archive-org.com » ORG » R » REALCLIMATE.ORG

Total: 1481

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • Perspectives from China « RealClimate
    wind energy to waves which upon reaching the ice mass would cause ice pieces to smash into each other causing some immediate local melting The melt water thus formed would I think immediately mix with turbulent saline lower MP sea water and be thereby hindered from easily refreezing I m just trying to come up with an explanation for what I understand to be the unexpectedly rapid loss of an unexpectedly large amount of the Arctic ice cap this year 70 David B Benson says 27 Sep 2007 at 6 16 PM North China Plain land use change and water http www iht com articles 2007 09 27 asia water php 71 Nigel Williams says 27 Sep 2007 at 6 55 PM Don t panic While nothing new really it does give Denial another nudge The developing world is not going to turn around any time soon so this is confirmation of a trend we will see more of As Ive noted previously with Greenland and WAIS holding enough water for 15m sea level rise loss of just 10 of that will see places like Bangladesh and the great river delta communities in deep trouble So NASA Finds Greenland Snow Melting Hit Record High in High Places A new NASA supported study reports that 2007 marked an overall rise in the melting trend over the entire Greenland ice sheet and remarkably melting in high altitude areas was greater than ever at 150 percent more than average http www nasa gov vision earth environment greenland recordhigh html and Remarkable Drop in Arctic Sea Ice Raises Questions Melting Arctic sea ice has shrunk to a 29 year low significantly below the minimum set in 2005 according to preliminary figures from the National Snow and Ice Data Center part of the University of Colorado at Boulder NASA scientists who have been observing the declining Arctic sea ice cover since the earliest measurements in 1979 are working to understand this sudden speed up of sea ice decline and what it means for the future of Earth s northern polar region http www nasa gov vision earth environment arctic minimum html 72 Dan says 27 Sep 2007 at 7 21 PM re 65 It also helps to know what the scientific process and method is all about It appears most denialists do not understand or follow either Nor do they understand that the scientific method is a solid cornerstone of science It is through peer review and consensus that science proceeds 73 SteveSadlov says 27 Sep 2007 at 7 29 PM RE 69 Simple Higher than normal SSTs plus a slight positive air temperature anomaly both at the same time in the area near the international date line Chukchi and East Siberian Seas It tracks the temp anomalies perfectly The anomalous region is where the open water showed up during high summer 74 John Norris says 27 Sep 2007 at 9 13 PM re 24 There is nothing there now that Marx Lennin or even Mao would recognize The ruling party has a slightly different opinion then you of Marx Lennin and Mao s input on how the party operates and what your obligations are as a member of the party http english cpc people com cn 65732 4446148 html Article 3 Party members must fulfill the following duties 1 To conscientiously study Marxism Leninism Mao Zedong Thought Deng Xiaoping Theory and the important thought of Three Represents re 27 C mon John the Chinese have communism like the USA have a republic I agree with that statement sans your cynicism of course It will certainly be interesting to view with hindsight 20 years from now if communist China manages their CO2 output more appropriately then the US republic does 75 Harmon says 27 Sep 2007 at 9 28 PM Hi I m a denier I know you guys love folks like me so I thought I d just get that out of the way up front Even though I m just a denier and obviously haven t thought much about it I still have a question that maybe somebody can answer I believe I have seen it written that the emission altitude to space is 6 km I d like clarification Is it true that the climate models assume that photons emitted from carbon dioxide at an altitude of 6 km actually reach space I ask because the troposhere is roughly 12 km and it appears that there is plenty of carbon dioxide above 6 km altitude If the CO2 above 6 km absorbs the photons emitted at 6 km and then itself emits it would seem that the CO2 at 6 km does not in fact emit to space I would be quite a bit happier with an assertion that CO2 near the upper altitude reached by CO2 emits to space I have a hard time believing that for some reason after CO2 clears an altitude of 6 km it stops interacting with the electromagnetic field So there it is Does gas phase CO2 emission from an altitude of 6 km reach space If not what altitude is important for emission and where does this number come from I didn t make it up 76 Daniel C Goodwin says 27 Sep 2007 at 10 37 PM I am thrilled gratified dancing around the office chair overjoyed with Gavin s closing comment about getting too tied up in nonsense wad badminton denialist rebuttal The next time a shill pops up in the corporate media probably in another 15 minutes with a tattered thrice recycled at least do you ever wash that thing dude talking point it should be enough to merely point out the person s track record something along the lines of Apparently the source of this surprisingly crude piece of disinformation is one of those unfathomable nihilistic empty suits who has been up to no good specifically the exact same public relations flavor of psuedo scientific no good since the days of big legal problems for the tobacco companies Nobody ever has or ever will figure out what drives people after they ve lost the last discernible trace of humanity or intelligence Going around literally blowing smoke wasting everyone s time It s worth taking care not to enable these psychopaths see Kurt Vonnegut s thoughts on the issue of corporate psychopathology which is neither funny nor hyperbole with too serious or hasty a response to fools Thanks so much for that thought Gavin You folks all of you have such awesome resources of training and talent Scientifically the issues at hand and the very synthesis you say is often professionally discouraged are so intellectually absorbing to say nothing of their obvious importance for humanity s future so deeply fascinating that there comes a time to really wise up and not squander bandwidth in the service of Newspeak rebuttal Hold onto that thought please We desperately need people like you to stay focused through this thing whatever the heck this thing is turning into Whew Now let me catch my breath I think there s more CO2 in the atmosphere than there used to be or something It s harder to catch my breath I must allow the possibility however unimaginably miniscule it may be that changes I notice in my own physiology are primarily due to old age Incidentally sorry about all the paretheses and the semicolons I m trying to learn how to write properly 77 wayne davidson says 28 Sep 2007 at 12 59 AM 69 73 Observations from up here are astonishing calm sea waters not freezing with 12 C surface temperatures it warmed up since around Islands with new snow and frozen lakes just frozen a few days back Near Resolute Canada sea surface is just above 0 C With steep surface based adiabatic lapse rates at times 10 C km and no surface based inversions But I really saw the dawn of a new arctic age you can see this on my website with spherical and very early sunsets seen whenever the cloud cover is scarce given from all this open water sounds funny but spherical sunsets are extremely rare here There are big Polar related issues that need be discussed on RC hope there will be a link dedicated for this soon BTW I believe the NE passage just opened and the dynamics of arctic ocean ice recovery may be severely impaired by the lack of sea ice cover past Baffin Bay yearly freeze ups may be the model for the wide open arctic ocean 78 Bob Schmitz says 28 Sep 2007 at 4 02 AM Re 71 Nigel Williams About Tedesco Valle the melt days on Greenland in the summer 2007 study http www nasa gov vision earth environment greenland recordhigh html Does the study contain data about the volume of Greenland ice melted It seems a little strange to me to express the melting in surface area not in cm of snow melted Melt days would vary in the amount of snow melted as temperature rises above zero It would be nice to see a 2007 ablation map 79 Barton Paul Levenson says 28 Sep 2007 at 6 15 AM Amusingly PHE posts I would add make sure you know why you take a certain viewpoint It should be because you have assessed and understood the arguments and evidence yourself and not through following the headlines or consensus The scientific consensus is part of how modern science is done PHE It s perfectly rational for someone who is not a climate expert to listen to professional climatologists The consensus has been wrong in the past but not as often as pseudoscientists have been wrong The smart way to bet is always on the scientific consensus I personally got into this debate because I was interested in habitable planet astronomy and wanted to use climate models to predict the surface temperatures of habitable planets The remark that faith is more important to me than science is quite correct I m a born again Christian and my faith in Jesus Christ is of paramount importance to me But I don t believe in global warming on faith I believe in it because I understand how the greenhouse effect works 80 Harmon says 28 Sep 2007 at 8 28 AM RE 76 If you re responding to my post in 75 you ll have to be a more direct I m a little slow I realize there is more CO2 in the atmosphere I also realize that the claimed emission altitude is roughly 6 km The argument appears to be something to the effect based on models provided elsewhere on this site that more CO2 will raise the emission altitude to colder heights decrease emission and cause cooling In light of that argument it does appear pertinent to ask for clarification on the altitude since it seems to be pretty important to the argument I have also read that the stratosphere contains CO2 I d like to know if this particular batch of climate scientists believes the stratosphere to be in local thermal equilibrium Since the general concensus appears to be that atmospheres in LTE emit radiation purely as a function of temperature without regard to pressure it is important to know whether or not the stratosphere meets LTE conditions I m assuming the response will be that the stratosphere does not meet LTE If it did then we could expect that where the stratosphere T crosses 255 K on its way to even higher T the downward radiation in this model should cancel the upward radiation from 6 km and none of it actually goes to space I realize that many people are more than happy to simply appeal to authority and fall down in praise before the altar but sometimes you learn a little more if you think for yourself even if you turn out to be incorrect If Gavin and others have no time for silly questions then why bother with this site at all They should expect that the general person posting has less knowledge than they do It is natural for those with less knowledge to question aspects that don t appear to make sense You have the choice of clearing those up or not 81 Hank Roberts says 28 Sep 2007 at 8 48 AM Harmon use the Search box top of page Search 6 km Short answer 6 is an average not a yes or no altitude Also useful Start Here link see above Off topic here 82 Dan Hughes says 28 Sep 2007 at 9 03 AM Regarding how science works consensus and independent replication and Verification this is interesting I don t have access to the Science News article 83 Phil Felton says 28 Sep 2007 at 9 30 AM Re 75 80 I suggest you read Clough Iacono J Geophysical Research pp100 1995 Shows the switchover to emission at about an altitude corresponding to 200mb 84 Harmon says 28 Sep 2007 at 9 31 AM RE 81 Thank for responding Hank I m sure six is an average Stefan s Law depends on the fourth power of T and T more or less declines linearly through the troposphere I d like more of an idea of the range covered I have a strong suspicion that the choice of 6 km has more to do with a black body radiation calculation for temperature than it has to do with measurement I d like to point out that in addition to the stratosphere crossing 255K it happens a few more times higher up I am looking for a convincing justification for choosing the troposheric temperature crossing as opposed to any of the others If the stratosphere is in LTE then I could use an identical argument to those presented on this site to claim that raising CO2 will increase the altitude of emission go to a higher T and cause cooling instead of warming THis may sound silly to you and others but this type of reasoning is sometimes quite convincing to members of the general public who don t know what to think and have no background These are precisely the people you need to reach and many of them are just as easily convinced by someone else If this turns into a fairly complicated