What's the difference between the Maunder Minimum and the late twentieth century?

Somehow I became distracted by an online "discussion" in which someone was confused about the connections between solar variability and climate variability. The result of that distraction was that I made a plot, shown here, that compares the Maunder Minimum (1645 - 1715 CE) to the last 60ish years (1945-present). Below is the text I wrote to present this figure, along with data sources and citations. 

Let's compare the Maunder Minimum with the second half of the 20th Century. Since there isn't really that much data, we are limited to a few quantities. I have chosen two, one is the total solar irradiance (TSI), which is the energy received by the Earth from the sun (per time per area, expressed in Watts per square meter). This data comes from a reconstruction by Wang et al. (2005) as modified by Kopp & Lean (2011), and was obtained at the link below. This data is very similar to other reconstructions (Lean et al. 2004, 2000, 1995), but is basically shifted downward by about 5 W/m2 as a recalibration. The updated data covers 1610 to 2011. The second quantity we can investigate is the northern hemisphere temperature anomaly (degrees C). There are not direct observations (of sufficient quality) reaching back to the Maunder Minimum, so we will use the temperature reconstruction of Moberg et al. (2005). That data actually stops at 1979, but we can visually extend the data to near present day by including the observed northern hemisphere temperature anomaly from Smith et al. (2008) which reaches to January 2012. For the Smith et al. data, I chose to use the land plus ocean values. There is an issue with baselines, the Moberg et al. data are anomalies with respect to the 1961-1990 average temperature while the Smith et al. data are with respect to the 1901-2000 average temperature (which is cooler than the shorter, later average). I have not adjusted for this offset, and the result is that the pink dots in the figure should actually all be slightly upward compared to the red line. The agreement between the overlapping interval is quite good, but would be a little worse if the shift were included. There are other reconstructions available, and I have no reason to choose Moberg's over the others except that it is perhaps the most recent. The TSI and temperature reconstruction data are both annual, and I've made sure the data are centered within each year. The Smith et al. data are monthly (which is why I need to center the annual records). 

Finally, just for completeness, I define the Maunder Minimum using the definition on the Wikipedia page, which is 1645 to 1715. This is in line with the TSI data. For the more recent climate, I chose to simply shift 300 years into the future. So the plots cover 1945 to 2015, but the data sets stop at whatever their last times are. The Maunder Minimum times and data are shown in blue, while the 20th/21st Century data are shown in red and pink with the time labeled along the top of each panel. 

To try to head off any misinterpretation of this plot, let me simply state what it shows. During the Maunder Minimum, there was reduced solar activity and the average northern hemisphere temperature was about 0.6 C cooler than the the 1961-1990 average value. During the period covering 1945 to the 1960s/1970s, the northern hemisphere temperatures were relatively flat and near their 20th Century average. Over those years, the sun was active, showing "normal" sunspot and TSI 11-year cycles. From some time in the 1970s until present, shown in the pink circles, the northern hemisphere average temperature shows a clear upward trend. All the monthly average values after 1996 are warmer than the 20th Century average. During this rapid and clear warming, the solar activity was typical, and quite similar to the 1945-1975 period, showing clear quasi-periodic activity. There appears to be little connection between variation in solar activity and variation in northern hemisphere average temperature during the late 20th Century. 

REFERENCES

Kopp & Lean (Geophysical Research Letters, 38, L01706, doi:10.1029/2010GL045777, 2011)

Lean, J.. 2004: Solar Irradiance Reconstruction. IGBP PAGES/World Data Center for Paleoclimatology. Data Contribution Series # 2004-035. NOAA/NGDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder CO, USA.

Lean, J. 2000: Evolution of the Sun's Spectral Irradiance Since the Maunder Minimum. Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 27, No. 16, pp. 2425-2428, Aug. 15, 2000. 

Lean, J., J. Beer, and R. Bradley. 1995: Reconstruction of Solar Irradiance Since 1610: Implications for Climate Change. Geophysical Research Letters, v.22, No. 23, pp 3195-3198, December 1, 1995.

Moberg, A., D.M. Sonechkin, K. Holmgren, N.M. Datsenko and W. Karlén. 2005: Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low-and high-resolution proxy data. Nature, Vol. 433, No. 7026, pp. 613-617, 10 February 2005. 

