The Sheep Albedo Feedback
The already-reeling "consensus" supposedly linking climate change to CO2 is about to receive its final coup-de-grace from a remarkable new result announced in a press conference today by Dr. Ewe Noh-Watt of the New Zealand Institute of Veterinary Climatology [1]. Noh-Watt and his co-workers, describing work funded by a generous grant from the Veterinary Climate Science Coalition, declared "We have seen the future of climate — and it is Sheep." Prof. Jean-Belliere Poisson d'Avril, star student of Claude Allegro Molto-Troppo (discoverer of the Tropposphere) reacted with the words, "Parbleu! C'est la meilleure chose depuis les baguettes tranchées!"
The hypothesis begins with the simple observation that most sheep are white, and therefore have a higher albedo than the land on which they typically graze (see figure below). This effect is confirmed by the recent Sheep Radiation Budget Experiment. The next step in the chain of logic is to note that the sheep population of New Zealand has plummeted in recent years. The resulting decrease in albedo leads to an increase in absorbed Solar radiation, thus warming the planet. The Sheep Albedo hypothesis draws some inspiration from the earlier work of Squeak and Diddlesworth [2] on the effect of the ptarmigan population on the energy balance of the Laurentide ice sheet. Noh-Watt hastens to emphasize that the two hypotheses are quite distinct, since the species of ptarmigan involved in the Squeak-Diddlesworth effect is now extinct.
The proof of the pudding is in the data, shown in the Figure below. Here, the Sheep Albedo Index is defined as the New Zealand Sheep population in each year, subtracted from the 2007 population. The index is defined that way because fewer sheep means lower albedo, and thus a positive radiative forcing. It can be seen that the recent warming can be explained entirely by the decline in the New Zealand sheep population, without any need to bring in any mysterious so-called "radiative forcing" from carbon dioxide, which doesn't affect the sunlight (hardly) anyway — unlike Sheep Albedo. Some researchers have expressed surprise at the large effect from the relatively small radiative forcing attributable to New Zealand Sheep, or indeed to New Zealand as a whole. "This only shows the fallacy of the concept of Radiative Forcing, which is after all only a theory, not a fact," says Noh-Watt. "Evidently there are amplifying feedbacks at work which give the Sheep Albedo Index a disproportionate influence over climate."
"A real breakthrough was using the statistical technique pioneered by Frusen-Glädje and Haagendassen in their study of the solar-climate connection." said Noh-Watt "Just as in their case, to get a good match to the observed climate, we had to optimize our smoothing algorithm by smoothing some parts of the sheep record more than others, and then rescaling the results." The optimized smoothing was applied to the years 1975-1991. Noted skeptic Rasmus Benestad has criticized this technique as meaningless curve-bashing (see footnote [3] below), but according to Noh-Watt, " All these guys are interested in is getting rich by riding their bicycles to work and selling carbon credits to the EU."
Not everybody agrees with the Sheep Albedo Hypothesis. Leading the flock of skeptics is the New Zealand Sheep Farmers Guild. Their spokesman, Steve Ramsturf (no relation) was quoted as saying "Baaah, Humbug. No matter what goes wrong with the world, they're always trying to blame the poor New Zealand Sheep Farmer. First it was the methane belch tax. Now this Albedo thing. "
The recognition of the role of sheep albedo opens up some fascinating new possibilities for climate change mechanisms. There is in fact an important destabilizing feedback in the system: as climate gets warmer, there is less demand for wool sweaters and wooly underwear. Hence the sheep population tends to drop, leading to even more warming. In an extreme form, this can lead to a "runaway sheep-albedo feedback," which is believed to have led to the present torrid climate of Venus. Most researchers do not think this could happen on Earth, though. In fact, Oprah and Averell Chanteur, authors of the popular "Unstoppable" series (soon to be a major motion picture) say that the warming will usher in a new era of peace and prosperity, with less enslavement of domestic wool-bearing animals. The hypothesis is laid out in their forthcoming book, "Unstoppable Sheep, every five or six days," which expands on earlier popular titles in the series, such as "Unstoppable daylight, every 42 hours," "Unstoppable Summer, every 17 months, " and the ever-popular autobiographical work "Unstoppable nonsense, every two or three years."
However, Dirk Blitzen, noted researcher from Hogwartz Institute of Technology, has proposed an additional wrinkle on the sheep-albedo idea, which he calls the "sheep-Iris effect" (see Dasher et al. [4] for details). According to Blitzen, a reanalysis of Landsat images shows that as the climate gets warmer, sheep tend to huddle together less. Since wool has a lower emissivity than bare ground, the lack of huddling allows more infrared emission to escape from the ground, cooling the planet and stabilizing its climate. "Frankly, I don't see how the climate can change much at all," stated Blitzen in recent testimony before the House of Lords, "To be honest, at this point I have a little trouble figuring out how there can even be summer and winter. In the end, I think it will turn out to be a problem with the data." Ozark Junior College satellite expert Jhon Chrystal agrees; his new analysis of MSU satellite data in fact casts doubt on the "consensus" that summer and winter have different temperatures.
But the sheep story may not be as simple as it seems. Hendreck Svampmark of the Danish Institute for Solar-Sheep Interactions notes that at the same time the number of sheep has been going down, the number of cows (which have a lower albedo than sheep) has been going up. "We believe that what is really behind it all are Galactic Cowsmic Rays, which are transmuting sheep DNA into cow DNA." Svampmark hypothesizes a currently undetected particle flux, which he calls "Cowsmic," because there is no observed trend in any of the better-known components of the Galactic Cosmic Ray flux. "We are trying to get money to put sheep in dark-matter accelerators to test our hypothesis, but there's a hold-up with PETA. It's all a big conspiracy to protect the consensus, I say."
Footnotes:
[1] Noh-Watt, Ewe "Sheep-Albedo Feedback: A paradigm shift for climate change science." To be submitted to Readers' Digest, "Humor in Uniform" section.
[2] Squeak, P.P. & Diddlesworth, I.R. 1987. The influence of ptarmigan population dynamics on the thermal regime of the Laurentide Ice Sheet : the surface boundary condition. In eds Edwin D. Waddington & Joseph S. Walder, The Physical Basis of Ice Sheet Modelling (Proceedings of a symposium held during the XIX Assembly of the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics at Vancouver, August 1987), p.381-384.
[3] Benestad, a well-known spoilsport, points out that without the "optimized" smoothing out of the sheep-albedo-dip in the 1970's, the correlation breaks down; it breaks down further if one looks at the pre-1966 record. His unprocessed version of the data is shown below:
[4] Dasher ON., Dantzer ON, Prantzer ON, Vixen ON, Comet ON, Cupid ON Donner . , and Blitzen, D.R , (2007) "Why does Rudolf's nose glow so bright? Infrared effects of mammalian herd behavior." Bull. Tromsø Inst. Reindeer Husbandry
1 April 2007 at 10:09 AM
Problem solved. Mutton anyone?
1 April 2007 at 10:11 AM
Be careful…..you know that Melanie Phillips, Phillip Stott, Monckton and other famous scientists will all be using this in their next op-eds.
1 April 2007 at 10:11 AM
What a cheery thing for a Sunday morning. Thank you.
1 April 2007 at 10:12 AM
My compliments on what I can only assume is a fine example of rapier sharp analysis!
1 April 2007 at 10:21 AM
Do you suppose Ian Helmut is responsible?
1 April 2007 at 10:25 AM
Meanwhile, former vice president All Gory has effectively refuted the sheep-albeod hypothesis with an academy-award winning documentary based on his “Hannibal Lecture.” The film, “Silence of the Lambs,” has spun more yarn than any documentary in history.
1 April 2007 at 10:29 AM
Oh, you climate scientists really have been pulling the wool over our eyes!
1 April 2007 at 10:36 AM
It’s putting mutton on the barbie that’s the big problem, as today’s Mail on Sunday (UK) reported:
Council inspectors to demand £5 ‘carbon offset’ for barbecues
By APRIL BADDELY-BURNS -
It is one of the timeless rituals of the new globally-warmed great British summer: firing up the barbecue and slinging on a steak.
But people who choose to burn charcoal may have to think twice - as councils now have swinging new powers to force homeowners to buy ‘carbon offsets’ before they light up or face a £50 fine.
[edit]
Sign our petition here: ‘We say NO to the garden snoopers’
1 April 2007 at 10:43 AM
Ridiculous! Eighty percent of the factors affecting sheep population dynamics are not understood.
1 April 2007 at 10:45 AM
These results agree with the work of the late
great I.P. Mypants, which cites the mass of
growing stockpiles of National Graphic back
issues as a threat to the continued spin of the
Earth on its axis.
1 April 2007 at 10:47 AM
Indubitably, a tippling point.
Cheers!
1 April 2007 at 10:59 AM
But how about black sheeps???
1 April 2007 at 11:08 AM
I am the black sheep of my family. I warm the planet by increasing the lavaflows ! Or something.
1 April 2007 at 11:08 AM
Ray, are you pulling the fleece over our troposphere or is this another example you scientists doing it to US flock of taxpayers?