explanation without a quick answer then I m not terribly happy with being fed a quick answer by models on this site If the answer is quick easy and obvious then I just turn out to be wrong no harm done 85 Hank Roberts says 28 Sep 2007 at 9 45 AM Gavin these two announcement look relevant to the concerns you state in the first post is this pertinent Useful http www ngdc noaa gov products ngdc news html National Geophysical Data Center database http www ngdc noaa gov mgg curator providing online access to data and information about sea floor and lakebed samples curated by the participating repositories NGDC will report on the NOAA Climate Data Modernization Program project L 19 to digitize and make available online data and photographs from the collections of several of the participating institutions October 5 2007 Mr Kuiying Chen of the Chinese National Marine Data and Information Service National Oceanographic Data Center Professor Fuyuan Zhang from the China Second Institute of Oceanography and Dr Xiaoyu Zhange from the Department of Geosciences of Zhejiang University in Hangzhou Mr Chen and colleagues will be meeting with NGDC staff and Dr Chris Jenkins of the University of Colorado Institute for Arctic and Alpine Research to discuss deep sea sediment classification Following their visit to NGDC the group will meet with Dr Peter Blum of the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program in College Station TX and Ms Ramona Lotti and Dr William Ryan at the Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University Carla J Moore noaa gov or 303 497 6339 Response Well ocean drilling produces a lot more information than simply climate data and all of these efforts go some way towards helping bring it together But in the climate realm bringing together different cores on consistent time scales is hugely time consuming at the moment and so is rarely done Liesicki and Raymo 2005 is a good example they only used 57 records out of the hundreds that should be available and it took years to do It seems to me that a step change in how the data is handled will be required before synthesis can become routine In conversation yesterday I was reminded of how similar this is to what happened in physical oceanography when Levitus started his climatology project now the most cited work in the whole field Anyway I will be writing more about this and I ll try and flesh out my thoughts more clearly soon gavin 86 Jim Cripwell says 28 Sep 2007 at 9 49 AM REf 72 It is through peer review and consensus that science proceeds It might be worthwhile noting that the original letter to Nature on the structure of DNA by Watson and Crick was NOT peer reviewed I remember reading it at the time Two quotes The tragedy of science an elegant theory slain by an ugly fact Thomas Huxley Dust for oblivion To the solid ground Of nature trusts the Mind that builds for aye Convinced that there there only she can lay Secure foundations William Wordsworth 87 Hank Roberts says 28 Sep 2007 at 9 56 AM Harmon wrong thread Use the search tool Find the thread on your subject It s there Don t just dump into the topic you see first Use the search 88 Simon D says 28 Sep 2007 at 10 05 AM Right on We climate science policy bloggers need to step back and breathe once in a while rather than say waste our energy fighting with a clearly flawed paper not even in review suggesting something that

    Original URL path: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/09/perspectives-from-china/comment-page-2/ (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Perspectives from China « RealClimate
    sheet Since then there have been rapid succesions of glacial interglacials but mostly dominated by glaciation and big lowstands of sea level The isotope proxy follows but shows an overall trend toward expanding ice sheets in the long run So why this earth history lesson Here is an observation which hopefully spurs deep thought and further investigation Integration of the sequence stratigraphic record invented by some company called Exxon and the proxy records suggests that regional polar climates dominate over bi polar or global average climates Melting ice in the NH can be maybe the rule taken up by increases in the SH so that the direction and magnitude of sea level change is not straightforward or driven by a global mean climate or temperature The take home message is that although we may have some more to go on the short term warming and sea level rise the long term forecast is for ice despite the human disturbance to the climate system Our perturbation of the system while signficant in many ways in the long term is small and rapid compared to plate tectonics the evolution of landforms biota biogeochemical changes ocean overturning circulation supervolcanoes etc Response The PETM was coined around 2002 when the various official arbiters of the geological time scale defined this peak as the Paleocene Eocene boundary Prior to that it was called the Late or Latest Paleocene Thermal Maximum and I think was first described by Kennett and Stott in 1991 The reason for it s prominence is because of it s intrinsic interest the largest spike in d13C in the Cenozoic the correlation with mammalian expansion significant benthic extinction event etc and also because the hypotheses for it s occurrence large inputs of carbon into the system possibly from methane hydrates does have implications for our current situation For instance how long does it take for sediments to fully absorb anomalous carbon about 100 000 years if the PETM is any guide Other periods in pre quaternary climates are of interest as well but it s important to realise that you need not only an interesting event or period but also a good hypothesis that can be tested tractably with current models much of deeper time questions are not and that limits their relevance for decadal to centennial climate changes in the future and that is where most of the climate change money is Various groups are pushing for a greater focus on the Pliocene with some success and the Eocene has always been in vogue as a hothouse climate but MUMS probably has an uphill battle I wish you luck gavin 113 pete best says 29 Sep 2007 at 6 01 AM http sciam com article cfm chanID sa003 articleID 48F687F3 E7F2 99DF 3E042E20A4B66A99 pageNumber 1 catID 1 This article on the Sci Am website from studies of paleooceanic data suggest that warming oceans and not CO2 are responisble for the ending of ice ages not sure if that is a issue for AGW or was not known but is further suggests that climate sensitivity may be misunderstood at the present time due to the fact that present day warming is different from warming that causes the ice ages to end deep sea water warmed first and then switched places with surface waters today surface waters are warming first So it looks like there could be no precedent in the past for what is happenning now 114 Phil Felton says 29 Sep 2007 at 8 39 AM Re 99 Let us get the facts right Each year approximately 9 million sq kms of ice melt Each year approximately 9 million sq kms refreeze Since measurements started in 1979 approximately 35 000 sq kms extra ice has melted each year and approximately 35 000 sq kms of ice has failed to refreeze for a net loss of about 70 000 sq kms each year This year about 10 million sq kms melted compared with 9 million normally Shouldn t that be 35 000 sq km extra melt and 70 000 failed to refreeze I stand corrected I misremembered the annual loss it s more like 15 year s worth of melting in one summer not a decade Here s the August data bear in mind the September data will be about 1million sq km less http www nsidc org news press 2007 seaiceminimum images 20070904 augtrend jpg 115 Jeff says 29 Sep 2007 at 9 59 AM I lived in Southern California for three years and had to deal with the occasional smog problems When I visited Bangkok however I found that I could barely breathe due to the persistent haze from vehicle traffic And this was during the rainy season which did little to clear the air before it became oppressive again 116 Jim Cripwell says 29 Sep 2007 at 1 55 PM Ref 114 I think you will find a better reference is http nsidc org cgi bin wist wist nt pl wcf seaice index txt panel 1 From this you can find the average monthly data and pictures back to 1979 Each month the new data comes around the 3rd or 4th depending on the day of the week September 2007 s data will be available around 3 October 117 Anthony Watts says 29 Sep 2007 at 1 59 PM Just a note Gavin for perspective I noted your jab at the amateur component of the surfacestations org effort Certainly I don t deny that in fact that is what makes the project work without the need for government funding Along those lines I d point out that a significant portion of the surface temperature data you use in GISS is in fact gathered by amateurs at sites they self administer And again that is what makes it work without the need for government funding of observers The US COOP network and other networks worldwide are largely staffed by volunteer amateur observers and the data they gather is important I think we can all agree upon that Since a percentage your GISTEMP data effort then depends on the hard work of amateurs perhaps then it would be wise to not paint other efforts that use data collected by amateurs in a negative light As always if there are suggestions that you have to offer that can improve the effort I welcome them Thank you for your consideration 118 Jeffrey Davis says 29 Sep 2007 at 3 00 PM It sounds like the big news will come next spring if the extra million km2 or a good portion of it doesn t refreeze this winter 119 dhogaza says 29 Sep 2007 at 3 12 PM Just a note Gavin for perspective I noted your jab at the amateur component of the surfacestations org effort No he jabbed at the amateur photography component of your effort not at amateur efforts in general There s a world of difference between using amateurs to collect data something that has a honorable history in the natural sciences and pretending that a photograph amateur or professional is data Sheesh 120 Steve Bloom says 29 Sep 2007 at 6 22 PM Re 117 Interestngly enough the NCDC scientists would actually like to have a good set of station photographs One of the many reasons that the surfacestations org effort appears to be less than interested in the actual science is that AW never got in touch with them to ask about methodology But why do that if your pre conceived intent is to turn around and do something with the photos that s wholly unscientific i e throw out all of the data from the bad stations The fact is that various station biases microsite instruments etc will be visible in the data The photos can indeed come in real handy but only as a way of trying to identify the source of a problem that s already been seen in the data Another reason is that you persist in posting swill like this and then not retracting it when it s proven bogus 121 Phil Felton says 29 Sep 2007 at 6 35 PM Re 116 Jim look at the URL I cited the NSIDC is the site I got the graph from 122 Lawrence Brown says 29 Sep 2007 at 6 53 PM On Rod B s comment 98 the only ones dancing in the streets today are members of the American Petroleum Institute and the CEOs of Exxon Mobile The White House finished a two day conference on global warming and the administration firmly stated that the US wouldn t cooperate on any internationally agreed to caps on CO2 emissions In fact the Bush administration wants caps in the US to be voluntarily This is a go it alone policy on a planetary problem Volunteerism hasn t worked in the past and it won t work now It will be no more effective than making drinking and driving voluntary There will be opportunists who will disregard any non mandatory guidelines In order to remain competive more responsible companies will have to follow the policies of the emitters We re stuck with business as usual for at least the next 15 months when this administration leaves 123 Steve Bloom says 29 Sep 2007 at 6 57 PM RE 113 The Stott et al paper seems useful but he used the publicity around it to peddle his somewhat contrarian agenda which he and long time collaborator Bob Thunell have expressed before I really don t see how he can support his claim about this study undermining sensitivity estimates and fortunately the article you linked quoted Gavin to the opposite effect That oceans warned first and emitted CO2 into the atmosphere has been uncontroversial for years although the exact mechanism and timing remains an unsolved problem See here for a much better discussion of the paper To demonstrate that all of this stuff is still at the blind men feeling different parts of the elephant stage see this discussion of a related paper from a few months ago IMHO it was approximately as important as Stott et al and was also published in Science but didn t get as much attention since the authors didn t load up the publicity with extraneous claims about the role of CO2 in the present warming 124 Dave Rado says 29 Sep 2007 at 