Wang, Lean, and Sheeley (The Astrophysical Journal, 625:522-538, 2005 May 20)

DATA SOURCES
TSI: http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/data/tsi_data.htm
TSI: http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/solar_variability/lean2000_irradiance.txt
NH T Reconstruction: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/moberg2005/moberg2005.html
NH T Observations: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/anomalies.php

The WSJ op-ed page again

The Wall Street Journal has published an op-ed by 16 "scientists" claiming that global warming isn't a big deal, and probably stopped many years ago. They do call for funding satellite and ground-based observations of the climate system, which is generous of them. I read the piece, which is full of half-truths and less. It can be found under the title "No Need to Panic about Global Warming" in (or around) 27 January 2012.

Notably, the WSJ rejected a similar letter my 255 members of the National Academy of Sciences. The main difference between the two submissions was, oh, everything. The NAS members call out the poor coverage of global warming and its impacts in the media. Peter Gleick covered this in an article published on Forbes [LINK].

I noticed at least two things about the list of 16 "scientists" on the WSJ piece. First, most of them have little if any professional experience studying the climate system. Second, there is a preponderance of old, white men on the list. I'm not the only one who noticed, Ben Nolan also did, and he's working through the list to see who these people are, including how old and how white they might be [LINK]. It comes as no surprise that many on the list are connected financially to the fossil fuel industry and/or to conservative think tanks (that are likely funded by the fossil fuel industry). I hope Mr. Nolan follows through and completes the list, as I think the rest are just as oily as those he's tracked down so far.

Ralph Hall, chair of the House of Representatives science committee

I have not read such incoherent drivel from such a highly placed official since George W. Bush was in the whitehouse. Please read this story and accompanying interview with Ralph Hall; it is a shocking view into the world of American politics. It is a world where people say things like "I don't have any proof of that. But I don't believe 'em. I still want to listen to 'em and believe what I believe I ought to believe." [LINK]

Sherwood's dredging up history

Steve Sherwood has an outstanding piece in Physics Today that compares climate "denialism" to historical precedent. In particular, he compares today's climate deniers to those who denied general relativity and heliocentrism in the past. The three stories are interwoven beautifully, definitely worth the read. Here's the link: LINK

The American ‘allergy’ to global warming: Why?

"Climate change has already provoked debate in a U.S. presidential campaign barely begun. An Associated Press journalist draws on decades of climate reporting to offer a retrospective and analysis on global warming and the undying urge to deny." -- Editor's Note regarding this piece by Charles Haney, The American ‘allergy’ to global warming: Why? [link].

Nice, concise overview of the state of climate science and "denialism" in the United States.

Start pre-gaming, only two years to the next IPCC report

The last IPCC report on the physical science of climate change, called the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), was published in 2007. Since that time, plans for the next assessment (AR5) have been underway.

I think I posted before about the announcement of the chapter outlines and the lead authors [link]. The groundwork has been laid for some time, with the lineup of authors finalized earlier this year [pdf]. A lot of the effort falls upon Thomas Stocker [link], the Co-Chair of "Working Group 1," the job previously held by Susan Solomon [link] for AR4. Not only that, but there have already been two meetings of the lead authors, the most recent being in July in Brest, France.

If they are able to keep on schedule, then the AR5 will be published in two years: in September 2013.

The first order draft will be done and reviewed in the next few months. As you know, the assessment is basically a gigantic review paper of climate science. As such, it relies on published results for the basis of the review. The last day to have papers submitted to journals and be considered for inclusion in the AR5 is 31 July 2012, so if you want to get something into the next IPCC report, you have about 10 months to get it done and submitted. It also needs to be accepted by 15 March 2013, giving you plenty of time to deal with those pesky reviewers.

Remote Sensing shakeup

The editor-in-chief of the open-access journal Remote Sensing has resigned. An editorial in the journal explains the situation. The short version is that this journal is the one that let that Spencer & Braswell paper slip through peer review; that publication has fatal flaws throughout its assumptions and analysis. The paper was quickly and brutally criticized in the climate-blogosphere, but exaggerated and praised in the right-wing, and much of the mainstream, media. The journal was criticized for letting such a poor paper get published. The editor-in-chief, Wolfgang Wagner, has now had a chance to review the criticisms and the paper and the review process. He has come to the conclusion that the paper should not have been published. The reason seems to come down to poor selection of reviewers by the editor that was in charge of that paper. The reviews came back with little criticism, to which the authors responded, and that basically tied the editor's hands and the paper had to be accepted.