1 April 2007 at 11:12 AM
In related news:
http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20070401
1 April 2007 at 11:15 AM
A fine satire indeed! But, what do I tell the non-specialists who wonder if they should no longer pursue temperate zone carbon sequestration in forests because “albedo differences cancel out atmospheric CO2 differences, according to the Livermore folks”? I cannot seem to come up with either enought information on the model application (e.g., what are albedo values for forests [all forests?] and grass/shrublands [all grass/shrublands in all growing seasons?])or an educated review of the assumptions made in this set of model experiments. Help! (seriously, folks!).
Al Solomon
1 April 2007 at 11:22 AM
On April 1st, those who believe what they read will end up feeling sheepish.
1 April 2007 at 11:31 AM
Luckily there are only few black sheeps. And now i finally understand what is wrong with them.
1 April 2007 at 11:42 AM
Ewe has got to be kidding!
1 April 2007 at 11:48 AM
#8 Precisely, the existence of black sheeps wonderfully fit the new theory, alternate black-and-white dominance in sheep populations explaining most of the so-called “natural variability” of climate. That’s why there’s another implication Raypierre forgot with this ground-breaking hypothesis: a robust explanation of the famous Medieval Optimum.
It is very likely (>90%) that Viking sheep populations initiated a decadal-to-centennal circulation change on Northern latitudes, first a warming phase (because there was probably a majority of black sheeps in the initial population, behaving as perfect four-legs black bodies re-emitting the solar radiation they fully capture), then a cooling phase (because black sheeps were probably killed by hyperthermia, so the white individuals got an adaptative advantage over them, and the sheep albedo effect strongly enhanced the re-glaciation of Greenland and all peri-arctic zone). IMO, the match is perfect, the case is closed, we must now urgently send 5 or 6 billions of white sheeps in the higher troposphere in order to stabilize climate and prevent any dangerous change in the next millenia.
1 April 2007 at 11:57 AM
It doesn’t matter. Volcanoes produce more wool annually than sheep do.
1 April 2007 at 12:03 PM
Thanks for a great story- your wool-climate feedback loop is equivalent to my “furst” article on this topic arguing that the historic fur trade may have been a driver for climate change: the Europeans wanted to stay warm, hunted down the beavers, the eradication of the beavers led to the disappearance of beaver ponds and that led to a greatly diminished methane flux, et voila - the Little Ice Age was born (Eos, 87, #53, 26 December, 2006). I may need the help of Dr. Frusen-Gladje to get the statistics right on that one.
Joop Varekamp, Wesleyan University, CT
1 April 2007 at 12:08 PM
Baa Humbug!
1 April 2007 at 12:13 PM
Hilarious Ray. Problem solved, but sheep are especially tough on streams so the affect on water quality is steep.
1 April 2007 at 12:26 PM
So realclimate has finally gone completely insane..
1 April 2007 at 12:39 PM
Yowza.
(Comment applies to both the article and the preceding comments.)
1 April 2007 at 12:40 PM
I’m amazed this made it through peer review. It’s little more than a subtle reworking of the 1977 thesis by BoPeep & Lamb, which gained great traction amongst the climate science community at the time but was completely discredited when a rigorous analysis of frozen sheep dropping cores proved conclusively that temperature rise preceded sheep population decline by some 800 days.
1 April 2007 at 12:48 PM
Re: #25, “So realclimate has finally gone completely insane..”
Ummm, dude, look at the date…
1 April 2007 at 12:58 PM
@ Stephen Berg
got you twice!?!
1 April 2007 at 1:12 PM
oh, please, please, please leave this on the site. please. don’t break my link….
[Response: Don’t worry, we will. -eric]
1 April 2007 at 1:15 PM
If you’d like to, er, ruminate over this whole process, there’s a flash animation here. For ‘Daisy’ imagine instead a sheep:
http://library.thinkquest.org/C003763/flash/gaia1.htm
1 April 2007 at 1:16 PM
Ray, you have inspired me to resurrect my own closely related “Ewe-nified Theory of Climate”. The warming of Pluto still presents a challenge to this framework, admittedly.
[Response: Isaac, I hope your treatment incorporates some of the recently discussed second order terms that are ignored in the linear theory discussed here, and which are necessary to support Lamb waves. -mike]
1 April 2007 at 1:24 PM
What’s the date today again? April 1st, right? Good to see you have a healthy sense of humour; it gives your work and this website even more credibility.
1 April 2007 at 1:41 PM
This subject is far too serious to be taken in this light-hearted way. Anyone with the least knowledge of the causes of global warming knows that sheep lanolin (a particularly adhesive substance which is washed from sheep’s wool) is a very potent greenhouse oil. Spreading from the sewers to the surface of the ocean, it reduces wave action, making stilling wells over-read, reducing the mechanical mixing necessary to pull down CO2 (and, by leaving the surface layer poorly mixed, also leading to anomolously high SSTs). Wave entrainment is less, particulate production is lowered and cloud formation over the polluted ocean falls — leading to lower albedos and to more warming. Upwelling suffers because of reduced evaporation and so nutrient levels fall. The last encourages C4 metabolism in phytoplankton and fools the world’s scientists into thinking that the change in isotopic concentrations is anthropogenic rather caused than by reduced fractionation by C4 plants raining out the heavier isotopes to the deep sea ooze.
There is no part of global warming which cannot be explained by lanolin. Or maybe oil spills. Or surfactants. I forget which.
JF
www.floodsclimbers.co.uk for the TRUE cause of global warming. (To save time, it’s oil spills)
1 April 2007 at 1:52 PM
Nice first april joke
The situation is not that critical, one would think
But still, how many sheeps to be need, to have an significant effect?
But we don’t have to forget - the sheeps are emitting CO2 and they also eat the grass!
1 April 2007 at 2:11 PM
Maybe we should paint all the building, animals and trees
The brigther colour we use, the better!!
1 April 2007 at 2:12 PM
RE # 33, Julian, that is your opinion.
Where did you get your information? Do you trust that information? And, lacking scientific consensus on your belief, how can government leaders propose a cap and trade program to mitigate sheep lanolin effluent?
1 April 2007 at 2:55 PM
Was this shear reviewed?
1 April 2007 at 3:00 PM
New Zealand lamb chops have always tasted better than their counterparts in other places of the world. Now I know why.
1 April 2007 at 3:04 PM
Re 37: a consensus of scientist* at Lodge Farm Cottage is adamant that the ocean surface pollution hypothesis explains everything.
Deniers claim that warming is caused by the insulating property of sheeps’ coverings but — wait for it, wait for it — they’re just trying to pull the wool over your eyes.
JF
*A level, 1964…
(Joking aside, I do wonder about stilling wells.)
1 April 2007 at 3:22 PM
How about the offsetting effects of the “bald guy” albedo phenomenon? Was that accounted for? Now that more people are living longer the planet has more bald guys reflecting radiation back into space. Surely that is more than enough to compensate for the increased aborption resulting from fewer sheep.
1 April 2007 at 3:27 PM
#10 Surely you know science has shown that if all the National Geographics stored in attics around the country were disposed of, the continent would be 6″ higher, obviously compounding the effects of warming.
1 April 2007 at 4:10 PM
No doubt a few eyes will water in the US administration, when they learn how to make a U turn on Global Warming.
1 April 2007 at 4:24 PM
Wrong! White sheep leave black pellets behind them, net effect is zero! Black sheep absorb the extra heat, thereby needing somewhat less food and leaving fewer black pellets behind them.
1 April 2007 at 5:07 PM
Enough woolgathering! Back to controversy and despair.
1 April 2007 at 5:11 PM
This research would also seem to confirm the canniness (that’s Scots for cleverness, I think)of collie dogs, whose job is to look after sheep. Just consider, collies are both black and white so whatever the future holds, whether global warming or the next ice age, they can argue that they are necessary. I reckon collie dogs are set to take over the world.
1 April 2007 at 5:13 PM
I knew Ray’s NZ trip would pay a dividend (he was even on the radio, folks)…
However, spending all his time with our modelling community he missed out on some of the shearing-edge research being conducted by the New Zealand Wool Board and the Wine Institute - code-named the vin de mouton project. Under normal conditions, turning an old sheep paddock into a vineyard would be a climate “double whammy” - loss of sheep albedo effect made worse by the heat-absorbing canopy of a growing vineyard (see here for an example).
The research programme began by exploring the concept of “wool offsets”, where vineyards could purchase sheep in other parts of the country to offset their warming effect, but it quickly became obvious that this would be difficult to monitor and implement. Sheep on south-facing slopes, for instance, have a much lower albedo effect than those on north-facing slopes (remember, this is the southern hemisphere). Trials with GPS monitoring of sheep movements in rolling hill country did show that the animals do seek out sunnier spots on colder days, but this was affected by fleece length (more fleece, less need for external heat) and by the animals’ need for shade in hot weather.