8 04 PM re 99 My bet is that within 10 years sea ice in the arctic will be back to say 1985 levels How much would you like to bet I could do with a windfall in 10 years time 125 Dave Rado says 29 Sep 2007 at 8 21 PM re 122 In fact the Bush administration wants caps in the US to be voluntarily It s worse than that they still want voluntary emissions intensity targets i e targets for the emissions GDP ratio They aren t considering even voluntary targets for reductions in absolute GHG emissions levels 126 Philip Machanick says 30 Sep 2007 at 3 05 AM Great comments Gavin I ve been to mainland PRC a couple of times and to Hong Kong and even Hong Kong has a visible haze I live in Australia where the mainstream of politics despite noises to the contrary is firmly in denial because of their addiction to selling coal to China My view is that China is really the place to start if we can get a handle on how to engage with decision makers If Hansen s views on the probability of multi metre sea level rises should concern anyone the Chinese should be at the head of the list Shanghai for a start would be in deep literally trouble 127 Jim Cripwell says 30 Sep 2007 at 5 53 AM Ref 124 It was somewhat of an offhand remark Since I am now 82 I dont expect to be around to either pay or clean up on such a bet The basis might however be worthwhile talking about In 2005 the supporters of AGW stated that the hurricane season in the North Atlantic was proof positive of global warming just like the recent melt of arctic ice In neither case is there any evidence that increased levels of CO2 has had anything to do with the observations The Accumulated Cyclone Energy ACE for the NA was about 250 in 2005 the average is around 102 2006 was around 75 2007 year to date is around 58 The same effect I certainly expect to see with arctic ice Solar cycle 24 has still not started 128 Lawrence Coleman says 30 Sep 2007 at 8 07 AM Welcome back Gavin I have also been for 2 weeks around Singapore and the Philippines mainly Manila and will give an up to date asessment of the pollution in those countries respectively Singapore is now like a computer game city virtually no airbourne pollution that I could see traffic was very light even on weekdays you can go from Changi airport to the city in less than 20mins Vehicles emmissions are checked regularly Almost every apartment office and factory now has compact flouro lights and energy efficient water heaters I was also there in 1992 and could see a huge diffence then there was smog quite heavy especially in the morning but now it s virtually gone We stayed with friends of my wife that have lived there for 5 years and say what I saw was typical of Singapore now Manila unfortunately on the otherhand was still everything that Singapore is not Jeepneys and trucks pumping out tonnes on choking black smoke from their antiquated japanese engines traffic snarls that make LA look like a lil country town The baranguays small suburbs are all covered with that familiar sooty black grey residue from passing traffic Consequently the air over the city is very very dirty You can only imagine what that is doing to the cityfolks lungs On the upside most houses are using compact flouro lights and you wont find incandescent ones in shops anymore I wish Australia took that idea Ps I was in China for 4 weeks in 1989 Tiannamen square time and over every major city was thick smog I believe that to have been caused largley by un environmentally regulated factories and the crude coal burners most people used for cooking with 129 Ray Ladbury says 30 Sep 2007 at 10 15 AM Jim Cripwell You state that the scientific community trumpeted the 2005 hurricane season as proof of anthropogenic climate change First they did no such thing The link between hurricanes and climate change is still not well understood Some within the community believed that the 2005 season could be a preview of the future Others did not Consensus is absent In any case I know of no responsible scientists who made such a claim based on a single year s hurricane activity Second increased hurricane activity would merely be evidence that the energy in the climate system was increasing not of why Since even you admit that energy in the climate is increasing and since the evidence for this is already overwhelming there is no need to make such a claim 130 Hank Roberts says 30 Sep 2007 at 10 42 AM Ray checking what Jim Cripwell actually wrote didn t say that the scientific community or even individual scientists said anything He wrote In 2005 the supporters of AGW stated Whatever that means it certainly can t refer to scientists Meteorologists aren t supporters of wind and geologists aren t supporters of sediment eh There are tornado lovers crystal healers and climate disaster fans but those people aren t the scientific community Wackos show up everywhere everywhere 131 Rod B says 30 Sep 2007 at 10 59 AM I always felt that betting is a very crude and inaccurate way to prove science Almost the same for consensus though that is at least a good indicator 132 Rod B says 30 Sep 2007 at 11 15 AM Ray well there were too a bunch of scientists claiming the connection between AGW and the number of hurricanes in 2005 Don t know nor care if they were a majority or not but they won the decibel award until as you say they were quieted by the more rational scientists of the AGW crowd You may wish otherwise but And I know by your standards any scientist by definition was neither responsible nor credible if he she so claimed a connection And maybe they were the 2nd tier of scientists I dunno 133 Hank Roberts says 30 Sep 2007 at 12 22 PM Rod there s a topic for it If you can cite such a study about year 2005 you could surprise everyone by posting it in the right topic 134 J C H says 30 Sep 2007 at 1 05 PM ntense storms blamed on heat By Jeff Nesmith Palm Beach Post Cox News Service Friday June 23 2006 WASHINGTON Global warming not natural fluctuations in ocean temperature was the main cause of the ocean heat that energized last year s killer hurricanes scientists at a federally funded climate laboratory said Thursday As a result continued increases in the Earth s temperature likely will lead to more enhanced hurricane activity in future years said climate analysts Kevin Trenberth and Dennis Shea of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder Colo What were they actually saying 135 David B Benson says 30 Sep 2007 at 1 09 PM Microbial fuel cells http biopact com 2007 09 microbial fuel cell development speeds html wherein several are hopeful that these may prove useful in China and elsewhere Not high energy density devices though 136 Jim Cripwell says 30 Sep 2007 at 5 20 PM Ref 129 Pleasae refer to http www chesapeakeclimate org news news detail cfm id 104 As you will see there was a demand that Max Mayfield

    Original URL path: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/09/perspectives-from-china/comment-page-3/ (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Perspectives from China « RealClimate
    world ocean Explosive volcanic activity changed in response to the worldwide tectonic setting and marine and terrestrial biota were quickly adapting or dying out in response to the environmental changes Milankovitch Cycles are also superimposed on these other changes It is not hard to imagine periodic strongly non linear biogeochemical responses to these other conditions teleconnecting through the system A really difficult question is sorting out what is initially forcing the changes and what is feedback in response to the initial changes In my view climatology and geology are really different types of metrics for the same strongly non linear dynamical system we call planet Earth with feedback between its many components If we desire to construct a model to better understand the PETM in proper context we might also endeavor to write code describing plate tectonics geomorphology biogeochemistry sedimentation and crustal loading compaction and decompaction structural deformation of the crust and paleo ocean circulation Otherwise there is some chance we will not properly diagnose the dynamics driving the Paleocene Eocene climate and will risk drawing incorrect conclusions about its relevance to us today I completely reject the hypothesis that greenhouse gases are the only significant driver of climate throughout the geological past They are more often a feedback to other system and external forcing changes Are they a first order forcing Yes Are they the only significant forcing No In summary everyone needs to be cautious not to misuse paleo climate data I fear the current fixation on modeling the PETM is a fad in earth science Remember the hoola hoop and rubix cube Like the very popular 1970 s leisure suit we might look back on this in 30 years and it will look awfully silly Response Possibly you have a different perspective on what is going on in paleo climate and geology but I m a little puzzled at your strong reaction Given the very few people involved in either publishing on PETM data or doing any relevant modelling the notion that this is somehow sweeping the community to the detriment of other worthy paleo climate changes is a strange one The PETM is interesting because it seems to give insight into what happens when you put a lot of carbon into the system very quickly relatively speaking there is therefore an obvious analogy to today s situation even given the vastly different base climate of the early Eocene Are you not even curious as to what could have been happening I think everyone is aware that on geologic timescales greenhouse gases are not the only thing that is important For instance lots of work continues to be done on gateway openings closings due to tectonics orography changes orbital forcing etc The problem such as it is with issues of sediment compaction geomorphology etc is not that they are uninteresting scientific issues far from it but that their relevance to today s situation is less Like it or not getting increased funding and interest into deep time paleo relies on making it relevant to the much larger pot of money available for climate change studies I m not saying that s good or bad but it is the situation to be faced Not all of paleo will grab that attention and so it will inevitably be that some events or periods are highlighted gavin 156 James says 2 Oct 2007 at 9 43 AM Re 153 My question for the experts re we in the middle of what appears to be a growing world wide drought If so where is the water going I m not an expert but in chatting with gardeners from around the world it seems as though for every place having a drought there s someplace else that is having way more rain than usual northern Europe for instance Also consider that in some places China parts of the western US etc it s not so much a drought as it is a matter of humans using more than the available water supply depleting aquifers groundwater which in turn reduces the natural plant cover that traps what rain does fall 157 J S McIntyre says 2 Oct 2007 at 9 58 AM re 153 My question for the experts re we in the middle of what appears to be a growing world wide drought If so where is the water going I would venture it isn t going anywhere if your question relates to the idea of water disappearing What does seem to be occurring is a change in patterns From Confronting Climate Change pp 30 31 Water Resources Changes in the timing amounts and location of precipitation along with warmer temperatures will reduce mountain snowpack alter river flows and reduce warm season soil moisture In mountainous regions snow will be present for shorter periods and at higher elevations and spring runoff is likely to occur earlier With rainfall tending to occur in more intense events stream flows are likely to fluctuate more than at present and water temperatures between storms are likely to rise altering the conditions on which freshwater fish species depend Earlier melting of river ice which is essential so that some migrating species and their young can cross rivers to reach traditional feeding grounds will create a life threatening stress Warmer temperatures will lead to greater evaporation and more rapid onset of the low soil moisture conditions that intensify drought In addition warming will tend to thaw permafrost areas altering stream flow and local hydrology and possibly increasing the release of CH4 and CO2 from northern soils In addition to significantly affecting the natural environment and the provision of ecological goods and services on which society depends climate change will have direct consequences for society and its built systems The altered timing flow rates and temperatures of rivers will require adjustments in the management and location of water supply systems to meet future demand especially because higher temperatures are very likely to increase the demand for water during lengthened warm seasons An additional impact of the higher CO2 concentration will be to enhance growth of vegetation in regions that dry out in the