From my point of view, the failing was the editorial board's misunderstanding of the subject matter and clear mishandling of the review process. From the tone and content of the paper, it was clearly a contrarian point of view and had the flavor of ideological bias. I suspect that the reviewers were selected from the list of suggested reviewers supplied by the authors. In cases of controversial content, there needs to be at least one critical reviewer selected from the community involved, and I'm pretty sure none of the reviewers in this case were in the mainstream of the climate change community.

I'm glad that Wolfgang Wagner has stepped down. I don't know that he did anything wrong except let the other editors make some bad decisions, but this move does help to show that the journal doesn't want to build a reputation for publishing garbage, contrarian papers. Hopefully this will be a small blemish on the journal's reputation which won't mar the whole thing.  It will be interesting to see if the next editor-in-chief conducts a review of the evidence and officially retracts the paper (it is unclear whether this journal has provisions for that, but they should consider it).

The original paper can be found from the journal's web page. The editorial is worth a read, and can be found in the current issue [LINK]. On a related note, a new GRL paper by Andy Dessler destroys the Spencer & Braswell argument in under 4 pages [LINK].

UPDATE: Lots of coverage of this story on the climate blogs. One worth seeing is Mooney's post on DeSmogBlog, which rehashes some similar scandals involving climate, intelligent design, and autism. [LINK]

The big balloon and the garden hose

I'm uncomfortable with this real-life test of geoengineering: http://www.grist.org/climate-change/2011-08-31-is-planet-cooling-balloon-full-of-hot-air

Maybe they could have started with some modeling?

CLOUD experiments

The first results from the CLOUD experiments have been getting a lot of media attention. The focus of the attention is the Nature paper that was published this week: [news][paper].

The goal of this project is to determine whether cosmic rays have a significant impact on clouds.

Let's boil this down a little. This project is a laboratory experiment at CERN. It is a cloud chamber, basically an isolated volume of air that is precisely controlled for temperature and pressure. They put very pure air into the chamber, add a little background water, and some gases like ozone, sulfuric acid, and ammonia. The chamber is heavily instrumented to look for nucleation, which just means that they try to keep track of particle formation that occurs as the vapors interact and possibly start condensing. They can do this in neutral conditions (like a classical cloud chamber), or they can shine a pion beam into the chamber. That beam is adjusted to mimic cosmic ray bombardment. The goal is to see if cosmic rays produce ions that enhance the formation of particles, which could then go on to become the seeds for cloud droplets.

The answer seems to be that shining that beam into the chamber does produce more particles. This actually isn't a surprise, as far as I can tell. One important point is that nucleation rates, that is the rate of particle formation, are smaller than observed rates unless the temperature is quite low. This means that it is unlikely that cosmic rays ionizing gases near the Earth's surface is a major source of particle formation. Certainly there is particle formation, but it is likely to be a small source of the total number of particles. This result may change when they start adding in organic molecules, but that is future work.

There is better coverage on RealClimate: link.

There is hubbub about this result because there is a crack-pot theory that galactic cosmic rays are a major control of climate because of their impact on cloud formation. There are major flaws with this theory. My own take is that cosmic rays probably do produce some of the particles in the atmosphere that go on to become cloud condensation nuclei, but there are many paths to becoming cloud condensation nuclei, and there are lots and lots of these particles around. In fact, I seriously doubt that cloud formation is frequently affected by the limitation of these aerosol particles. I've been thinking about this in terms of observed cloud properties. The number of cloud droplets is connected to the number of aerosol particles available: over land where there are lots more aerosol particles, there tends to be more, smaller droplets in clouds, while over the remote ocean the clouds are made of fewer, larger droplets. In very polluted conditions, we can observe changes in the cloud properties that follow that same trend. I think the downfall of the cosmic ray theory of cloud formation comes from the fact that out in the middle of the ocean there are still tons of aerosol particles. While many of those particles may come from cosmic ray influenced nucleated vapors, there is no evidence that there is a shortage of other sources of aerosol, so if the intensity of cosmic ray bombardment were to change, it seems unlikely that other sources of aerosol wouldn't fill whatever tiny void that change would make.

Besides this basic criticism (which amounts to the originators of the theory simply having a bit of a myopic view of cloud formation), there is also a clear lack of evidence for cosmic ray intensity modulating cloud/climate. The RealClimate piece covers that. Finally, there is the link to climate change, for which there is absolutely no evidence.