Recent work has established that the only way to make the wool offset concept work is to apply it at the vineyard level. Each vineyard maintains its own flock of sheep (about one sheep to 100 vines), and they are grazed between the vines at regular intervals - good for weed control and fertilisation, though they do have a tendency to like vine leaves (especially sheep with Greek bloodlines). This can be overcome by timing the application of sheep to the vineyard so that they animals can assist with leaf pruning to expose grape bunches to sunlight. The sheep are also fed all the prunings, and early results indicate that this diet significantly reduces the methane produced compared with an all-grass diet. Feed the sheep the grape skins left after the fruit is crushed for wine-making, and the sheepmeat develops a wonderful dark colour and marvellous flavours. Vine-fed lamb is expected to begin trial marketing soon, and it is expected to be a hit with gourmets in all our export markets (except, possibly, France).
The effect of sheep on wine quality is however a little more problematic. The flavour of sauvignon blanc - NZ’s flagship varietal - has been likened to “cat’s pee on a gooseberry bush”, and with overuse of wool offsets this can be a little more like “ram’s pee on a blackcurrant bush”. Trials with different breeds are continuing, and currently it looks as though merinos are the most benign on the basis of final bouquet.
Perhaps when Ray returns, I might induce him to join in the taste-testing process?
1 April 2007 at 5:38 PM
I think I’ve been taken for a shearing…
1 April 2007 at 5:44 PM
I’m disappointed. This article is far too alambist.
1 April 2007 at 5:53 PM
By the way, I’ve heard that Channel 4 is commissioning a new documentary promoting this hypothesis. It is to be called “The Great Global Warming Spindle.”
1 April 2007 at 5:56 PM
I have to take some moral responsibility for this problem since I’m a glutton for mutton.
I pledge that for each sheep I eat, I will buy two credits to add to the mutton offset flock.
1 April 2007 at 6:02 PM
I’m glad to see that serious thinkers can still laugh at themselves. Yes, it is April 1st, isn’t it? And it reminds us all the positive corelations do not always equal cause and effect. Still, if butterflies can cause typhoons (chaos theory), perhaps there is a subtle relationship between sheep numbers and climate…
1 April 2007 at 6:03 PM
So the Sheep and Ewes Protection Project (SEPP)were right all along, and
Friends of Sheep (FoS) were on the Ball too, it would seem.
1 April 2007 at 6:18 PM
But how can this be? We’ve had warming in the past when sheep didn’t exist, haven’t we?
1 April 2007 at 6:54 PM
So both the CO2 induced climate change hypothesis and the no sense of humour of climate xhange supporters hypothesis are in the word of the the Myth Busters “busted”
1 April 2007 at 7:20 PM
The sheep theory relies on paleo-agricultural reconstructions based on proxy data collected from second-hand clothing stores. These are sparse and the correlation between recent warming and jersey numbers is almost certainly a result of the decline in hand-knitting rather than indicative of any connection between climate and woollen garments. When I attempted to replicate the results of the reconstructions, I discovered that they vastly over-estimate the significance of just one item: the so-called Waimate cardigan. Furthermore, the exact stitches of many of the garments are not publicly archived, nor are the sizes of the knitting needles inferred.
1 April 2007 at 7:42 PM
Ve haf yust lert to grow vool on tuna mit a gene implant and now dis! Does this mean der fish von’t need der vool? Ve ver hoping to develop a species ve could catch mit velcro and do avay mit dem nets so harmful to der dolphin.
1 April 2007 at 8:01 PM
I have rock-solid photographic evidence against this hypothesis - http://www.flickr.com/photos/dryak/235270135/in/set-72157594168927782/
Everyone knows that the apparent decline in NZ sheep population is a statistical artifact based on the decision of the NZ govenment to classify certain genetically engineered sheep as full citizens after the recent tragic events cronicled in the documentary: http://www.blacksheep-themovie.com/
Ewe have been warned…
1 April 2007 at 8:05 PM
This is a ludicrous proposal.. research shows that the sheep-albedo index lags behind temperature change.
1 April 2007 at 8:19 PM
So to beat so-called global warming all we need are more placid, unthinking sheep reproducing in serious numbers. Exactly what I’ve been saying all along, you Greenie junk scientists!
1 April 2007 at 8:59 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXsuXs6kcO0
I call this climate candle. take a look!
1 April 2007 at 9:01 PM
This sheepish theory is blaaaatently false. Everyone knows that there were many more sheep in England during the medieval warming than exist today… and the whole world was at least 10 C warmer then compared to today because of it.
… And by the way, the reason that there are so few black sheep today, is that the Icelandic and Colorado crocodiles ate them to near-extinction 6000 years ago during a flood.
1 April 2007 at 9:56 PM
There was no April Fool’s reporting from 60 Minutes reporter Scott Pelly. He did a dynamite piece from Chile and Antarctica with the U. Maine scientist. It was like watching chapters from my novel being filmed.
1 April 2007 at 10:00 PM
An astronomer, a physicist and a mathematician (it is said) were holidaying in Scotland or New Zealand. Glancing from a train window, they observed a black sheep in the middle of a field.
“How interesting,” observed the astronomer, “all aScottish sheep are black!”
To which the physicist responded, “No, no! Some Scottish sheep are black!”
The mathematician gazed heavenward in supplication, and then intoned, “In Scotland there exists at least one field, containing at least one sheep, at least one side of which is black.”
Poster’s comment: They really should have brought in a statistician to analyze the data and extrapolate the results. Then after much debate they would have arrived at a consensus and published a paper suggesting it might be time to flip the sheep over to reduce the impact of Sheep Induced Global Warming. At least if the SIGW denialists were proven right and this resulted in the begining of a Sheep Induced Ice Age, all that would be needed is for a few mathematicians to be brought in to flip the sheep again shear them and knit woolen sweaters for everyone.
Cheers!
1 April 2007 at 10:05 PM
I accidentally posted this on the IPCC Sea Level Numbers thread. So, I’ll repost it here:
A bit off topic, but this might be of interest:
Climatologists Secure Funding To Breed Glaciers In Captivity
March 30, 2007
FAIRBANKS, AK. Researchers from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration received a $42 million federal grant for a captive-glacier breeding project that will attempt to spawn three to five of the massive, slow-moving bodies of land-carving ice by 2020…
http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/climatologists_secure
1 April 2007 at 11:44 PM
I don’t think you all have realized the full implications of this theory yet. Sheep come in various colors, though for various genetic reasons white is dominant. So we apply a bit of genetic engineering to change the color selection ratios, and presto! We now have full control of climate.
However, it seems that there may be another factor at work. The researchers were naturally using sheep albedo values that were measured in the lab, using clean white sheep. Sheep in the field readily pick up particulate matter, which results in a significant lowering of their albedo. Pollution control laws enacted in the latter half of the 20th century substantially decreased the amount of airborne particulates, increasing sheep albedo and thus producing the so-called “global cooling” noted in the ’60s &’70s. The recent increase in particulates from Chinese power plants has again reduced average sheep albedo (particularly in Mongolia), causing the warming to resume.
On the subject of China, further research is definitely needed into how their occupation of Tibet has affected the closely-related yak albedo effect. Humm… Maybe it’s not too late to switch fields so I can get in on all this government grant money…
2 April 2007 at 1:46 AM
Good article!
Only I am missing any reference to seasonal influence (sheep shearing resulting in albedo change), which strongly suggests correlation (causation?) with varying CO2 concentration during the year. All the more so since both variations are very small.
Also you do not disucss why sheep albedo is lagging CO2 concentration by 7-8 days.
2 April 2007 at 2:07 AM
I haven’t had so much fun with climate science, well, ever! Many thanks for the post and the great comments.
Since I once helped sheer 30 (white) sheep I think I’ve done my part to fight global warming.
2 April 2007 at 4:56 AM
You guys may poo poo the solar rays, but cosmologico-astrologico-zoodaical-zoologico-bovinical forces are definitely at work as this month we are in the constellation Aries
2 April 2007 at 6:35 AM
Ray,
You have presented an interesting new hypothesis, but I am rather disappointed that no-one seems to have applied to it the scepticism that new ideas normally receive. Perhaps this was due the considerable reputation of its author. However, appeals to authority should not be used to justify scientific theories so I will ignore that aspect just this once.
As I see it, your hypothesis is that global warming is due to the decline in the sheep population of New Zealand and this is justified by the correlation shown in the unnumbered figure. But correlation does not imply causation. The only time when that is acceptable is in showing that the validity of climate models are correct, where the outgoing long wave spectrum they calculate matches that measured by satellites. It is easy to show that this is justified, because it is an excellent example of where the exception proves the rule. Moreover, it is balanced by the dismissal of the satellite data which contradicts the models by showing less warming at the top of the troposphere than they predict.