summer leading to more rapid accumulation of the types and amounts of biomass that are susceptible to wildfire e g chaparral You can find the full report linked here http www sigmaxi org about news UNSEGReport shtml It isn t the IPCC obviously but for the non scientific layman it serves as a decent and accessible primer not only to the problem but to potential solutions at least IMHO 158 David B Benson says 2 Oct 2007 at 10 48 AM Floods in South Asia China and Africa in the past few months have affected over 4 8 million people As I understand the Hadley Centre prediction global warming brings more extreme weather events both drought and flooding There is of course the effect that James mentions in comment 155 159 Steve Bloom says 2 Oct 2007 at 12 40 PM Re 155 Bryan you inadvertently pointed out a key difference between the PETM and the present Melting ice couldn t raise sea level then because there was no ice In sharp contrast the present ice gives us about 70 meters of potential sea level rise While it s true that studying the PETM won t be of much direct help in terms of figuring out how much and how fast sea level is likely to rise given the present warming trend studying the Pleistocene glaciations is very useful and see Climate of the Past for many current public access papers on the subject We know for example that deglaciations paced by relatively slow orbital cycles are capable of raising sea level on the order of five meters per century On the one hand we can reduce that number since the associated melting occurred when the Laurentide and Fennoscandian ice sheets existed but OTOH the unexpectedly rapid polar response we re already seeing isn t waiting for orbital changes So what s the maximum rate of sea level rise with e g a peak of 700 ppm CO2 equivalent by 2100 with a slow tapering off after that about the best we re likely to do IMHO Are we so confident it will be negligible that we re willing to put even more GHGs into the atmosphere 160 waynew davidson says 2 Oct 2007 at 2 45 PM 145 Gavin Your response makes sense but is not convincing in terms of action to be taken is especially fodder for contrarians dealing with absolutes Are scientists waiting for am overwhelming preponderence of evidence before they themselves become certain If so what decisions can be taken while Climate change attributions are not yet fully weighted Are we waiting for another big event before action against AGW becomes absolutely necessary Response Why do you assume that absolute certainty is required before undertaking action That isn t the case in any other policy sphere and for me personally the evidence has been strong enough to imply substantial action for years gavin 161 pete best says 2 Oct 2007 at 4 14 PM Re RE 160 And considering the USA uses 25 of fossil fuels resources and is the main sponsor of the second largest China I should reckon that it should be leading the way but hey its looking doubtful 162 Steve Bloom says 3 Oct 2007 at 3 52 AM Re 159 Jim Hansen s latest paper with Makiko Sato is on this very subject The upshot is that exceeding present temps by more than 1C an increase that we could see with as little as 450 ppm CO2 appears likely to be dangerous dangerous being defined as risking ice sheet melting The main basis for this argument is that CO2 levels were at no more than 600 ppm and possibly somewhat less 34 million years ago when there were no ice sheets and sea levels were 70 meters higher than present 163 EthanS says 3 Oct 2007 at 9 13 AM NYT articles yesterday on Arctic Ice also highlighted the major non warming shift in the ice the change in the Arctic Oscillation in 1989 Under the pre 1989 phase of the AO winds and currents tended to keep ice trapped in a slow moving circuit in the polar regions That ice was able to last multiple summers maintaining a thick cap on the ocean As a result albedo effects were minimized because even as some ice melted in summer it was not enough to expose darker waters below Post 1989 this periodic shift in climate patterns in the region had the effect of changing wind currents to drive ice out into the North Atlantic where it melted much more rapidly The old ice began to disappear The new ice that re formed was not as thick and so was more likely to melt again the following summer In 1987 80 of Arctic ice cover was older than 10 years By 2007 less than 2 It s probable that the rapidly melting Arctic is due to both events Arctic warming linked to global warming and the Arctic Oscillation A warmer Arctic under the pre 1989 phase would not have lost so much ice so quickly The pre 1989 regime probably did not allow as much warmer southern air into the Arctic so Arctic temperatures were more insulated from global changes instead of having their effects amplified It remains to be seen whether there is a causal link or dependence between the two whether CO2 accumulation and gradual polar warming pre 1989 caused contributed substantially to etc the change in the AO or whether the AO shift drove a rapid rise in Arctic temperatures beyond the globally based increases that would otherwise have occurred We were unlucky or ignorant We don t know 164 J S McIntyre says 3 Oct 2007 at 9 41 AM re 163 We were unlucky or ignorant We don t know I ve always believed in the end we make our luck As for ignorance at this point any ignorance on the subject amongst people capable of comprehending it strikes me more and more as being of the willful variety 165 EthanS says 3 Oct 2007 at 10 04 AM re 164 As for ignorance at this point any ignorance on the subject amongst people capable of comprehending it strikes me more and more as being of the willful variety I was referring to our luck or ignorance in 1989 we don t yet know whether the near simultaneous occurrence of the Arctic Oscillation phase shift in 1989 and the acceleration of sustained rises in global temperatures starting in 1990 was coincidental or related But I agree that at this time there is no true ignorance only deliberate ambiguity and disingenuousness 166 maurice says 3 Oct 2007 at 1 42 PM Question Is the information provided here http www penraker com archives 007843 html regarding the relationship between RC EMS and Fenton accurate Don t you think that this information should be disclosed Response It s not accurate The actuality was discussed here and has been freely available for years gavin 167 Zeke Hausfather says 3 Oct 2007 at 3 05 PM Re 166 Thats akin to saying that any blog on on the blogspot server is a baby of Google since Google provides the web hosting Lets judge people by the validity of their arguments instead of this spurious attempt to tar by association 168 tamino says 3 Oct 2007 at 4 10 PM Totally off topic I ve noticed lately that when I click on recent comments for some reason the url includes langswitch lang fr which indicates a switch to the French language I admire French as a beautiful language but I have no idea why this is Anybody else notice the same Response It s something funky with the interaction with the language picker and the cache Not sure how to deal with that gavin 169 ray ladbury says 3 Oct 2007 at 7 49 PM Re 166 It would appear that they still believe that if they tell a lie 100 times it becomes the truth just like their intellectual forefather 170 Hank Roberts says 3 Oct 2007 at 8 35 PM 166 169 The original mistake dates from 2005 It s posted as news in 2007 171 SteveSadlov says 3 Oct 2007 at 9 31 PM RE 160 PG E are subsidizing CFLs at Costco stores in California I am getting them for 3 for a whole pack of them less than what I would pay for incadescents What do you call that I call it taking action 172 Timothy Chase says 4 Oct 2007 at 12 05 AM EthanS 163 wrote NYT articles yesterday on Arctic Ice also highlighted the major non warming shift in the ice the change in the Arctic Oscillation in 1989 Under the pre 1989 phase of the AO winds and currents tended to keep ice trapped in a slow moving circuit in the polar regions This was the only mention of the Arctic Oscillation I found in the NYT article But another factor was probably involved one with roots going back to about 1989 At that time a periodic flip in winds and pressure patterns over the Arctic Ocean called the Arctic Oscillation settled into a phase that tended to stop ice from drifting in a gyre for years so it could thicken and instead carried it out to the North Atlantic Arctic Melt Unnerves the Experts http www nytimes com 2007 10 02 science earth 02arct html Certainly doesn t sound like they are throwing it out there as an alternative to greenhouse gas induced global warming but more like a minor bit player Instead they say For one thing experts are having trouble finding any records from Russia Alaska or elsewhere pointing to such a widespread Arctic ice retreat in recent times adding credence to the idea that humans may have tipped the balance Many scientists say the last substantial warming in the region peaking in the 1930s mainly affected areas near Greenland and Scandinavia Some scientists who have long doubted that a human influence could be clearly discerned in the Arctic s changing climate now agree that the trend is hard to ascribe to anything else Smart on their part The Arctic Oscillation roughly decadal Which means that if the melt began in 1990 and it were strictly due to the Arctic Oscillation then everything else being the same it should return to where it was by 2000 which would be roughly where it was in 1980 1970 1960 etc But it would appear that not everything is the same since things have gotten progressively worse 173 John L McCormick says 4 Oct 2007 at 12 56 PM RE 172 Timothy you provided a link to Arctic Melt Unnerves the Experts http www nytimes com 2007 10 02 science earth 02arct html And well it should However the super saturation of news articles blogs etc focused only on the discussion of melted ice ignore the paramount issues of what does this mean to NH climate and particularly western NA temp and precip patterns Can you or someone out there focus a bit on possible impacts of ice melt including high and low pressure systems forming where they seldom do At least one meteorologist Stu Ostro Senior Meteorologist with the Weather Channel is trying to understand impacts of ice melt aside from reducing polar bear habitat His blog at http climate weather com blog 9 13685 html offered the following observation And the Arctic is interconnected with the rest of the world Some who are skeptical of the seriousness of global warming like to point out that there s uncertainty in the forecasts made by global climate models I m certainly not one to argue with model uncertainty in fact a couple of my blogs on weather com about recent

    Original URL path: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/09/perspectives-from-china/comment-page-4/ (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Global dimming and global warming « RealClimate
    assault on reason 58 Lawrence Coleman says 18 Nov 2007 at 3 20 AM I m buddhist by training so I tend to see things as they are and that also means seeing the wood for the trees Putting it bluntly we will not have a habitable world in 200 years if a nigh miracle doesn t occur right now That s why all these contrarians make me furious what they are doing is muddying the pond so noone knows which way to turn or act So what if 99 99 of all the climate scientists are wrong I wont be embarrased to go out on the street I would rather shout I WAS WRONG at the top of my voice with a grin from ear to ear But what just what if ALL those scientists are right If the contrarians ecourage us to do nothing and they are wrong which they most likely are then the world dies forever So Contrarians you better be 100 sure that you are right or stop muddying the picture for everybody else in case you re wrong If the world gives 150 on mitigating GW and then some completelely obvious finding shows that humans are not to blame then no harm done Me I d tend to believe and back all those thousands of scientists who have studied many many years on understanding what makes climate tick any rational human being would 59 Martin Vermeer says 18 Nov 2007 at 7 38 AM PaulM 55 I honestly think you are misreading the response to your posting on the Bangladesh hurricane This is a scientific blog and as frustrated as many climatologists are about the world not wanting to hear their message they will continue to object to sending out messages that state more than the facts will bear You can lose your scientific reputation only once Yes anthropogenic climate change is expected to make hurricanes more destructive as does especially for Bangladesh the projected faster sea level rise This is a statistical projection i e climate As for any concrete hurricane saying that it is due to climate change is not even untrue rather it is a completely meaningless statement A butterfly wing flaps in Tombstone Gulch and you won t even see the same hurricanes next year as without it names times intensities landfall all different There just isn t a way to label a