So my summary would be something like: This research presents experimental results that suggest that ionization by cosmic ray-like effects can impact nucleation rates in conditions similar to the Earth's atmosphere. The role of such nucleation enhancement in the Earth's atmosphere remains unclear, especially given that the impact seems most pronounced in conditions that are outside the atmospheric boundary layer. This is a nice contribution to basic aerosol research, which should help to constrain models of aerosol formation. The impacts on cloud formation and the Earth's climate can not be assessed with the data collected so far.


The authors are only slightly overselling their results, which is typical for authors of Nature papers. The lead author's comments can be heard in the embedded YouTube clip. The media coverage, and especially the climate change denier blogosphere, is lighting up like this experiment proves something controversial. It does not.

Reactions to the Spencer paper

It's a very bad paper. That is the short story. I haven't thought through all my criticisms of it yet (maybe I'll write something here eventually). In the meantime, I like this overview piece at Climate Central by Michael D. Lemonick [LINK]. I especially enjoyed the comment that, "... it's not that NASA data are blowing a hole in anything. It's that Spencer's interpretation of NASA data are blowing... something, somewhere."

For those of you looking to actually read the paper, it is in a journal called Remote Sensing, and it is open access. You can find it by looking up doi:10.3390/rs3081603. Let me reiterate that this is a bad paper, with many incorrect statements, assumptions, and reasoning. It isn't worth you time reading this paper when you could better spend it reading an informative one about climate sensitivity... oh, I don't know, maybe doi:10.1175/2008JCLI1995.1

A peer-review recipe

Eos is on a hot streak, at least compared to the usual Eos status quo. There's another useful article in the 12 July issue. It is an overview, or maybe a primer, about peer reviewing [LINK]. It is written by K.A. Nicholas and W. Gordon. I'm not sure what they do, Nicholas is at Lund U. in Sweden, and Gordon is at UT Austin. The article is a bit prescriptive for my taste, but I think it will be helpful reading for graduate students and others who are doing their first reviews. It's a good reminder for the rest of us about how we should think about some aspects of doing reviews.

One difference between my reviews and the ones outlined by the article is in how to treat fatally flawed manuscripts and majorly flawed ones. The article suggests identifying these errors and being done with the review. In my experience, there is a good chance that the manuscript will still get "accepted subject to major revisions," so this may be the only chance to really convey to the authors what they need to improve. (Otherwise, there's the risk of multiple rounds of reviews, which no one wants.) To that end, I always provide a full review, even if I am recommending rejection of the paper. I always hope that the editor will appreciate the effort, and also that the authors will get more constructive criticism to help improve a new version of the manuscript, or at least have a comprehensive set of comments to address in a revised version that will come back for another review.

On a side note, this is also helpful, at least in principle, in the "dialog" between the climate science community and the climate change denying community. There is a lot of mistrust of the peer-review process among "skeptics" (note they are not skeptical, really). The article in Eos is a simple explanation of how peer-reviews are written, and I think almost everyone will agree that the description is roughly what reviews look like. While sometimes reviews are more or less helpful, the thought behind them is basically the one described by the article. They are meant as constructive criticism, pointing out strengths and weaknesses of work, judging the contribution to the field, and recommending whether publication is reasonable or not. This is how I write reviews, and it is similar to reviews I receive. In climate science, reviews are usually anonymous, though there's always the option of signing a review so that the authors know who you are. The decision about how the submitted manuscript proceeds comes from the editor, not directly from the reviewers, so even if a paper receives an unfair review, the editor can take corrective action. When that doesn't happen, the authors can appeal to the editor, pointing out where the review has gone off track. The usual course of action would be for the editor to find another reviewer, who can then corroborate the criticism or back up the author. There really isn't anything secretive or mysterious about the process. There are obvious measures to avoid conflicts of interest, and procedures for interaction among the participants. So while there are interesting arguments about how to improve peer review (blinded reviews, e.g.), I think the current system is quite transparent and attempts to be fair to all involved. I hope that critics of climate science will read this article (and David Schultz's book, LINK) before they attack the peer review process in general.

News Corp behind Climategate?