However, IMHO, it is not just your method which is faulty. The science is also wrong. Surely you are aware that global warming is controlled by the temperature of the atmosphere near the tropopause. One of the wonders of the atmospheric system is how this small layer of air at high altitude can communicate through the overturning region of the atmosphere and so directly control the surface temperature. This is achieved through the lucky effect of LTE (local thermodynamic equilibrium.) The amazing fact is that although the boundary layer is never in thermodynamic equilibrium, because of the diurnal solar heating cycle, yet like the rest of the troposphere it too is in local thermodynamic equilibrium. (BTW, I have made some calculations of this effect and LTE will indeed happen in the boundary layer for an instant twice per day, with the same frequency as a stopped watch.)
There is another point which you seem to have ignored which is that although the albedo of the earth can be changed by the size of the sheep population, that effect will play very little part in global temperature. Most of the albedo of the earth is provided by the clouds and since we cannot model them correctly, then global albedo has to be treated as a constant. It would be wrong to use the change in albedo from sheep when changes in their population might trigger alterations in cloud density. Don’t forget that they graze nearer the clouds than other ruminants, and so will have a greater effect on the clouds.
On a more serious note, you should realise that albedo is no longer considered an effect that is important. Long ago the global energy balance equation:
sigma Te^4 = (1 - A) /4
was proved to yield the wrong value for the surface temperature. It is the effect of greenhouse gases which keep this planet suitable for life. By emphasising the effects of albedo (A in the above equation) you are only bringing attention to an equation that has only survived because the sceptics cannot accept that it is greenhouse gases, and greenhouse gases alone , which drive global warming.
Finally, on that theme of giving comfort to the enemy who doubt the infallibility of climate science, I am surprised and deeply disappointed that your views have been published. The IPCC have disregarded the possibility of a collapse of the Greenland ice sheet and the consequent rapid sea level rise, which is the only real threat to our prosperous western life style. Far from alerting us to an imminent danger, your idea is obviously a stunt to promote the sales of cardigans and jumpers, by creating sympathy for the poor sheep farmers who are being driven to extinction by AGW. Since you are obviously being funded by the New Zealand Federation of Local Enterprise and Environmental Committees for Education (FLEECE) then your ideas should be treated with the same contempt as those of other professors who are funded by the coal lobby. It is obvious that under cover of trying to keep us warm, your real intention is to fleece us!
2 April 2007 at 7:04 AM
Baaaaaaah!
2 April 2007 at 7:13 AM
As a daisy recently eaten by a sheep, my response to Hank Roberts’s #31 is muted(–mooted?). Without enlightenment does climate real?
2 April 2007 at 7:22 AM
I actually thought this was a real article at first, though I didn’t have to read down very far before running into clues like the names of the researchers. Boy, did I feel sheepish.
2 April 2007 at 7:44 AM
Dr. Ewe Noh-Watt - ha ha - classic.
2 April 2007 at 7:45 AM
RE # 43
And while we are on the subject:
[No doubt a few eyes will water in the US administration, when they learn how to make a U turn on Global Warming.
How do you make a British sheep do a U turn?
Flash a pair of Brittany shears.
2 April 2007 at 7:58 AM
RE:59 and 67.
Albedo must not be confused with the seasonal Lanolin Insulative Effect. After shearing, the LIE is reduced, allowing terrestrial heat to escape more rapidly to the atmosphere. Though transient, the LIE is significant.
I refer you to Dr. Bruce’s work at the Univ. of Woolamaloo.
2 April 2007 at 8:22 AM
Well, at least now we can get some sleep. No need to count ewe-noh-watt anymore…
2 April 2007 at 8:24 AM
Scientists Debate Use of Animals as Global Warming Fix
By OVIS ARIES, Unaffiliated Press Writer
1 hour, 18 minutes ago
WASHINGTON, DC - A recently issued report on global warming fixes sponsored by NASA , the National Albedo and Sheep Administration was the subject today of a tense and at times bizarre hearing of the Sen. Subcommittee on Reflective Farm Animals.
The report, which catalogued various schemes for reducing the impact of climate change was ridiculed by ranking member Jim Imhott as a hoax and worthy of a “Golden Fleece Award,” for wasting taxpayer dollars, noting that his conclusions were based on a separate report issued last week by NAS. Imhott later admitted to reporters that the NAS he was referring to was actually the National Association of Shepherds and not the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.
Those testifying included noted livestock modeler Ken Cowdairy of the Carnation Institute who presented the results of computer simulations showing that since sheep are somewhat mobile, their impact on scattering of sunlight will depend on their location at any given time. “You heard it here first,” he said.
Proposals were also described that involved increasing the size and shape of sheep in order to maximize the amount of reflected sunlight. Several companies already claim to have bioengineered sheep that are almost entirely flat on the top, while others said that sheep the size of small cars are only a few years away.
Witnesses also claimed to have been seen evidence of military involvement in the projects, stating that the number of clouds resembling sheep have increased in recent years, although senators forced one advocate of the so-called SheepTrail conspiracy theory to admit he also saw clouds resembling dogs, cars and even former Golden Girls star Bea Arthur.
A leaked document sparked much debate when it was revealed that the Bush Administration had secretly implored the IPCC to consider lifting the ban on wearing white after Labor Day while publicly arguing the contrary.
Noted climate blog poster Alvia Gaskill said that while some of the solutions proposed are “shear nonsense,” the answer to global warming will “require more gas skill than we have ever marshalled before.”
2 April 2007 at 8:55 AM
Bad ewe jokes.
Bad mutton jokes.
Bad shear jokes.
I think you’re just tossing out a scapegoat here.
Somebody mentioned the Bush administration, so I’m certain the bad “why sheep are always nervous” jokes are soon to follow.
2 April 2007 at 8:56 AM
Shear brilliance ;^ )
2 April 2007 at 9:08 AM
Almost as good as Google’s Toilet (T)ISP, which was also unveiled yesterday.
Good fun, boys, now back to work!
2 April 2007 at 11:31 AM
Nice study. Myron Ebell and pals ought to love this. Shows that global warming is entirely the fault of the European Union’s protectionist policies: the main thing responsible for the decline of the NZ sheep industry was Britain joining the EEC.
2 April 2007 at 12:06 PM
Folks, This is for real.
The New York Times just reported the US Supreme Court handed down its opinion on EPA regulating CO2;
see link which includes link to the entire opinion:
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/business/AP-Scotus-Greenhouse-Gase.html
The story leads off with the following:
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ordered the federal government on Monday to take a fresh look at regulating carbon dioxide emissions from cars, a rebuke to Bush administration policy on global warming.
In a 5-4 decision, the court said the Clean Air Act gives the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from cars.
2 April 2007 at 12:55 PM
Ray,
Advocating for sheep as a solution to global warming, only adds further evidence that climate science is fully politicized.
2 April 2007 at 1:08 PM
Yep, the new supreme court decision is pretty unambiguous in its language. On page five of the decision, we find the real kicker:
“Under the Act’s clear terms, EPA can avoid promulgating regulations only if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change or if it provides some reasonable explanation as to why it cannot or will not exercise its discretion to determine whether they do. It has refused to do so, offering instead a laundry list of reasons not to regulate, including the existence of voluntary Executive Branch programs providing a response to global warming and impairment of the President’s ability to negotiate with developing nations to reduce emissions. These policy judgments have nothing to do with whether greenhouse gas emissions contribute to climate change and do not amount to a reasoned justification for declining to form a scientific judgment. Nor can EPA avoid its statutory obligation by noting the uncertainty surrounding various features of climate change and concluding that it would therefore be better not to regulate at this time. If the scientific uncertainty is so profound that it precludes EPA from making a reasoned judgment, it must say so. The statutory question is whether sufficient information exists for it to make an endangerment finding. Instead, EPA rejected the rulemaking petition based on impermissible considerations. Its action was therefore “arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in accordance with law,” §7607(d)(9). On remand, EPA must ground its reasons for action or inaction in the statute.”
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf
2 April 2007 at 1:48 PM
I am of course excited about the Supreme Court news, but I cannot rest until I have debunked the horrendous falsehoods perpetuated by Dirk Blitzen and his idiotic so-called “sheep-iris” effect. Clearly, he’s a Wolf in sheep’s clothing. (And unendingly grateful thanks to RealClimate for your inspired April 1 posting. Only a scholarly and thorougly credible blog like yours could have pulled off something this effective.)
Janis Mara
www.ecotality.com
2 April 2007 at 1:55 PM
Re: US Supreme Court EPA Ruling #83 (McCormick) #85 (Hausfather)
Thanks John & Zeke, interesting read.
Question: does this mean the EPA actually has to do something, or can they now get away with some wishy-washy do-nothing-really regulations, as long as it is OK legally?
2 April 2007 at 1:56 PM
Sorry to be sooo OT but it appears that we’re (in England) now producing so much wine we’re risking sanctions under the CAP.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cornwall/6514147.stm
PS. Camel Valley Brut is pretty special
2 April 2007 at 2:49 PM
Re # 84 Roger Pielke
“Advocating for sheep as a solution to global warming, only adds further evidence that climate science is fully politicized.”
I don’t know about that - in my state sheep don’t vote.
2 April 2007 at 3:07 PM
RE # 84 & 89,
I believe what Mr Pielke meant to say was climate science is wooly politicized. Moth ado about nothing, in my opinion.