hurricane like this one is due to GW but this one would have happened anyway This is weather So it s about the science not about facing reality 60 b says 18 Nov 2007 at 12 07 PM A few things we I can do now I will turn off a few extra lights I will not water my lawn as much and never in the winter I will drive a slower until I buy an electric car I will plant two trees this year I will flush my toilet less If it is yellow let it mellow if it s brown send it down I will act but not spread panic I will re post this comment 3 times 61 Richard Ordway says 18 Nov 2007 at 2 07 PM In our division meeting this Friday at a national research laboratory that deals with climate change the question came up Will future generations condemn us for not speaking up more about climate change The question was not answered This issue is not taken lightly by many in the scientific community 62 Lynn Vincentnathan says 18 Nov 2007 at 8 36 PM RE 59 A butterfly wing flaps in Tombstone Gulch and you won t even see the same hurricanes next year as without it But then we could blame it on that danged butterfly Non scientists could take a different tact from the usual science scientists pursue and that is assume the cyclone is impacted to some extent by AGW since we do know GW is going on and heating the ocean etc Make GW and its effects the null hypothesis Then let the naysayers try and prove at 05 significance 95 confidence that GW did not in any way increase the intensity of the cyclone I m not sure but I do believe they wouldn t be able to do so We don t have scientific reputations to worry about and I think this tact works well for me For instance when Andrew struck Florida in 1992 I thought Yep global warming Hope others take note and start reducing their GHGs 63 mg says 19 Nov 2007 at 2 16 AM 61 Richard my personal view is that 10 years from now the public will condemn climate scientists for their reticence about sea level rise 64 Barton Paul Levenson says 19 Nov 2007 at 6 54 AM Lynn It s take a different tack referring to a sailboat s tacking into the wind Taking a different tact would be presenting your story more or less politely The Grammar Police Dragnet theme up 65 Ray Ladbury says 19 Nov 2007 at 8 55 AM mg re 63 while you may be correct this is not really fair Climate scientists have been playing this issue exactly correctly publishing consensus while emphasizing that there may be substantial error on the high side of the estimate Science is inherently a conservative enterprise and so has to emphasize consensus This is precisely why the accusations of alarmism are so unfair Perhaps what is needed is a climate mitigation engineering discipline where we plan for the worst and try to bound the problem but that is not what climate scientists do 66 Martin Vermeer says 19 Nov 2007 at 9 44 AM 62 Lynn sure you could so that You could also adopt the habit everytime the weather turns moderately unpleasant of exclaiming just prove that it s not due to global warming Every thunderstorm snow shower dense fog early autumn night frost heat wave See how long it takes for

    Original URL path: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/11/global-dimming-and-global-warming/comment-page-2/ (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Aerosols, Chemistry and Climate « RealClimate
    models could ever become reliable the present paper demonstrates that it is not at all likely that the world will warm as much as the IPCC imagines Even if the world were to warm that much the overwhelming majority of the scientific peer reviewed literature does not predict that catastrophe would ensue Even if catastrophe might ensue even the most drastic proposals to mitigate future climate change by reducing emissions of carbon dioxide would make very little difference to the climate Even if mitigation were likely to be effective it would do more harm than good already millions face starvation as the dash for biofuels takes agricultural land out of essential food production a warning that taking precautions just in case can do untold harm unless there is a sound scientific basis for them Finally even if mitigation might do more good than harm adaptation as and if necessary would be far more cost effective and less likely to be harmful In short we must get the science right or we shall get the policy wrong If the concluding equation in this analysis Eqn 30 is correct the IPCC s estimates of climate sensitivity must have been very much exaggerated There may therefore be a good reason why contrary to the projections of the models on which the IPCC relies temperatures have not risen for a decade and have been falling since the phase transition in global temperature trends that occurred in late 2001 Perhaps real world climate sensitivity is very much below the IPCC s estimates Perhaps therefore there is no climate crisis at all At present then in policy terms there is no case for doing anything The correct policy approach to a non problem is to have the courage to do nothing 66 llewelly says 17 Jul 2008 at 10 49 PM Hank Roberts Can you think of an extreme weather event that would transfer of heat energy away from the planet Weather doesn t reach that high If snow falls on dark ground and covers it the albedo of that part of the Earth greatly increases Until the snow melts the snow will be reflecting energy thus transferring it away from the planet Similar thinking applies to the formation of sea ice This is in part why some people are concerned about shrinking snow cover shrinking sea ice and so forth So there are weather events that transfer heat energy way from the planet But they become either less common or less effective or both as the Earth gets warmer 67 paulm says 18 Jul 2008 at 12 13 AM Hank Roberts Ok NH temperature rise If the rate of melt occurring across the whole of green land can be estimated then then we have much more than a local measurement This could give us more idea on the inertia of the temperature rise in the NH It could be one more approach in the variety used in the models It is also a very direct indication of the rate of average temperature rise like the melting of the permafrost Seasonal and yearly temp variations don t influence it to any extent 68 paulm says 18 Jul 2008 at 12 21 AM Hank Roberts Are you basing your question on something you read or do you have a theory No theory Just brain storming We are having more than average strong storms and extreme precipitation across the globe Presumably more clouds and dust too I am just wondering about the energy dynamics and the effect on temperatures 69 dhogaza says 18 Jul 2008 at 2 51 AM Shorter Monckton Even IF the science is right the policy is right everything is right right on down the line YOU ARE STILL WRONG 70 Barton Paul Levenson says 18 Jul 2008 at 5 38 AM Richard Wakefield posts Even if temperature had risen above natural variability the recent solar Grand Maximum may have been chiefly responsible The Solar constant has not gone appreciably up or down for 50 years A flat level of illumination can t account for the sharp upturn in global warming of the past 30 years Even if the sun were not chiefly to blame for the past half century s warming It isn t the IPCC has not demonstrated that since CO2 occupies only one ten thousandth part more of the atmosphere that it did in 1750 it has contributed more than a small fraction of the warming That much extra carbon dioxide represents 1600 grams for every square meter of Earth s surface more than enough to make a difference 100 ppm may not seem like much to you but 0 1 ppm of fluorine will kill you Small proportions aren t always relevant and certainly they aren t in this case Even if carbon dioxide were chiefly responsible for the warming that ceased in 1998 It didn t Why Tim Ball is Wrong Why Tilo Reber is Wrong The rest of your screed being based on the above mistakes your conclusions do not follow 71 san quintin says 18 Jul 2008 at 6 17 AM Re 65 In other words Monckton doesn t want us to do anything Clearly he doesn t understand risk management I m also intrigued to know why he doesn t publish this in the peer reviewed literature if he thinks he s right 72 spilgard says 18 Jul 2008 at 8 00 AM Re 65 Wow Monckton manages to cycle through the standard loop without skipping a beat It s not happening And if it is it s the sun doing it And if it isn t the sun it s not CO2 And if it is CO2 it s not happening anyway And if it is happening computer models are stupid And if they re not stupid it doesn t matter because it s not happening And if it is happening it s not a big deal And if it is a big deal there s nothing can be done And if anything can be done it will destroy civilization And if it won t destroy civilization it still doesn t matter And besides it s not happening repeat 73 tamino says 18 Jul 2008 at 10 22 AM Gavin I think that since APS has decided to give airtime to Monckton and since this is getting a lot of play in the denialosphere it would be well worth the effort to compose a proper reply And by proper I mean a complete expose not only of how Monckton is dead wrong but how utterly infantile his analysis is and how utterly foolish it was to allow it on APS in the first place His paper should be squashed Bambi meets Godzilla In fact the right response will put an end to this malarkey from APS once and for all And the right person to do it is you I know it s work I know you re busy but your planet needs you 74 Hank Roberts says 18 Jul 2008 at 11 15 AM http www aps org APS Climate Change Statement APS Position Remains Unchanged The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change adopted by its governing body the APS Council on November 18 2007 Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth s climate An article at odds with this statement recently appeared in an online newsletter of the APS Forum on Physics and Society one of 39 units of APS The header of this newsletter carries the statement that Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed 75 Ken Feldman says 18 Jul 2008 at 12 21 PM The Monckton paper is hysterical On the first page he states The models heavily relied upon by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC had not projected this multidecadal stasis in global warming Then he shows figure 2 which shows scenario B from Dr Hansen s 1988 model runs It clearly shows a 7 year period from 2010 to 2017 with stable and even declinging temperatures The bozo contradicts himself in one page Go to the denialist websites and they re hyping this paper as the end of the global warming consensus The lack of scientific understanding and the ability to read critically is their biggest problem 76 dhogaza says 18 Jul 2008 at 5 07 PM Magically this has appeared as a preface to Monckton s paper The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review Its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article s conclusions I d guess that the editor who invited Monckton and two physicists to post opposing viewpoints while coyly stating we need to stick to the science has been informed by the APS leadership that Monckton s crap doesn t quite fit that ground rule Editor gone wild Embarrassing the APS I d say that s the best read on it at the moment 77 a beautiful person says 18 Jul 2008 at 6 28 PM mr sheppard has generated quite a scathing rebuttal to this article http newsbusters org blogs noel sheppard 2008 07 17 nasa climate alarmist attacks newsbusters sheppard comment 664086 my apologies for not using my real name on this comment i disagree with the writers at NEWSBUSTERS ORG on a regular basis i am bullied regularly and have been threatened in the past by its users they can be a nasty lot you will be able to identify my comments by my pseudonym a beautiful person Response Thanks for stepping in If you go back you might want to point out the irony of a journalist not actually recognising what the source material for his original post was A little fact checking might go a long way gavin 78 Rob Zerona says 18 Jul 2008 at 9 06 PM regarding fossil fuels Everyone here needs to take a freshmen chemistry class over again It has been proven that you can take inorganic materials and make organic alkanes other than methane using heat and pressure A thorough analysis of phase diagrams would be in order Sandia National Labs has a method to generate methane using inorganic materials and a solar concentrator Changing conditons yields other products All from INORGANIC MATERIALS This confirms previous experiments and theory backed by the laws of physics and thermodynamics and published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Belief that fossil fuels derive from plants and dinosaurs is for stupid people The only thing you can generate from decaying plant matter even under anerobic conditions within 200 feet of the earths surface is Methane Wise up folks 79 Arch Stanton says 18 Jul 2008 at 9 15 PM Hi a beautiful person I tried to join Newsbusters last week and they have not let me in I suspect they do not accept folks from