Was Rupert Murdoch's right-wing-leaning News Corp behind the illegal hacking of the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit? There's no direct evidence at this time, but Joe Romm has put it out there in today's Climate Progress [LINK]. While Romm's connections seem tenuous, there is no doubt that News Corp's news outlets made great use of the stolen emails, and no one would be surprised if the suspicion were to be found true. Either way, I think Romm's real point is that there have been so many investigations of the scientists tangled up in "climategate," but the actual crime remains unsolved. Who broke into UEA's computer system, selectively stole and then distributed emails from CRU? The motive is almost certainly political/idealogical, and whoever did it had some competence with "hacking," and some savvy about how to distribute the stolen information to the media... It would certainly bring closure to the whole affair if the perpetrators were brought to justice.

Comparing volcanic CO2 emissions to human-made emissions

There's a terrific article by T. Gerlach in last week's issue of AGU's EOS newspaper [PDF]. Gerlach is apparently a volcanologist, not a climate scientist. The article compares estimates of CO2 emission by volcanic sources to human-made emissions. There is a common misconception (I'm not sure how common) about the relative contributions of volcanos and humans to the emission of CO2.

So, which do you think is the larger source of CO2, global volcanos or human-made sources (includes land-use change, cement production, transport, energy, etc)?


The answer is that humans produce (as of 2010) about 135 times more CO2 than all the volcanoes in the world. The numbers are something like humans emitting about 35 billion tons versus volcanoes emitting 260 million tons. There doesn't appear to be any tricky business going on, and all kinds of volcanoes (including underwater volcanoes) are included. In fact, Gerlach goes on to make lots of interesting comparisons: one good one is that human activities produce the same amount of CO2 emissions as the global volcanic annual source every 12.5 hours.

Gerlach also accounts for the explosive volcanic eruptions like Mount St. Helens and Pinatubo, which are called paroxysms. These can suddenly emit a lot of CO2, but they are rare. While these paroxysms are happening, their emission rate might be as large as all of humanity's. The catch is that they only last a few hours, and wind up contributing very little to the global CO2 emissions.

Really nailing the coffin shut, Gerlach also considers what it would mean for volcanism if the emission rate did match the human-made CO2 emissions of  about 135 Gigatons per year. It sounds like it would mean that we would need one (or more) supereruptions per year. Supereruptions are huge volcanic eruptions, like when Yellowstone blew up 2 million years ago, and they are rare even for geologists, happening only every 100,000-200,000 years or so.

The only weakness of the article is that Gerlach forgets to address the obvious climate change denial argument that humans are not emitting as much CO2 as claimed. There are hints of how to deal with this, however, as Gerlach mentions that the total volcanic emission is equal to that of about two dozen large coal-fired power plants. The volcanic number is so small that we can easily eliminate huge amounts of human-made emissions and still have more human-made emissions than volcanic emissions by more than an order of magnitude. So I think this presentation is a great place to point to really come to terms with this comparison, and the vast difference in the volcanic versus human-made emissions means that there can be no dispute.

Also see another Gerlach article at EARTH Magazine [LINK].

It pays to go to college

So this guy Peter Thiel is starting a fellowship program that will give students $100,000 to start a new business. He thinks it will encourage more rapid innovation. The catch is that they can only do this fellowship instead of going to college for two years [NPR story]. Apparently Thiel has some contrarian tendencies, and perhaps a grudge against higher education. He's done pretty well for himself as a co-founder of PayPal and early investor in Facebook; he's worth around $1,5000,000,000 [wikipedia]. Oh, and by the way, he graduated from Stanford in philosophy in 1989, and then got his JD from Stanford in 1992. All that time at Stanford would probably make anyone hate higher education (Go Bears!). So education worked for him, but this fellowship is about stimulating and accelerating innovation, and from my reading of his Wikipedia page, it sounds like Thiel is an investor, not an innovator. He struck gold with PayPal, which has given him a chance to take risks on lots of start-ups, some of which might do well and others completely fail. He's a hedge fund manager and a venture capitalist, so his job is focused on taking risks and hoping that some of them pay off big (and implicitly this assumes that those few successes will more than make up for the many failures).

All this is fine and good, but now that Thiel is talking about education, I think he may have confused his own risk-taking lifestyle as an appropriate one for society at large. He's presenting the undergraduate degree as being overvalued, and thinks of this like a bubble (as in the dot-com bubble or the housing bubble). There is maybe a point in there somewhere, and maybe in the USA we need to think about whether everyone needs to go to college. I'll throw in the thought that "trade schools" are extremely undervalued, and that promoting real trade schools would be much more valuable to a vast number of people than getting an associates degree from a community college. That's a digression, though, and to get back on track, let me say that Andrew Kelly wrote a nice critique of the fellowship program on (unfortunately) the HuffPo [LINK].  He points out that the fellowship program is taking some of the best students from the best universities in the country, and putting them into a 2-year intensive mentoring program. This is a far cry from devaluing higher education.