2 April 2007 at 3:47 PM
RE 80. I agree, “Shear briliance”. As artilces go on this website, this is one of the more plausible.
2 April 2007 at 3:52 PM
Amazing - TCS already has the answer:
Wether as Ewe Like It
By Mikhail Fermento : BIO| 01 Apr 2007
Discuss This Story! (0) Email | Print | Bookmark | Save
Scientists at the Climatic Research Unit at UEA Norwich, collaborating with Monsanto, have genetically built a better sheep. By adding a gene borrowed from chameleons, they have created a wooly bugger of a different color - the new ovines can go from black to white and shades between at will. The novel creatures act like ruminant heat pumps, warming and cooling the earth by altering its albedo. The idea is that large numbers of engineered sheep would be released in climate-challenged areas so they could interbreed with wild ones (hello, Dolly!). Over time more and more of the population would carry the new trait.
The first sheep will be expensive, but prices are expected to fall as the bioneering public-private partnership rams up breeding. Ski Dubai is exploring an early application of the technology to lower air conditioning costs, though so far researchers are stymied in the quest for golden fleece. Disney representative Shep Woolrus would not comment on rumored plans to conduct a trial at Epcot, creating a New Zealand Pavilion in the World Showcase. NASA spokesman John Merino confirmed that the agency was considering the possibility of monitoring experiments with the Sheep Weather Earth Albedo Tropospheric Energy Radiometer satellite (SWEATER), to be launched in 2017.
CRU-Monsanto has distributed test sheep to several prominent global warming skeptics, including climatologist Richard Lambzen, who named his Personal Adaptive Quadruped “Iris,” prompting students to nickname her “iPAQ.” Lambzen noted that, “she’s warm in winter, cool in summer, and doesn’t resort to alarmism to win grants.” Tim Balkhi tried a pair and liked the stable microclimate, but had to give it up; “people started calling me ‘Little Bal Peep,’ which led to confusion about my academic credentials, and they’re all I’ve got.” Paparazzi captured prominent writer Michael Crikey consorting with ewes, though CRU-Monsanto Deputy Director Knit Briffa could not recall providing him with samples. “I’d like to have a go at those too,” commented former political columnist Mick Crowley.
2 April 2007 at 4:40 PM
The Supreme Court ruled the EPA has the authority to regulate CO2, this is not an april fools joke.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/02/washington/02cnd-scotus.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1175548682-B6dmX05t6/AUN/sWkn4Iyg
2 April 2007 at 9:47 PM
I already held Master StoneHumbert in great esteem, but after this essay I cannot speak more highly of him than to declare him the Albus Dumbledore of climatology.
2 April 2007 at 9:54 PM
Clouds are the spirit of sheep who have donated their chops and gone to heaven. Clouds have increased because the Chinese are eating more NZ lamb, thus there are less sheep, and albedo is conserved
2 April 2007 at 10:30 PM
Oh dear, New Zealand’s (well deserved) reputation as the world centre of flat earth climate change deniers will only be reinforced by this article.
On a scientific note, please note that one means of reducing the albedo effect is to remove financial subsidies paid to sheep farmers on the basis of the size of the sheep flock each claims to have. This leads to a rapid reduction in sheep numbers (NZ went from having about 60 M sheep in 1983 to perhaps 6 million a decade later), thus mitigating the albedo effect.
3 April 2007 at 2:58 AM
Actually I think this research hints at but misses the real influence of sheep. It isn’t in temperate New Zealand that sheep are having their greatest influence, but rather is the vast arid and semi-arid landscapes of Australia next door. In addition to the direct sheep albedo effect you get an order or two of magnification caused by the fact that the hard hooves of sheep break up the dark geophyte crust (composed of lichens, fungi and mosses) that carpets the ground in ungrazed arid places. The exposed subsoil is much lighter and therefore has a much higher albedo. Furthermore, without the geophyte crust the fragile arid zone soils are prone to wind erosion, which rapidly strips the top few centimeters that contain the most organic matter. Deeper, lighter, higher albedo soils are then exposed. At the same time, all that nutritious top soil is lifted in dust storms and dumped into the Pacific. In the process some ends up on New Zealand’s glaciers canceling out their sheep albedo effect, but more importantly, the rest ends up in the ocean fertilizing phytoplankton which then sequester more carbon than otherwise. The current (possibly climate change induced) Australian drought is significantly enhancing this effect according to By Harry Butler of the University (see article here).
The Australian Prime Minister recently agreed that climate change is real and is such a big problem that Australia should not muck around with any namby pamby solutions such as increasing energy efficiency, signing the Kyoto Protocal or supporting green energy technologies. But instead, will solve the problem by going nuclear, putting a few million into checking out the viability of implementing carbon sequestration, and making lots of money out of ramping up coal and uranium exports. In the same selfless spirit, I believe that the Australian nation should massively increase it’s sheep population and abolish national parks, thereby stripping all remaining native vegetation and exporting the remaining top soil to the Pacific. All other carbon emitting nations can thereby pay carbon offsetting fees to the Antipodeans and happily get on with burning their remaining fossil fuel reserves. I note that large numbers of developing nations in Africa, the middle east and Asia are taking the same approach and should be similarly encouraged to re-double their efforts with fiscal incentives
3 April 2007 at 3:39 AM
I live in New Zealand and have done for more than twenty years. I am speechless, cross, envious and amazed. Here is this American scientist who has, on a brief visit to this country, with a bright flash of inspiration, seen something which has escaped me and the other 4 million denizens of these islands over generations. Disregarding Dr Paul Harris’s snide observation about this country, I have up to now, seeing the effect of the Bush adminstration on the climate debate, written America off in regard to leadership on this overwhelming moral issue. But this article brings hope, that something so revolutionary can be disovered, described and dealt with in such a short time frame (12 midnight to 12 midday on the Ist April 2007) by one American, publishing this paper under the nom-de-plume of Noh-Watt (anyone can see that’s not a real name) and his colleagues (nationality not stated, I suspect he did this all on his own) that there must be many other such Americans amongst the 300 million citizens of that once great country, who can take up the torch of progress (or is that the shears of incisiveness) in dealing with climate change.
Thank you so much for your insight, Ray, I will never eat a lamb chop again without thinking of you and your work. (Sorry, I am actually a vegetarian.)
3 April 2007 at 6:26 AM
I know this is a serious article, so I have a silly question. Does anyone know the current forcing per square meter with accepted +/- forcing m2 or the best source for updated estimation? Thanks
PS If you ever travel to Iceland, I recommend the lamb burgers up on the north side of Whale Bay. They are wonderful!
3 April 2007 at 6:29 AM
I stood in the middle of a flock of a thousand sheep in New Zealand and the heat being given off by the sheep’s bodies was incredible, negating any albedo effect I should think
3 April 2007 at 8:36 AM
# Re Re # 84 Roger Pielke
“Advocating for sheep as a solution to global warming, only adds further evidence that climate science is fully politicized.”
I don’t know about that - in my state sheep don’t vote. Comment by Chuck Booth â�� 2 Apr 2007 @ 2:49 pm
Comment:
Pielke is absolutely right: Here in the U.S., sheep vote as provoked by Fox’s News.
3 April 2007 at 8:48 AM
#97, Australia has opted for the white rabbit solution. They will breed them. Every Australian will be taught in school how to pull a white rabbit out of their hats when it gets too hot.
3 April 2007 at 9:10 AM
Re 101: Rather like turkeys voting for Christmas. By the way, it might be profitable to broaden this debate to take account of, alas only anecdotally, the increasing number of white turkeys being produced, particularly in former sheep-rearing areas, such as East Anglia, in England. Once wool exporting counties (especially during the MWP), farmers now have started to turn their attention from sheep to turkeys, especially the white varieties, rather than the previously-common Bronze. While this might only be due to market pressure, it could be an indication of northern-hemisphere global turkey forcing.
3 April 2007 at 9:59 AM
Well, seriously, where I work, some of us are, and have been, scared sh_ _ less for our children’s future and our society’s future by the long-term evidence and knowlege of past rapid and violent changes …and we laugh and joke like crazy…like this… just to be able to keep on doing it. Some of us fear the worst…but hope for the best. Laughter is a coping mechanism.
3 April 2007 at 10:39 AM
[[Does anyone know the current forcing per square meter with accepted +/- forcing m2 or the best source for updated estimation? ]]
I believe the forcing for doubling CO2 is about 3.7 watts per square meter, and I’m not sure on what the error bars on that are. For historical forcings, the IPCC has a table on its website for the third TAR, and I’m sure RealClimate must have reprinted it somewhere.
3 April 2007 at 11:57 AM
Lets not get ram-bunctious folks. The extra CH4 those wooly ruminants will be spewing into the atmosphere will surely offset any benefits from increased albedo.
3 April 2007 at 1:51 PM
#105
Thank you Barton the +/- was because I saw a few charts with a +/- .1 variable. I will find the charts. I was looking at the chart Dr. Hansen used in his report in February and saw did not know if the chart was up to date. if it is 3.7, then that tells a different story.