here in order to maintain the illusion of an honest debate over there 80 Clear Thinker says 18 Jul 2008 at 10 27 PM Follow up to the post above I am a long time member of News Busters and can assure you that a beautiful person has never been threatened The problem is that whenever abp is asked a question we only get insults as a reply But I will admit once a person like abp starts with the insults we are sure to do likewise It s only natural that people will defend themself and we are no different than you in that regard Anyone willing to debate the science of or the media response to AGW is welcomed but keep in mind that NB s focus is bias in the media As an aside NB has a wonderful archive and if you really want to question Noel Sheppards arguments I suggest you review the archives because he has written a mountains worth of info The only reason people don t like his findings is they go against the present day alarmism that is AGW Climate Crisis or whatever the heck it s called nowadays Thanks for listening Response Umm as the target for the latest smear I ll withhold comment on your site s penchant for character assassination in lieu of fact based argument But on the off chance you are serious stick around here and see how discussions can actually evolve without people resorting to ad homs gavin 81 Chris Colose says 19 Jul 2008 at 12 57 AM Clear thinker the entire tone of that article is to bash Gavin and play semantical games when science says smog and aerosols mean different things Given that we have to scroll half way down the page to find any semblance of a scientific point you should reconsider who is dedicated to truth and who to ad homs 82 John Mashey says 19 Jul 2008 at 1 33 AM re 76 This stuff didn t just start with the July 2008 issue as mixed in with quite reasonable articles are others The April issue has an article by Gerald Marsh retired Argonne nuclear physicist Climate Stability and Policy which says In this essay however I will argue that humanity faces a much greater danger from the glaciation associated with the next Ice Age and that the carbon dioxide increases that we have seen during the past two hundred years are not sufficient to avert such glaciation and its associated disruptions to the biosphere and civilization as we know it Thus while an enduring temperature rise of similar magnitude over the next century would cause humanity to face some changes that would undoubtedly be within our spectrum of adaptability we have done so in the past entering a new ice age would be catastrophic for the preservation of modern civilization It will be interesting to see what happens to that Forum as it is certainly clear that the APS powers that be are well aware of the issue 83 Phil Scadden says 19 Jul 2008 at 2 28 AM 78 You must be reading the most incredibly selective selection of papers to be still going with this model You are implying you have more than freshman chemistry Then I suggest you try modern papers on oil generation google for Braun and Burnham for instance I build computer models for oil and gas generation from organic source rock based solidly on laboratory experiments for kerogen kinetics kilometers down in the earth s crust Also make use of biomarkers for sorting out the types of source eg various coal type versus planktonic ooze While an inorganic source is possible for methane so far it appears to be very very small 84 Figen Mekik says 19 Jul 2008 at 5 07 AM Newsbusters is an atrocious site How does calling people names or an if you insult me Ill insult you back attitude further any understanding of global warming or bias in the media about it 85 Kris says 19 Jul 2008 at 5 42 AM Does multidecadel not mean spanning more than one decade Am I wrong or is 10 20 30 yeras etc not more than 7 Check my math on this but I am prety sure that 7 years is not multidecadel Let he who is without sin cast the first stone er insult er well read before you post Response Yes But that is the term used by Monckton gavin 86 David says 19 Jul 2008 at 8 22 AM Sorry for off topic question And sorry for bringing up a topic that should be dead and buried by now Regarding the correlation between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and air temperature determined from the Vostok Antarctica ice core Caillon et al 2003 stated that the radiative forcing due to CO2 may serve as an amplifier of initial orbital forcing which is then further amplified by fast atmospheric feedbacks that are also at work for the present day and future climate The data shows that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming out of the 5000 year trend the infamous lag The data are tightly correlated together In other words one on top of the other horizontally and vertically they fit nicely with max r value after 800 year shift So where is the initial warming without CO2 There s no difference in the vertical between CO2 and temp The feedback mechanism best explains my question however I was expecting at least some difference in the vertical 87 Boris says 19 Jul 2008 at 8 50 AM But I will admit once a person like abp starts with the insults we are sure to do likewise The latest Newsbusters thread is filled with insults and juvenile comments about people s appearence The commenters remind me of junior high school children both in their demeanor and in their understanding of science and the scientific method One key difference I have hope that the junior high schoolers will one day grow up 88 Poptech says 19 Jul 2008 at 9 06 AM Gavin can you show me where Noel used the word Photochemical in his post Response I unlike Mr Sheppard read the EPA report that the media piece was based on linked above It is a report about about ozone and photochemical smog I would advise you and Mr Sheppard to check your sources before pontificating gavin 89 Hank Roberts says 19 Jul 2008 at 9 12 AM Mr News Buster believes any publicity is good publicity and is claiming that he was cited by RC and Dot Earth so he s now serious news Eschew http www sourcewatch org index php title NewsBusters 90 Hank Roberts says 19 Jul 2008

    Original URL path: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/07/aerosols-chemistry-and-climate/comment-page-2/ (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Aerosols, Chemistry and Climate « RealClimate
    uploads ggws html 110 John P Reisman The Centrist Party says 20 Jul 2008 at 11 27 AM Re 103 Poptech Add this one as well http www merriam webster com dictionary smog You have illustrated a near perfect example of a complete lack of critical thinking capability I am assuming that you are educated in America which unlike Europe where they teach critical thinking in elementary school does very little in the area of critical thinking which is why we need a complete overhaul of the educational system id est critical thinking should be taught more effectively at all grade levels The word smog clearly originated from human caused pollutants While NOAA may have a reason for having it s own definition and language morphs due to aggregated understanding and usage on small and large scales such as the word community which means something different to a small town church that it does to the Mayor of Los Angeles due to perspective and connotative usage that does not negate reason or common sense in such usage or understanding of usage By your implication it seems you are attempting to say that smog or more specifically aerosols represent all airborne pollutants To summarize the general definition from the examples you gave it is mainly from exhaust fumes and around cities Plus you are reading the short definitions and not the multiples and derivatives slang usage and so forth but in general smog comes from exhaust and is found around cities by the definitions It might behoove you to pick up a real dictionary and read the definitions their definitions also largely rely on usage context and relevance just like science This is an area you night like to brush up on though as you don t seem to have a handle on critical thinking just yet Open mindedness is more important than intelligence You can have all the intelligence in the world but if one refuses to see the forest through the trees then one is blind as well as foolish Merely claiming the trees are not their whilst standing at the edge of the forest is even worse it is ignorance and it it is done with purpose then it is dishonest and likely dishonorable To be clear aerosols can be naturally occurring or a pollutant It s not that hard to understand Pollution as generally understood is from man made sources Gavin did not say aerosols can not be smog you need to read his words more carefully and try to exercise critical thinking when doing so Let s replace our community example above with dust and change the context Dust is normally not pollution but if a dust storm is caused by human interference such as poor land use practices then the dust jumps from aerosol particulate matter in a naturally occurring perturbance to a pollutant http www giss nasa gov research briefs cook 01 http www merriam webster com dictionary pollution Lastly you are saying wikipedia is an unreliable source While it is not perfect you might want to check the authors of the items that RC might refer to in wikipedia They are typically scientists that have more experience in critical thinking than yourself for example Mind you I don t know you maybe you are great at critical thinking and are merely being deceptive in your posts on purpose but that would just mean that you are dishonest Now if you are comparing wikipedia to say newsbusters as a reliable source That is just laughable You have literally no solid ground to stand on Even the mere insinuation is ludicrous Gavin is correct if newsbusters does not retract their statement about aerosols and smog then in order for newsbusters to have any semblance of integrity they should state that they are not a news site and do not represent science in any way shape or form and in fact should also state clearly at the beginning of all pieces that they are a form of disinformation that is catering to a less knowledgeable base that is willing to remain ignorant by virtue of wallowing in limited vision because money is more important that truth There is an old saying though that also applies here there are no bad students only bad teachers So if you have an audience that can not see the forest through the trees because you are generating fog to obscure vision then newsbusters is guilty whether they realize it or not of the highest form of treason I can think of purposeful academic dishonesty But I would never expect such a site to have any integrity or honor that abides holistic reasoning common sense they have a stated agenda that is biased to their own definition of what is right That in and of itself is the proof of their guilt in bias 111 Hank Roberts says 20 Jul 2008 at 11 34 AM Looking at that APS newsletter their named editors don t edit or proofread much I doubt anyone s paid them much attention til now From April 2008 More than two hundred people including myself had the great privelege of attending a two day conference called the Physics of Sustainable Energy our conference was superior to the other Woodstock physics meeting i e the APS March meeting of 1987 in Manhatten I was there in 1987 and I therefore know that nobody at the March 1987 meeting handed out delicious box lunches to all the attendees Looks on a quick glance like a gossip and industry PR blog I d guess they put stupid out hoping to attract lightning bolts to energize their creation as Mr Buster did earlier Eschew 112 Bart Verheggen says 20 Jul 2008 at 12 38 PM Poptech 103 A cow is an animal but an animal is not necessarily a cow 113 zap123 says 20 Jul 2008 at 1 19 PM Re 96 I made no point but it seems to me that a campaign is quite something different than a mere letter note The Strategic Opportunities Fund includes grants related to Hurricane Katrina 1 652 841 media policy 1 060 000 and politicization of science 720 000 The campaign on Hansen s behalf resulted in a decision by NASA to revisit its media policy Response NASA did revisit it s media policy and it is now much clearer than it was Whether SOF had anything to do with that is debatable I d wager front page coverage in the New York Times combined with embarrassment at the cack handed media supression see the Inspector Generals report was more effective But I still don t see the relevance of your queries Please explain why you posted comments on this in this thread Do you perhaps think that I am Jim Hansen in disguise gavin 114 Thomas Lee Elifritz says 20 Jul 2008 at 3 10 PM Let s start with Don Prosnitz http www aps org publications apsnews 200204 backpage cfm https publicaffairs llnl gov news news releases 2005 NR 05 11 08 html https publicaffairs llnl gov news news releases 2003 NR 03 01 05 html Ah that Donald Prosnitz Plenty more of that 115 Lawrence Brown says 20 Jul 2008 at 3 40 PM The subject article from NewsBusters seems to be both confusing and