For the overwhelming number of American students, going to college is a good idea. Whether it is because of an overvaluation of degrees or not, the numbers simply show that the more education one gets, the higher the salary [SEE FIGURE, SOURCE].  In the present social-economic conditions, trying to argue that fewer people need to graduate from college is damning most of those people to a lower salary tier. While Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, and Mark Zuckerberg all dropped out of college to become extraordinarily wealthy, the graphic and the data show that they are extreme outliers, and that most people who quit college are giving up almost a third of their potential salary.

Okay, my final comment for this rant... I hope the Thiel Fellowship program is wildly successful. No, really! You should go look at the list of young "innovators" [LINK]; they are extremely impressive, and if this 2-year program can get them and their ideas to the next level, that could have a tremendous impact in several emerging fields (I was especially interested in the Energy category). These are clearly very smart, highly motivated people, and allowing them to focus intensely on these ideas for two years is actually a good plan. It isn't for the average American 20-year-old, but for a few it could be really advantageous. My guess is that most of these Thiel Fellows will go back to school, and then on to graduate school, because they won't be satisfied picking things up along the way. When it comes to extremely technical fields, it actually is more efficient to work through all that fundamental material before just jumping in and cobbling together the pieces as you go along. But we will see.

African biomass burning (part 1?)

The amount of area and material that is burned each year in tropical Africa is staggering. The series of maps shown here is from NASA, showing burning across Africa during 2005 (note they aren't monthly, just 10 day composites ranging from January to August). Globally, biomass burning is estimated to consume somewhere around 8700 Tg of dry matter and release nearly 4 Tg of carbon to the atmosphere. Much of that carbon is returned to the biosphere, though, because the majority of the burning isn't to clear forest, but to clear cropland in savannah regions. People seasonally set the fires to keep harmful plants and pests out of their farmland. The chemical consequences of this huge efflux of gas and aerosol each season across the tropical belt is still only crudely understood. The global impact is poorly understood, as there are processes that are indirectly related to the burning, such as the planetary albedo, cloud and precipitation effects, and chemical effects in both the troposphere and stratosphere. See here for a little more description, especially on the chemical side. 

While not exactly analogous to other forms of anthropogenic changes to the climate system, this is an obvious and large perturbation that is mostly human induced. Understanding the consequences, both locally and remotely, may help us understand impacts of climate change globally.

Another interesting aspect of the African seasonal biomass burning is that it could represent an interaction between the climate system and human culture. The burning is seasonal, as I mentioned, but the extent and severity of the burning and resulting smoke depends on when and where the fires are started. That in turn depends on the previous rainy season. Where the smoke goes depends on the atmospheric circulation, and where the material ends up may determine the remote impact. For example, in some circulation patterns, the central African smoke is transported toward the Indian Ocean and is mixed into the westerlies, which will disperse the plume rather quickly. In other situations, the plume is transported over the southeast Atlantic, which is an are of large-scale sinking motion, so the smoke is contained within a layer and slowly moved over the ocean. This can affect radiation budget and the clouds in the area, which then have potential effects on other aspects of climate variability (through changes in the ocean surface temperature, for example, which may feed back on Atlantic Nino activity). These links are only tenuously understood, and are worth a good think if you have the time.

MODIS burning product, see LINK

Glory of the sea?

I recently wrote about the Glory satellite mission [LINK]. Early this morning, the rocket carrying Glory to orbit was launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base. Unfortunately Glory will only be studying the particles in the south Pacific, because the rocket was unable to attain orbit and crashed into the ocean. [LINK]. This is very similar, at least superficially, to the failure of the Orbiting Carbon Observatory, which I also blogged about [LINK]. This is supposed to be the "golden age" of satellite observations of the climate system, but it is hard to believe when we struggle to get the satellites into orbit. Glory has been over a decade in the making, and I imagine there are a lot of people around the country right now who are wondering what they are going to do in the next couple of years.

There may be hope, though. The Orbiting Carbon Observatory 2 is a go, scheduled to be put into orbit in February 2013. Except that they are planning to use yet another Taurus rocket [LINK]. So, yeah.

