NZCLIMATE
& ENVIRO TRUTH NO 91
JANUARY 13th 2006
Dear Folks
NZClimate and Enviro Truth No 90 posed the
following puzzle. Since I may have the answer let me first repeat it.
COMPARE THESE PICTURES
Recent corrections to the global temperature
measurements in the lower atmosphere carried out by Microwave
Sounder Units (MSU) on NASA satellites have led to much
greater agreement between these measurements and those obtained by
amalgamating surface temperature measurements from weather stations and
ships. Attached are the world maps for the temperature anomalies for
November 2005 as now published by the Climate Research Unit of the
University of East Anglia at
and the similar map for the MSU NASA satellite
measurements, published at
It will be seen that there are considerable
similarities between the two maps.
In both maps
The hottest regions were Central Siberia and North
America, although the MSU gives greater emphasis to Siberia.
The coolest regions were Alaska, the
Mediterranean, India, the East Pacific, the Southern Ocean, and
Antarctica.
The differences were
East Africa was warm for "surface" but cool for MSU
Southern Indian Ocean was slightly cooler for
"surface" and slightly warmer for MSU
The Atlantic and mid-Pacific were slightly warmer
for "surface" and unchanged for MSU.
But, on the whole, we can now have considerable
confidence that between them, the various methods of measuring global
temperature are giving considerable agreement..
However,it is still clear that they do not agree
with computer climate models based on the belief that the temperature
changes are caused by an increase in greenhouse gases. The
following are the discrepancies
The models all assume that the greenhouse effect
is situated in th lower troposphere. Any warming due to greenhouse
gases should be greater there, so the MSU measurements should
warm more than the surface. Observations show both are similar..
The models predict increased warming, equally, at
both the North and South Poles. The measurements show that the two
poles are completely different. The North Pole is warming the
South Pole is cooling
The models predict much greater warming than is
observed, and the only way they can get out of it is to assume
a large cooling influence of clouds and aerosols, Since these
are concentrated in the Northern Hemisphere, there should be greater
net warming in the South than in the North. The observations show
the opposite..
Now we have the following new paper in "Nature"
Keppler, Frank,
John T. G. Hamilton, Marc Braß and Thomas Röckmann, 2006. Methane
emissions from terrestrial plants under aerobic conditions. Nature Vol.
439, No 7073, pp. 187-191, January 12,
2006
Nature Editor's Summary:
“The unexpectedly high levels of
the
green-house gas methane over tropical forests, and the recent decline
in the atmospheric growth rate of methane concentrations, cannot be
readily explained with the accepted global methane budget. Now a
genuinely surprising discovery provides a possible explanation for
these phenomena, and may have implications for modelling past and
future climates. It was thought that methane formed naturally only in
anaerobic conditions, in marshes for instance. In fact living plants,
as well as plant litter, emit methane to the atmosphere under oxic
conditions. This additional source of methane could account for 10–30%
of the annual methane source strength and has been overlooked in
previous studies.”
The answer to
the fact that climate models cannot simulate actual global
temperature change may be due to a fact I have been
emphasizing for many years. The models all assume that greenhouse gases
are "well-mixed" so the calculations can use an avefage.Greenhouse
gases are, however, NOT "well-mixed", so that
temperatures cannot be adequately calculated by using AVERAGE
greenhouse gas concentrations. You should use ACTUAL concentrations
over the particular region.
This fact was evident
in New Zealand from the early days of carbon dioxide monitoring, which
was set up in a rural area (Makara) near Wellington. Readings were
highly variable; attributed to "noise" and apparently different from
"expected" values. The monitoring equipment was moved to Baring Head on
the coast where consistent values could be obtained, provided that
the samples were from the sea. Samples coming from the land were
rejected because of "noise" (which may be defined as "unwelcome data").
World measurements are
almost all from the ocean, often from remote sites. Coverage of major
land masses and urban areas is sporadic, or largely ignored. Yet,
surely, it is the concentration of carbon dioxide immediately above the
region concerned that is affecting the temperature, not that over the
ocean.
Now we have the same
problem with methane. Again, most measurements are over the ocean, but
it is beginning to be realised that actual local methane concentrations
can be quite variable. Of course, we have very little data, but these
local variations could explain my puzzle. Perhaps there are higher
cxoncentrations of carbon dioxide and methane over the North Pole and
the major Northern Hemisphere land masses than the averages
assumed in the models. It is already suspected that this kind of
variability has existed always. Ice core measurements can be
unrepresentative.
Of course, average
methane concentrations in the atmosphere have apparently stabilised, so
this present scare does not add any extra greenhouse gases to the
atmosphere. It does cast into serious doubt current models supposedly
relating emissions of methane to atmospheric concentrations, though.
This discovery will certainly
change attitudes to "climate change", for it now appears that in order
to reduce "global warming" you should not only cut carbon dioxide
emissions, but you should also cut down forests, reduce
agriculture, drain wetlands. and cover the world with concrete.
Cheers