confused about aerosols and tropospheric ozone For my own edification I went back to basic definitions on the subject and found that 1 aerosols are suspensions of particles with a diameter of 10 micrometers or less They can exist as solids or formed in the atmosphere when gases like SO2 condense into liquid particles as sulfates Human sources are created principally by the combustion of fossil fuels and biomass Natural sources come from wind blown dust evaporation of sea salt droplets and volcanic eruptions 2 Ozone in the troposphere is formed by photochemical processes involving short lived precursor gases which include nitrogen oxides non methane hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide as stated by Gavin in NO 1 in his original post It s the principal gas in photochemical smog Aerosols can effect the energy by either reflecting incoming solar radiation back into space by providing cloud condensation also increasing albedo or carbon particles such as soot can increase the absorption of incoming solar radiation Hope I ve got it straight again as regards my own understanding My main source is Introduction To Environmental Engineering and Science Second Ed by Gilbert Masters Chapter 8 116 John Mashey says 20 Jul 2008 at 5 36 PM re 106 Ike On the APS Monckton mess there s another player 1 It appears that Saperstein did the review which can be seen on page 2 of Monckton s letter As can be seen Saperstein expresses his lack of understanding of topics like forcings and feedback 2 BUT how did all this happen Does it seem odd to anyone that FPS which normally publishes comments by and for physicists seeks out Monckton What is that connection 3 I conjecture that the answer lies with a Physics Professor at the University of Hartford named Laurence Larry Gould H T to Ian Forrester His views of climate can easily be ascertained just by looking at his home page His background can be found in his C V Dr Gould is the co editor of the newsletter of the New England Section of the APS and during 2004 was the Chairman of the NES He is often labeled as Chairman 2004 having been omitted has been studying climate science for about 4 years although as far as I can tell has never published any climate research in peer reviewed journals It looks like that interest dates from a APS NES meeting in 2004 with Christy Lindzen Rock and Weart Wrote an editorial in Fall APS NES Newsletter which could serve as a useful catalog of denialist writings although references to peer reviewed material are scarce About that same time appears to have signed on for the OISM Petition Project At least Laurence Gould PhD appears in the Connecticut list Wrote yet more in the Spring 2008 newsletter An Open Letter to Members of the American Physical Society NewEnglandSection Anthropogenic Global Warming Alarmism A Corruption of Science THEN As it happens Viscount Monckton spoke at the University of Hartford on March 5 2008 This is labeled as by invitation from UHA President Walter Harrison but one wonders where the impetus came to do this and who hosted him Monckton was in NYC for the Heartland March 2 4 conference SPPI says Apocalypse NO been described by Professor Larry Gould of the University of Hartford Connecticut as the best film ever made on climate change BUT FINALLY one wonders if there was any contact between Gould and the editors of FPS is that how Monckton got hooked into FPS Larry Gould is quoted widely as supporting Monckton s work Google larry gould monckton aps In SPPI July 15 we find Larry Gould Professor of Physics at the University of Hartford and Chair 2004 of the New England Section of the American Physical Society APS has been studying climate change science for four years He said I was impressed by an hour long academic lecture which criticized claims about global warming and explained the implications of the physics of radiative transfer for climate change I was pleased that the audience responded to the informative presentation with a prolonged standing ovation That is what happened when at the invitation of the President of our University Christopher Monckton lectured here in Hartford this spring I am delighted that Physics and Society an APS journal has published his detailed paper refining and reporting his important and revealing results To me the value of this paper lies in its dispassionate but ruthlessly clear exposition or rather exposé of the IPCC s method of evaluating climate sensitivity The detailed arguments in this paper and indeed in a large number of other scientific papers point up extensive errors including numerous projection errors of climate models as well as misleading statements by the IPCC Consequently there are no rational grounds for believing either the IPCC or any other claims of dangerous anthropogenic global warming Note that this appeared on the SPPI website on July 15 in the first mention of it by SPPI and the FPS article appeared either on the 14th or the 15th From past watchings of SPPI Ferguson tends to be ready to go so one would expect that Gould had seen this material earlier From his C V it s not clear whether he would count as a Distinguished Physics Professor or not but he certainly would not count as a climate scientist 117 Monika says 20 Jul 2008 at 6 24 PM Poptech zap ClearThinker maybe even Danbo It looks to me that there may be since few days a group of people working for NB posting opinions instead of sincere questions or relevant science I read their web site mission statement in About NewsBusters org Welcome to NewsBusters a project of the Media Research Center MRC the leader in documenting exposing and neutralizing liberal media bias And about it s founder NB states Working with the Media Research Center he created NewsBusters in 2005 as the first ever collaboration between a major Washington policy group and the blogosphere I am from Switzerland and I still am not accustomed yet with the fact that in the US opinions are presented as News and that a court ruling decided that it is not against the law to present News that are knowingly not true a lie What is the NB web site NB states Matthew is also executive producer of the fake news vlog NewsBusted It certainly doesn t have the standard of News but fake news packaged professionally as News a communication tool misrepresenting facts on a high level of professional public relations efforts representing the Washington policy group RC is not about politics but science please respect 118 Arch Stanton says 20 Jul 2008 at 6 56 PM John Mashey excellent sleuthing I am not as scientist but the scientific review looks more like a meticulous proof reading to me I am looking foreword to reading whatever letters the APS Forum on Physics and Society publishes in response to Monckton s paper 119 Clear Thinker says 20 Jul 2008 at 7 25 PM Dear Monika You wrote RC is not about politics but science please respect In the spirit of understanding the science behind what some term as a Climate Crisis I would respectfully ask if the question I posted above could be answered It was originally meant for Mr Schmidt because he was the one that questioned Mr Sheppards piece Since Mr Schmidt has yet to respond I now leave the question open for others to answer Q Could you reply to Mr Sheppard s contention that your arithmetic was flawed concerning temperatures rising in Europe due to cleaner air not having an impact on global warming Since average temperatures are a collection of data points from around the world if one continent s temperatures are rising doesn t this impact the average Isn t this basic arithmetic I look forward to any and all answers to my very basic Q Also it s unfortunate but even people here at RC have to admit that the AGW issue has become political If anyone is interested I would be happy to explain why One last note concerning civility I have been very pleasant and respectful to everyone here during my short time here I hope to recieve the same treatment Thank you for your valuable time 120 Phil Felton says 20 Jul 2008 at 8 56 PM Re 118 I am a scientist and I agree with you a very superficial review which didn t address any of the science as you say just proof reading 121 Hank Roberts says 20 Jul 2008 at 9 08 PM Mr Clear try the link at the top of the page Start Here and also try the first link under Science in the sidebar You ll find most of the frequently asked questions are answered there including the one asked by Mr Sheppard It s an intermediate type question that will be understood after reading some of the basic Start Here FAQ answers Most of us here are like me ordinary readers we try to point new readers to the basics to avoid retyping the answers where they re digressions 122 Steve Bloom says 20 Jul 2008 at 9 56 PM In addition to the statement from the APS Executive Committee noted above the following statement from the FPS Executive Committee now appears on the July newsletter index page The Forum on Physics and Society is a place for discussion and disagreement on scientific and policy matters Our newsletter publishes a combination of non peer reviewed technical articles policy analyses and opinion All articles and editorials published in the newsletter solely represent the views of their authors and the Editors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Forum Executive Committee nor those of the American Physical Society The executive committee of the Forum on Physics and Society however believes that the statement in the July 2008 edition of our newsletter Physics and Society that There is considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution exaggerates the number of scientists who disagree with the IPCC conclusion on anthropogenic CO2 and global warming That statement does not represent the views of APS or the Executive Committee of the Forum on Physics and Society The FPS Executive Committee strongly endorses the position of the APS Council that Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth s climate That seems clear enough 123 John P Reisman The Centrist Party says 20 Jul 2008 at 10 47 PM Re 112 Bart Verheggen I am compelled to compliment you on your beautifully succinct point made well 124 John P Reisman The Centrist Party says 20 Jul 2008 at 10 51 PM Re 104 Clear Thinker The someone was me I don t understand why you would not just say John P Reisman said Most people here post with their real names although in this thread I notice that the ones that are not using their real names are probably NB posters I can t imagine why you would be worried about using your real name though especially since you are retired Thank you for trying to clear up the misunderstanding about the difference between news busters and news busted But I have to say that since both efforts come from the same people that claim Welcome to NewsBusters a project of the Media Research Center MRC the leader in documenting exposing and neutralizing liberal media bias Then there really is no point in trying to differentiate the two other than stylistically They are both cut from the same cloth of bias against liberal media It is sad that we are not more like Europe where the report news plain and simple like we used to here in the old days Now it s all about fanfare and marketing I in general agree with your definition of conservatism http www merriam webster com dictionary conservatism and so would my father so I don t see why you are taking issue with what I wrote earlier as it is a generally accepted component of conservative thinking and that includes conservation historically The aspect I now disagree with is complex but quickly it is the free enterprise part Since we are not on any objective base like the gold standard free enterprise and free markets are no longer possible So espousing it as a value is purely academic and has no relevance anymore To get a very good lesson in value I always recommend Atlas Shrugged Unfortunately many misinterpret Rands theme to say that profit is most important and that has led to some pretty egregious abuses of the legislative body and value itself enough of that Now when it comes to AGW or Climate Change or whatever it s called most Conservatives do not believe that the end of the world is here As one who was raised traditional conservative I have to point out that your statement is quite incorrect simply because I am conservative and I disagree with it Most of us are still waiting for science to step in and settle the argument once and for all Unfortunately due to myopic vision in the realm of conservatives don t feel bad the democrats have similar problems with myopia but that is the nature of group psychology and is evident in general sub cultural group tendencies they have not noticed that the science is settled amongst the relevant scientists I won t go in to detail but if you read enough on this site and take a look at the arguments and scientific references on NASA NOAA EPA NCDC NSIDC etc you will come to the same conclusion This global warming event is human caused currently the climate forcing is 1 9 W m2 and