3 April 2007 at 3:07 PM
Re # 97
It is not the sheep in the Southern Hemisphere that are the problem, it is the sheep right here in the USA. If we did our homework, and waved it in front of Bush, he would know that, he either had to lead or be trampled by the flock. The problem is: not enough people are doing their homework and waving it in his face.
We will have done our work, when sites like this get as many hits as the pop culture websites.
PS. It was sheep (actually too many sheep) that caused much of the desertification across North Africa and the Middle East. Note that in this case, sheep ate (all) the grass, which lowered the albedo & lowered the ambient moisture resulting in desert and HIGHER temperatures. Thus, many white sheep acturally raise the local temperature. And, too many cattle can do the same.
3 April 2007 at 3:50 PM
Re #108 Aaron, do you have any proof that it was over-grazing that created the Sahara?
Cheers, Alastair.
3 April 2007 at 4:26 PM
I realize this may be an inappropriate point because I’m not a veterinary climatologist, so please forgive my lack of knowledge on the subject. The extent of my understanding of lamb is limited to icelandic lamb-burgers and the occasional run in with mint jelly.
My mother used to sing to me this song: “Lambs eat oats, and doe’s eat oats, and little lambs eat ivy, a kid’l eat ivy too, wouldn’t you, wouldn’t you…
I always thought that when she said kid, it meant human children, but in retrospect it may mean goats?
So… in context to the conversation of the day, I am wondering if when she sang “wouldn’t you”, might she have meant “wouldn’t ewe”? Any further scientific perspective on this argument would be at the least interesting.
Back to that other silly question. If 3.7 is a doubling, does that mean we are currently at 1.85% positive forcing in W/m2? I found a picture on the IPCC site that shows positive and negative forcing elements but it was not labeled with numbers.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/slides/06.01.htm
I tried to add all the numbers together from: (Halocarbons N2O CH4 Co2) +2.4, Stratospheric ozone -0.2, Tropospheric ozone +0.3, Sulphate -0.4, Black Carbon from fossil fuel burning +0.2, Organic carbon from fossil fuel burning -0.1, Biomass burning -0.2, Aviation contrails +0.1, Cirrus?, Land use (albedo only) -0.2, Solar +0.2
Mineral dust?, Aerosol indirect effect? [I’m not sure how to add these in.]
If anyone knows a good source link for some raw numbers that are solid, that would be very appreciated. The more current the better. I’m just trying to get a clear picture of where we are in perspective to where we’ve been.
3 April 2007 at 4:26 PM
Richard Ordway wrote: “Some of us fear the worst…but hope for the best. Laughter is a coping mechanism.”
3 April 2007 at 6:15 PM
I argue that recent warming is rather related to the decline in bold headed men since the beginning of the metrosexual era in the 90s. Even though we do not fully understand the mechanisms behind it. E.g.: Richard& Malcom et al. mention a decline in dandruff related to it.
3 April 2007 at 7:15 PM
Re #109 Alistair check out Climate Change: Environment and Civilization in the Middle East (Issar & Zohar, 2004). You can read snapshots from it at this site. Unfortunately it’s a pricey book, so hopefully you can find it at your nearest academic library. You can buy it at Springer if you are feeling rich. (Yeah OK, I know that the Sahara isn’t in the Middle East, but I’m sure that its very relevant.)
3 April 2007 at 8:55 PM
Re # 109
I did NOT say that over grazing created the Sahara. I said that overgrazing contributed to desertification. In the 1960â??s,a United Nations program did series of studies that pointed to overgrazing as a cause of desertification of the Sahel area between the Sahara and Nigeria. Then, six-mile square areas were fenced off and protected. While the areas were protected, the areas inside were grassland and the areas outside the fenced area were desert. This mitigates statements, that the Sahel was the victim of climate change. It was the victim of climate change; it was also the victim of a grazing commons and greed that led to too many cattle. Photographs of the areas from the air were very dramatic. Grass inside the fence, sand outside the fence. The UN money for such protection ran out in 1969 and the herders knocked the fences down within months. Now the only green left from that program is the green bound reports in the back of the UN Document Reading rooms.
The literature on desertification by overgrazing is extensive and should be required reading for any climate modeler. The first hit by Google is: http://www.azstarnet.com/clips/chewland.htm then you have http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/2849/, Remember when you read topics such as http://www.bu.edu/africa/envr/topic9.html that over grazing will reduce the humidity of an area and thereby reduce the rainfall, creating a feedback loop towards desertification.
3 April 2007 at 9:06 PM
This effect must of course be traded off against any increase in ovine flatulence, a well-known contributor to greenhouse gases.
3 April 2007 at 9:52 PM
While a bit off topic, this seems the appropriate place to discuss the humorous side of climate science…such as today’s (April 3) Mallard Fillmore cartoon (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/fun/mallard.asp)./
For those of you not familiar with this cartoon strip, suffice to say it leans to the right, politically. Several recent Mallard Fillmore cartoon strips have dealt with global warming, with cartoonist Tinsley adopting the skeptical view toward AGW. I’ll him credit, though - in today’s cartoon he cites his sources for his “news,” one of which is a Feb. 28 National Geographic News story about Russian space scientist Habibullo Abdussamatov, who claims “the [NASA Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions] Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.”
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
I find it interesting is that if you go to the National Geographic News homepage (http://news.nationalgeographic.com) and click on the heading “Environment News”, you’ll find at least half a dozen mainstream science news stories on global warming from the past couple of months - I guess cartoonist Tinsley couldn’t see the humor in those stories?
The other source cited in the cartoon is the report from the Danish National Space Center about a “new theory of climate change.” (http://www.spacecenter.dk/research/sun-climate/a-new-theory-of-climate-change) which the RealClimate crew reviewed March 9:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?s=Mars+global+warming&submit=Search&qt=&q=&cx=009744842749537478185%3Ahwbuiarvsbo&client=google-coop-np&cof=GALT%3A808080%3BGL%3A1%3BDIV%3A34374A%3BVLC%3AAA8610%3BAH%3Aleft%3BBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BLBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BALC%3A66AA55%3BLC%3A66AA55%3BT%3A000000%3BGFNT%3A66AA55%3BGIMP%3A66AA55%3BFORID%3A11%3B&searchdatabase=site
What I find esp. interesting about these “news” stories is how they are played up at the the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works website:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=0DF9B3CD-802A-23AD-4984-5AC0C6D42605
If you check out this site, note that the article runs under the banner “Inhofe EPW Press Blog.” Note also the blog entry from March 16: 03/16/07: “Scientific Smackdown: “Skeptics Voted The Clear Winners Against Global Warming Believers in Heated NYC Debate.”
3 April 2007 at 11:55 PM
Re #110: [My mother used to sing to me this song: “Lambs eat oats, and doe’s eat oats…]
(Sigh) I do believe you’ve misquoted your mother. It’s mares that eat oats, not lambs. Or if you prefer the classic spelling, it’s “Mairsie doats, and dozy doats…”
4 April 2007 at 2:44 AM
Ray
I profess being deeply shocked at McDonald’s assertion that one of RC’s sainted proprietors is an agent of FLEECE– were it true,by now we would have seen a Channel 4 special on how modelers obsessed with the optical depth of fleecy clouds conspire to exclude discussion of the Lamb effect from the IPCC process. While awaiting Alastair’s recantation, perhaps you can sell a couple of cardigans to the folks appearing in
http://adamant.typepad.com/seitz/2007/04/raving_greens.html
They need to explore fashion alternatives
4 April 2007 at 4:25 AM
#117
That’s what I love about science sites, people know what they are talking about. Mom sang me that song till I was around 5-6. I hadn’t even thought about it again till reading these posts, funny how the brain works sometimes
4 April 2007 at 6:02 AM
Re 113 & 114 where Craig and Aaron reply to my request for proof of a man/sheep made Sahara.
Craig,
That seems a very interesting book. However, the author seems to be saying that climate created history, and not that history created the climate, i.e. the spread of pastoralism resulted in a vast desert in the North of Africa. I, unlike others, accept that man can and is changing the climate through the emission of greenhouse gases and through land use changes. It has even been postulated that man made emissions of greenhouse gases has extended the current Holocene interglacial. That I am willing to accept, but I would like to know of any historical and archaeological evidence that land use changes in the past have altered the climate.
Aaron,
Over grazing happens when the population of the grazers is too great for the land. In nature this will seldom occur, because with less food the grazers will die and the vegetation can recover. Man is quite capable of arranging situations where overgrazing does happen, but then the pastoralists will move away or die out. It is only in modern society, where the tribes no longer have access to other lands because they are owned by farmers or other nations, that moving is ruled out. Moreover, strenuous efforts are made by the Red Cross and Bob Geldorf to keep the tribesmen and their children alive.
However, these conditions did not exist in the past. So the tribes should have died out and the land recovered. It seems more likely that abrupt climate changes related to solar activity, impacts, and volcanic eruptions. Those, not mankind, were the real culprits.