RealClimate also picked up this story [LINK].

George Will want(ed) high speed rail

I've said it before, and I say it again: George Will is an ass. [LINK]

Taking the conserve out of conservative

Today I heard a story on NPR that I think makes plain the GOP position on all matters environmental:

LISTEN ON NPR

They won't even concede that biodegradable plasticware is better than petrochemical-based forks. I mean, if anyone had any doubts about where these people are coming from, this should clear it up.

Horse dies, Inhofe continues beating it anyway

I can't believe that the scandal that was known as "climategate" continues to give climate change deniers some kind of special tingle. NOAA's Inspector General issued a report about the scandal at the request of Sen. Inhofe [LINK]. Guess what the report said? Yeah, that's right. And how much money and resources were devoted to putting together this report? Why does Jim Inhofe insist on wasting taxpayer dollars on these flights of fancy?

Read details at Climate Progress.

Response to House continuing resolution cuts

The House Appropriations Committee today introduced a Continuing Resolution (H.R. 1) to fund the federal government for the last seven months of the fiscal year while cutting spending by over $100 billion from the President’s fiscal year 2011 request. This CR legislation represents the largest single discretionary spending reduction in the history of Congress. [source]

I've just been browsing through the summary of the program cuts from this CR proposal, which can be viewed here.  My interpretation is that the middle column is the FY2010 budget item minus the CR budget item, and the right column is the FY2011 request (by the Administration) minus the CR budget item. I'll just consider the right column, and assume that these are generally cuts on top of cuts. Just browsing through the list looking for science research related items:

NIST:
- Technology Innovation Program: $40 million cut.
- Construction: $66.8 million cut
- Scientific & Technical Research Services: $115 million cut.

NOAA:
-Operations, Research, and Facilities: $450.3 million cut -- THAT's almost half a billion dollars!!

NASA: $578.7 million cut -- over half a billion dollars.

Office of Science and Technology Policy $500,000 cut (wonder what their budget is?)

NSF:
-Research & Related Activities: $550.9 million cut.
-Major Research Equipment & Facilities Construction:  $110.4 million cut.
-Education & Human Resources: $166.2 million cut.

Energy & Water Development (I assume this is DOE mostly):
Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy: $899.3 million cut. What? Seriously?
Fossil Energy Research & Development (for comparison): $30.6 million cut. I see a pattern.
Clean Coal Technology (for comparison): $18 million cut. Hmm.
Science: $1,110,900,000 cut... yes, OVER A BILLION DOLLARS CUT FROM DOE'S OFFICE OF SCIENCE!
ARPA-E (energy innovation grants): $250 million cut. Do you see what is happening here?
Weapons Activities: $312.4 million cut... maybe it isn't all bad?
Nuclear Nonproliferation: $647.5 million cut... oh, I see.

Science is not the only target. Scanning down though, you'll find a category called "Interior and Environment," which must be mostly Department of Interior and the EPA: it starts midway through page 8 and goes until the top of page 11. These are mostly smaller cuts, focused on USGS, EPA, BLM, NPS, and a handful of other programs. There are some nice highlights though.

• EPA State and local air quality management: GHG permitting: $25 million cut. It isn't listed as termination, but I'd have to guess this is about all the money they could get for this new program.
• Fish & Wildlife Service Grants $160.7 million cut.
• State & Tribal Wildlife Grants: $90 million cut.
• EPA Great Lakes Initiative: $75 million cut.
• EPA Clean Water SRF: $1,310,000,000 cut. Yep, 1.3 Billion cut. 
• EPA Drinking Water SRF: $457 million cut. 
• EPA Rescission: $290 million cut.
• EPA Categorical Grants: $220.2 million cut.

There are big cuts also for FEMA, NIH, CDC, Department of Labor, OSHA, Head Start (2 BILLION DOLLARS CUT FROM HEAD START!), a billion dollars cut from Social Security Administration, and even cuts in the defense budget.

What I'd like to see is another column stating the proposed budget by the CR for each item, to put in perspective how big these cuts are compared to the programs. I'm guessing that the are huge for these science programs, but I'd like to see the numbers.

And in the end, these cuts could be devastating for science research in the USA, but they only reduce the deficit from $1.5 Trillion to $1.4 Trillion. I think that we need to reevaluate how the government is spending money, not just in these relatively small discretionary items, but for the whole enchilada.