted particles may eventually affect climate by acting as nuclei for cloud condensation. These new findings about particles formation and sources will contribute to a better understanding of past and future climate.
“To understand how the climate has changed over the last century we need to know as reliably as possible the natural atmospheric conditions before the industrialization,” says Associate Professor Federico Bianchi from the University of Helsinki’s Institute for Atmospheric and Earth System Research (INAR).
In order to do that scientists are looking for pristine locations around the world where human influence is minimal. An international group of researchers has now completed a comprehensive study at the Nepal Climate Observatory at Pyramid station, located in the proximity of the Everest base camp at 5050 m above sea level. There, they were able to investigate the formation of atmospheric particles far from human activities. The results were published today in the prestigious journal Nature Geoscience.
Particles from natural origin
The study shows that up-valley winds bring vapours emitted by vegetation at the Himalayan foothills to higher altitudes. During this transport, these gases are transformed by photochemical reactions into compounds of very low volatility, which rapidly form a large number of new aerosol particles. These are then transported into the free troposphere, a region of the atmosphere with very low human influence.
“You can think of the whole Himalayas as an ‘aerosol factory’ that continuously produces a large amount of particles and then directly injects them high up into the atmosphere above the Everest”, says Bianchi. We calculate from these measurements that the transport of particles may increase present-day particle concentration above the Himalayas by a factor of up to two or more.
It’s the first time the scientists consider mountain venting as a big potential source of atmospheric particles in the free troposphere.
Additionally, the freshly formed particles have natural origin with little evidence of the involvement of anthropogenic pollutants. This process is therefore likely to be essentially unchanged since the pre-industrial period, and may have been one of the major sources contributing to the upper atmosphere aerosol population during that time. These new observations are therefore important to better estimate the pre-industrial baseline of aerosol concentrations in this large region. The inclusion of such processes in climate models may improve the understanding of climate change and predictions of future climate.
Future studies shall focus on a better quantification of this phenomenon and investigate it also in other high mountain regions.
###
Article:
Federico Bianchi, Heikki Junninen, Alessandro Bigi, Victoria A. Sinclair, Lubna Dada, Cristopher R. Hoyle, Qiaozhi Zha, Lei Yao, Lauri R. Ahonen, Paolo Bonasoni, Stephany Buenrostro Mazon, Manuel Hutterli, Paolo Laj, Katrianne Lehtipalo, Juha Kangasluoma1, Veli-Matti Kerminen, Jenni Kontkanen, Angela Marinoni, Sander Mirme, Ugo Molteni, Tuukka Petäjä, Matthieu Riva, Clemence Rose, Karine Sellegri, Chao Yan, Douglas R. Worsnop, Markku Kulmala, Urs Baltensperger & Josef Dommen. Biogenic particles formed in the Himalaya as an important source of free tropospheric aerosols. Nature Geoscience, December 2020.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-020-00661-5
0 0 votes Article Rating
Share this: Print
Email
Facebook
Twitter
GETTR
Telegram
Like this: Like Loading...