OTOH, we do know that the Dustbowl was the result of ploughing up the soils of the Mid West, and with the same cry of “the rain follows the plough”, the Australian farmers also dried out their soils. Could it be that with the initiation of the Iron Age, the farmers were then armed with iron ploughshares and so dried out their soils too. Was that was the cause of the pre-Hellenic Dark Age?
Cheers, Alastair.
4 April 2007 at 6:58 AM
Re #117 and #119, and anyone else interested: Mairzy doats
4 April 2007 at 11:10 AM
Bush Administration Still Seeking to Create Its Own Version of Sheep
Climate and Ocean Scientists Put Under New Speech Restraints
Any Scientific Statements “of Official Interest” Must be Pre-Approved
By: Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER)
Published: Apr 3, 2007 at 08:10
Federal climate, weather and marine scientists will be subject to new restrictions as to what they can say to the media or in public, according to agency documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). Under rules posted last week, these federal scientists must obtain agency pre-approval to speak or write, whether on or off-duty, concerning any scientific topic deemed “of official interest.”
On March 29, 2007, the Commerce Department posted a new administrative order governing “Public Communications.” This new order covers the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which includes the National Weather Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service. Commerce’s new order will become effective in 45 days and would repeal a more liberal “open science” policy adopted by NOAA on February 14, 2006.
Although couched in rhetoric about the need for “broad and open dissemination of research results [and] open exchange of scientific ideas,” the new order forbids agency scientists from communicating any relevant information, even if prepared and delivered on their own time as private citizens, which has not been approved by the official chain-of-command:
* Any “fundamental research communication” must “before the communication occurs” be submitted to and approved by the designated “head of the operating unit.” While the directive states that approval may not be withheld “based on policy, budget, or management implications of the research,” it does not define these terms and limits any appeal to within Commerce;
* National Weather Service employees are allowed only “as part of their routine responsibilities to communicate information about the weather to the public”; and
* Scientists must give the Commerce Department at least two weeks “advance notice” of any written, oral or audiovisual presentation prepared on their own time if it “is a matter of official interest to the Department because it relates to Department programs, policies or operations.”
“This ridiculous gag order ignores the First Amendment and disrespects the world-renowned professionals who work within Commerce agencies,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. “Under this policy, National Weather Service scientists can only give out name, rank, serial number and the temperature.”
The agency rejected a more open policy adopted last year by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The new policy also was rushed to print despite an ongoing Commerce Office of Inspector General review of communication policies that was undertaken at congressional request.
While claiming to provide clarity, the new Commerce order gives conflicting directives, on one hand telling scientists that if unsure whether a conclusion has been officially approved “then the researcher must make clear that he or she is representing his or her individual conclusion.” Yet, another part of the order states non-official communications “may not take place or be prepared during working hours.” This conflict means that every scientist who answers an unexpected question at a conference puts his or her career at risk by giving an honest answer.
http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=841
http://www.commerce.gov/opa/press/Secretary_Gutierrez/2007_Releases/March/29_FAQ.pdf
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/4/3/132447/7483
http://www.commerce.gov/opa/press/Secretary_Gutierrez/2007_Releases/March/29_DAO_219_1.pdf
http://www.yubanet.com/artman/publish/article_54102.shtml
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/03/commerce_issues.html
http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/File/AdminLetters/chairs_commerce_media_policy.pdf
4 April 2007 at 11:34 AM
Re #120: [Man is quite capable of arranging situations where overgrazing does happen, but then the pastoralists will move away or die out.]
Yes, leaving desert behind them, because the vegetation does not recover - at least not with anything like the same speed that it took to degrade in the first place. Arid grasslands are self-sustaining: the deep-rooted sod holds moisture in the soil. Destroy that by overgrazing or plowing, and it does not easily regenerate. So what you get is just what we see in the Sahara: an ever-expanding desert surrounded by a ring of grazing lands.
4 April 2007 at 11:42 AM
Off topic, sorry, but I would like some help with my brother, a PhD (I’m an MD) who is a global warming deiner. I have a couple of e-mails from him that are laughable but have not the means to adequately refute him. Any way to help without quiting work and researching full time….
4 April 2007 at 11:43 AM
RE # 120
More likely, there were several causes including a transition to the collection of taxes in olive oil, which resulted extensive planting of olive trees. Olive trees have deep taproots and deplete subsurface moisture and do little to prevent soil erosion. These olives replaced the fibrous rooted fruit trees and vines that had protected the hillsides from erosion. The olive groves were then over grazed, resulting in massive erosion.
This political change resulting in a cultural change seems to have been more of a problem than any particular change in agricultural technology. One factor in the political change was an increasing population that was increasingly urban, and that wanted goods for trade rather than just food and goods for subsistence.
If the hillsides are barren, and do not absorb the rain, then the hydrology of the fertile valley below is changed. With less useable water, food production in the valley drops. Thus, planting olives reduced food production miles away. Of course, it took 50 years after the olives were planted for the effects to be seen on the wheat production in the valleys below. By then, the soil from the olive groves had been washed away, and they could not go back to growing figs, grapes, and apples on the hillsides.
4 April 2007 at 11:45 AM
I thought the Sahara was created by a change in the tilt of the earth.
4 April 2007 at 1:38 PM
I am an American and would like to respond to Aaron Lewis’ post. Mr. Lewis, a fellow American, says we must all do our homework and wave it in President Bush’s face. But what if we are not students? Ah ha HA, Mr. Lewis, got you there!
4 April 2007 at 1:42 PM
“At the beginning of the simulation, Daisyworld is so cold that only a few black sheep, and almost no white sheep, can survive. Whenever the planet’s temperature decreases, the black sheep tend to predominate, they absorb a little heat from the sun, which causes the planet’s temperature to rise, allowing a greater proliferation of black sheep, more absorption of heat, and so on. As the planet becomes hotter white sheep begin to breed as well, and eventually the planet reaches a point of temperature equilibrium . Any increase in temperature is combated by a greater proportion of white sheep; any decrease leads to more black sheep. ”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daisyworld
Obviously Lovelock & Watson had to call the sheep something and there were too many to name individually. So they opted to call all of them “Daisy”. This choice has lead to the details of their study being inadvertently misrepresented ever since. Not a lot of people know that.
4 April 2007 at 1:58 PM
Re #124: John Mruzik — In a side bar there is a link to the AIP history of climatology. Also there is a link to the A Few Things Ill Considered site, which directly refutes the usual denialist’s arguments.
Your brother will profit by reading both…
4 April 2007 at 2:06 PM
John Mruzik, do you realize that you are apologizing for going off topic from an April Fools post? You know, you can take politeness too far.
Here’s a good history:
http://www.aip.org/history/exhibits/climate/
And a blog entry–think of it as an on-line support group manual:
http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics
Best of luck to you. What does your bro have his PhD in? If it’s engineering, I’d say you’re screwed.
4 April 2007 at 2:36 PM
> thought the Sahara was created by a change in the tilt of the earth …
Google:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/390097.stm
I haven’t looked for followups, you may want to dig a bit and see what’s been said later.
4 April 2007 at 2:47 PM
Speaking of childhood songs, here’s one my nephews sang for a long time and I had to correct the major climate fallacy in it!
I am cow, hear me moo
I weigh twice as much as you
And I look good on the barbecue
Yogurt, curd, cream cheese and butter
Come from liquids in my udder
I am cow, I am cow, hear me moo (moo)
I am cow, eating grass
Methane gas comes out my ____
And out my muzzle when I belch
Oh, the ozone layer gets thinner
With the outcome of my dinner
I am cow, I am cow, Ive got gas
4 April 2007 at 3:03 PM
#122 — who do those gov scientists work for, Bush or us?? Who pays their salaries, Bush or us?? I think we need to fire Ewe-Noh-Hoo in middle-management.
4 April 2007 at 3:04 PM
Speaking of cows, the French have Charolais while we’re sportin’ more and more Black Angus.
We’re just so out of step.
4 April 2007 at 3:39 PM
“Oh dear, New Zealand’s (well deserved) reputation as the world centre of flat earth climate change deniers will only be reinforced by this article.”
Driving into work just now listening to NZ’s National Radio I heard an advertisement for an upcoming program. “Global Warming bla bla we’re all going to fry bla bla” said the announcer, “but those who disagree with the consensus are seldom heard from.” I almost drove off the road laughing! My humour was abated by the soothing voice of Augie Auer. It’s a pity he’s so seldom heard from. When was the last time he was in the news? Oh yes, this Tuesday.
It’s another glorious morning in Wellington by the way and the view from the top of the Melrose hills towards Baring Head is really quite beautiful. Not a single sheep in sight.
4 April 2007 at 4:06 PM
Re #126: [I thought the Sahara was created by a change in the tilt of the earth…]
Certainly there can be many factors at work in the creation of large-scale deserts. Orbital changes may play a part, but the effects of humans and agriculture are very real. An orbital shift 4000 years ago may have started turning the Sahara to desert, but 2000 years later North Africa was still the breadbasket of the Roman Empire.
You can also see the human-caused desertification process at work elsewhere, not least in the western US. I and my neighbors even have a microcosmic version. One neighbor keeps 3 horses on an acre: their pasture is eaten to bare dirt. Another neighbor used to until a few years ago, then left their pasture alone: it grows thistles, tumbleweeds, and cheatgrass. Mine was much the same when I bought it, but each year I have planted some with native grasses and other dryland plants. It takes 3-4 years of supplemental watering to get an area established, after which it can survive on the 8-10 inches or so of natural rainfall we get.
4 April 2007 at 4:08 PM
132: “Oh, the Arctic ice gets thinner”
133: The reason the Commerce Dept. can get away, at least temporarily, with this stunt is that both NOAA and NWS are part of Commerce and NWS reports to NOAA. Any complaints from their leadership can be dealt with by Commerce Secy Gutierrez, whereas a complaint from Michael Griffin, the NASA Administrator would put him in direct conflict with the White House. Suffice to say the White House don’t need no more conflicts right now. I hope readers saw the difference between the NASA and Commerce “policies,” the primary difference being that the NASA policy appears to have been written by Griffin and the new Commerce one by a bunch of lawyers. The earlier NOAA policy seems to mirror the one from NASA.
http://www.peer.org/docs/noaa/06_15_2_sci_open.pdf
http://www.nasa.gov/about/highlights/griffin_science.html
Note: I could not find the “NASA policy” on their website. This is as detailed as it gets. Nevertheless, since James Hansen continues to appear freely and without an entourage of minders, I must assume that NASA has not implemented a crackdown on free speech.
Various: Creation of deserts. Large deserts like the Sahara can begin for a variety of reasons, but once they reach a critical size, they tend to control their own destiny. Thus, the outcome of the argument that goes do droughts create deserts or do deserts create droughts depends on how big the desert.
The warming of Mars that seems to be in progress may also be explained by a surface albedo effect, according to a recent study. Winds blowing lighter colored surface matter away expose darker surface matter that absorbs more solar radiation. The increased IR raises the temperature of the Martian atmosphere and contributes to shrinkage of the ice caps.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20070404/sc_space/duststormsfuelglobalwarmingonmars
Of course, it could also be due to the collapse of the Martian sheep industry.
4 April 2007 at 5:25 PM
Are the people who run this website on vacation? There is so much going on right now with the climate and all that has been on here is this April fools joke. It was funny, but now it is bordering on unprofessional. I do appreciate this site, and my thirst for more climate updates has gotten me antsy.
4 April 2007 at 5:52 PM
It’s time to put a stop to this Climate Wars nonsense. Send in the Merinos!
4 April 2007 at 6:39 PM
Re #137; I like “Oh the Arctic ice gets thinner”. Thanks!! My students like to sing and occasionally harmonize this song!
4 April 2007 at 7:07 PM
‘SecDef, retarget the nukes at New Zealand, Wales and Yorkshire.’
‘It was a joke, Mr President.’
4 April 2007 at 7:21 PM
#137, “since James Hansen continues to appear freely and without an entourage of minders, I must assume that NASA has not implemented a crackdown on free speech.”
I wouldn’t assume that. Hansen is a senior scientist, well-known, closer to retirement. I doubt they can do much against him without there being a scandal. However, I imagine there may be junior scientists afraid of losing their jobs. I imagine there’s a real chilling effect throughout the government, even in agencies that don’t have such drastic rules. Of course, we’ll never know if people are afraid to speak out and remain silent.
I had a distant relative who worked for the EPA under Reagan. She started out in grad school as a strong environmentalist, but understood how to advance her career in the agency and shifted to an anti-environmental stance (some lower persons in the agency who didn’t sell their soul to the devoil, commented about how she had sold-out to advance, begging to remain anonymous).
4 April 2007 at 8:36 PM
Thanks for the links, I appreciate you all,
her is the text of my brother’s maddness…….
All the evidence points to net benefits from warming. and catastrophe for mankind is irrational over the top political rhetoric
without foundation..
And the point is NOT that the left wing looks stupid if they are wrong but rather that we waste resources and halt needful
reform and that does real harm..
Andrew tells me there are space alien conspiracies that pose a danger to mankind. You tell me global warming is caused
by human activity.. Your arguments are the same.. MANY people believe it. What if it really is true, you say. The
consequences are too horrible to ignore RUN FOR YOUR LIFE.. ALL WITHOUT ANY REASONABLE EVIDENCE or REASON.
Let me give you the SECOND point to look up. For nearly 30 YEARS, the poor old earth had a measurable, consistent,
and widely reported net COOLING from 1940-1970+ while we had the LARGEST increase in CO2 to that point.. The vast
left wing whacko conspiracy nuts claimed they should be elected because ONLY they recognized the onset of a new ice age
and ONLY they could be trusted to reverse the trend by the power of their intrinsic goodness..
No model predicted this or even now can accurately reproduce the effects. look up Navier Stokes simulations and
CHAOS theory.because it is unlikely we will ever be able to calculate it. please read the National Academy of Science
book I sent you. It is a good layman’s summary of model inadequacies..
Hope all is well.
Love
-Mike
P.S. As for the first point that more CO2 doesn’t reflect more heat but reflects it from a lower altitude. large part of
the reason is because the effect is logarithmetic. For radiation to be absorbed, it has to make the molecule jiggle
in some way. CO2 has a narrow band of frequencies at which it jiggles (rotates, twists, shakes, rattles, and rolls).
These frequencies are all quantized but so dense that they can be approximated as a continuum. (similar to the
ultraviolet-catastrophe resolution by Max Planck on black-body radiation). IN ANY EVENT, before humankind
changed 1 air molecule in 10,000 to CO2 over the last 200 years, CO2 was ALREADY absorbing nearly 100 percent
[that’s everything for the general public] of all possible heat loss.. Have you looked this inconvenient fact
up yet and are ready to discuss the science? Or should we all vote on it? And by the way, this wouldn’t
be the first time I have observed MASS HYSTERIA fostered by politicos on a weak-minded and scientifically-illiterate
public..
Time to get some sleep.. Best Wishes.
—–Original Message—–
From: jmruzik@msn.com [mailto:jmruzik@msn.com]
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 4:52 PM
To: Dr. Michael R. Mruzik
Subject: Re: Feel sorry for the public but also feel a growing contempt for stupidity…
I guess I feel sorry for you. Since the great majority of scientist accept the fact that humans are responsible for global warming. Maybe there is some vast left-wing conspiracy to alter the peer reviewed science………… Well, we are wrong, we look stupid, if you are wrong it means catastrophe for mankind.
—– Original Message —–
From: Dr. Michael R. Mruzik
To: jmruzik@msn.com
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 9:25 AM
Subject: Feel sorry for the public but also feel a growing contempt for stupidity…
It is discouraging to see otherwise educated people, who are entirely ignorant of science,
spouting nonsense like we have global warming or WORSE, humanity is to blame. What this
means is that they have no judgment.. So anything they say or think on other subjects is highly
suspect as well and can be safely discounted. there is no other reasonable alternative
http://www.callingallwingnuts.com/2007/03/27/global-warming-phooey/
Do they also believe that SPACE ALIENS fathered Anna Nicole’s baby. I wouldn’t doubt they
believe it. what other amusing nonsense are you into these days?
I, on the other hand, actually look at the scientific data and not the opinion polls which
most are too busy/otherwise occupied to be concerned with.. Not on everything but on
warming/Navier Stokes/climate models/physical processes in atmosphere like water nucleation
(my PhD Thesis)..
Spin/misrepresentation/selective filtering of data/flights of fancy in “op-ed” pieces is NOT
science. believe it or not. nor are they much good for anything except if you simply
memorize the most outrageous far-out-man opinion to shock (and unfortunately amuse) people
at parties..
P.S. Why don’t we lead a crusade to get the constant pi set to 3.0 instead of some ridiculous
approximation most people can’t memorize?
4 April 2007 at 8:37 PM
His email is mike@mruzik.com
4 April 2007 at 9:11 PM
Agreed #138 - this is a tired thread. Surely there’s science to be discussed. Otherwise people will think this whole AGW thing is an April Fool joke about sheep(seriously!).
4 April 2007 at 10:58 PM
That was a wonderful Poisson d’Avril.
5 April 2007 at 4:57 AM
Re 144 & 145: John; ask questions, make comments, tell jokes, but for pities sake don’t paste in huge long verbatim email exchanges. Use this website as a resource and put together your own replies to your brother. Even the inane sheep jokes are more interesting than your sibling rivalry.
5 April 2007 at 7:22 AM
[[For nearly 30 YEARS, the poor old earth had a measurable, consistent, and widely reported net COOLING from 1940-1970+ while we had the LARGEST increase in CO2 to that point..]]
Right, because there were few controls on pollution, and aerosols reflected away sunlight and blocked it from reaching the ground. This was the era of mass pollution deaths at Donora PA and London. When pollution controls came in in the ’70s (remember Earth Day?) aerosols were reduced and the warming ef