Co2 hangs in the atmosphere for a good long time so even without any more sunspots we will continue to warm for a long long time I would also suggest taking a look at the following to get some context in the arguments http www uscentrist org about issues environment john coleman So in the meantime we see no reason to scare the hell out of people and we see no need to bankrupt this nation just to satisfy some experts consensus Besides the last five years have shown a cooling cycle not a warming one You obviously have not reviewed all the relevant evidence in context so statements like the above are completely out of touch with reality the last 8 years have shown cooling but that is only because the data is taken out of context Climate is long term trend 30 years or more ref IPCC The unusual spike in temp was due to an unusually strong El Nino event which set up a different short term trend http www realclimate org index php archives 2008 07 global trends and enso langswitch lang bg It is important to differentiate weather and climate http www nasa gov mission pages noaa n climate climate weather html We also are in the cool phase of the solar Schwabe cycle and 2007 was a la Nina year The temperature is rising The thing that should give you pause in your argument is that we were in a cool phase in 2007 and it still tied as second warmest year on record in modern history http www nasa gov centers goddard news topstory 2008 earth temp html People tend to act in a herd mentality and stay pretty close to their base You are apparently no different than people in general at this point in your argument If you really believe in individuality then stop following the crowd and venture off on your own into the science You seem to have bought into the idea that the sciences is somehow flawed likely because you exist in a world where everyone agrees with you and you generally with them I can tell you right now that what people think does not change the science one iota On your question regarding Gavin s arithmetic was flawed concerning temperatures rising in Europe due to cleaner air not having an impact on global warming Everything is inter dynamic and every scientist knows it It s a silly question so it does not deserve much time Re 119 Clear Thinker Monika is right this site is about the science You and I and everyone else know that there are political ramifications as well as societal But that does not change the purpose of this site I doubt anyone needs any more information on the political reality etc I touch on it only when I see that it helps understand the scientific arguments in context with the disinformation campaign Relevant comments and criticisms welcome John 125 Martin Vermeer says 21 Jul 2008 at 4 18 AM In 119 Clear Thinker inquires Could you reply to Mr Sheppard s contention that your arithmetic was flawed concerning temperatures rising in Europe due to cleaner air not having an impact on global warming Since average temperatures are a collection of data points from around the world if one continent s temperatures are rising doesn t this impact the average Isn t this basic arithmetic A starting point in answering this is observing that the surface area of Europe is only 2 of that of the world 5 max if you generously include surrounding sea areas In science as opposed to arithmetic numbers include uncertainties It is rather flattering of you to imply that global warming is known to a precision where a correction of at most 5 makes a difference 126 Pete Best says 21 Jul 2008 at 4 24 AM OFF TOPIC but another contrarian scientific letter to the head of the IPCC Can anyone here at RC refute the scientific content of this letter http www tech know eu uploads Letter UN Sec Gen Ban Ki moon pdf I d be interested in seeing the Guardian investigate who the experts signing this letter are and what their angle is Piers Corbyn Astrophysicist forecaster WeatherAction UK Vincent Gray IPCC Expert Reviewer Climate Consultant NZ Richard Courtney IPCC Exp Rev Energy Envir Consultant UK Hans Labohm IPCC Expert Reviewer Economist Author Holland Will Alexander Prof Em Dept Civil Biosystems South Africa Don Parkes Prof Human Ecology Ret Australia Japan Joseph D Aleo Certified Consultant Meteorologist Fellow AMS USA Svend Hendriksen Nobel Peace Prize 1988 shared Greenland Alan Siddons Climate Researcher USA Bob Ashworth Chem Eng Energy Environment USA Norm Kalmanovitch Geophysicist Canada Jim Peden Atmospheric Physicist Ret USA Hans Schreuder Analytical Chemist Ret UK 127 Barton Paul Levenson says 21 Jul 2008 at 6 30 AM Clear Thinker posts Now when it comes to AGW or Climate Change or whatever it s called most Conservatives do not believe that the end of the world is here And that s exactly what s wrong with American conservatism they conclude that if AGW were true government policies they dislike might need to be implemented and conclude from that that it s not true That kind of separation from reality disgusts and frightens me Most of us are still waiting for science to step in and settle the argument once and for all It s settled Presently all we have is some consensus by some experts and some non consensus by lot s of other experts At this point 90 99 of climatologists agree that global warming is happening that human technology is causing it and that it s an extremely serious problem So in the meantime we see no reason to scare the hell out of people People should be scared We re on the verge of seriously disrupting our agriculture and our economy and we see no need to bankrupt this nation just to satisfy some experts consensus Bankrupting the nation has nothing to do with it Nobody is calling for bankrupting the nation Measures to deal with AGW will not bankrupt the nation Besides the last five years have shown a cooling cycle not a warming one It s not a cycle and five years isn t long enough to prove anything The World Meteorological Organization defines climate as mean regional or global temperature over a period of thirty years or more That s how long you need to smooth out the noise 128 dhogaza says 21 Jul 2008 at 6 34 AM Also it s unfortunate but even people here at RC have to admit that the AGW issue has become political If anyone is interested I would be happy to explain why We know why Some people find that scientific truth interferes with their personal political and or economic beliefs and therefore find it necessary to try to undermine science by whatever means necessary No different than creationists and biology 129 Lawrence Brown says 21 Jul 2008 at 8 47 AM Comment 119 by Clear Thinker states Could you reply to Mr Sheppard s contention that your arithmetic was flawed concerning temperatures rising in Europe due to cleaner air not having an impact on global warming Temperatures may not necessarily rise due to ridding the atmosphere of impurities The physics are more complex than that Some impurities such as carbonaceous particles like soot from fossil fuel combustion can increase the absorption of incoming solar energy Clearing the atmosphere of them will take away this warming effect As far as the cleaner air over Europe is concerned there is a statement in the latest Ipcc report that says Eleven of the last twelve years 1995 2006 rank among the warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperaturre since 1850 From IPPC 2007 Summary For Policy Makers The Physical Science Basis I think that a clearer atmosphere over Europe would have a negligible effect on this overall observed global warming 130 dhogaza says 21 Jul 2008 at 9 32 AM Pete Best I d be interested in seeing the Guardian investigate who the experts signing this letter are and what their angle is Vincent Gray s a well known crank even by typical denialist standards D Aleo is the founder of The Weather Channel who has some fundamental misunderstandings regarding climate science Note some call themselves Expert Reviewer IPCC Want to put that after YOUR name Just write some comments during the next IPCC round There are absolutely no requirements any one can do so and put that after their name There s one atmospheric physicist there none of the rest have anything much to do with climate science Nobel Peace prize winner Human ecologist Engineer 131 John P Reisman The Centrist Party says 21 Jul 2008 at 10 01 AM Re 126 Pete Best Re the letter you refer to i The chart in our letter of 14 April page 3 which shows using official data that for the last decade World Temperatures have been falling whilst CO2 keeps rising and Natural variability causes fluctuations in the general uptrend One decade of measurement does not override the 30 year uptrend The notion they are claiming that we are now cooling is incorrect because they are not looking at the forcing levels above equilibrium therefore the assume that we are cooling based on limited data and myopic analysis ii A geological Greenland ice core chart of polar climate covering the last 10 000 years Ref B which shows that while CO2 levels have been rising temperatures have been falling since the Bronze Age around 4 000 years ago see page 2 The Greenland Ice core does not represent global temps That would be like saying the temp in the Sahara desert represents the temp in Antarctica it just doesn t make any sense The pictures on page 2 pdf are not put in context of relevance and therefore misrepresented and irrelevant Page 3 pdf assumptions are again based on limited data stating that a single data set from a single region sector not modeled with other measurements and without error potentials represents the global temp The MSU Joe is showing is a data set that has been corrected by NASA they just don t want to use the corrected data because it does not support their agenda How to cook a graph in three easy lessons http www realclimate org index php archives 2008 05 how to cook a graph in three easy lessons langswitch lang bg The sky IS falling http www realclimate org index php archives 2006 11 the sky is falling langswitch lang bg How to cook a graph in three easy lessons http www realclimate org index php archives 2008 05 how to cook a graph in three easy lessons langswitch lang bg Page 4 pdf letter page 2 They are making the same mistake they make in page 1 of ignoring long term trends and forcing and making assumptions not supported by trend evidence Again 10 years does not override the long term trend Uncertainty noise and the art of model data comparison http www realclimate org index php archives 2008 01 uncertainty noise and the art of model data comparison langswitch lang bg I can t comment on the Co2 upper troposphere Co2 levels but the Mauna Loa which is the longest term measurement of atmospheric Co2 is still showing increase in the trend Tropical tropospheric trends http www realclimate org index php archives 2007 12 tropical troposphere trends langswitch lang bg Tropical tropospheric trends again http www realclimate org index php archives 2008 05 tropical tropopshere ii langswitch lang bg 132 Dan says 21 Jul 2008 at 10 03 AM re 130 Minor correction D Aleo was the supposed Director of Meteorology at The Weather Channel John Coleman another denier with fundamental misunderstandings about climate science was the founder of The Weather Channel 133 Rod B says 21 Jul 2008 at 10 10 AM John P R et al anyone This is a long standing basic question that I ve generally just accepted but with a seed of not understanding hiding in the back of my mind and it may have been addressed before sorry if I missed it I do not understand the significant lag of temperature increases following CO2 increases I kind of understand why in times past e g there are physical and geophysical scenarios when it happens in reverse CO2 lags temperature But all else being equal why doesn t the temperature increase immediately after a CO2 molecule is added Why is not that molecule probably less than a meter off the ground immediately capable of absorbing IR radiation that otherwise might not have been absorbed and immediately likely to turn it into heat and a temperature increase with a collision I m using a one molecule example just to keep the picture simple Minutes hours days maybe even months I might not think much of But years and decades Or is the devil in my all else being equal I m aware how short term weather patterns can overwhelm long term climatic patterns for a while but they don t seem to me to fully answer the question 134 Duae Quartunciae says 21 Jul 2008 at 10 41 AM With regard to Monckton s paper in the APS P S forum newsletter I have attempted a bit of analysis of the maths since I had serendipitously been reading some of the papers Bony Colman Soden etc on feedbacks which Monckton mangles The result is at The APS and global warming What were they thinking I m a comparative novice myself and it is likely I have made a few mistakes of my own I d be very grateful if some of the folks here with a good understanding of subject matter would cast an eye over it and let me know of any errors As an aside I m also interested and say so to know if there is a credible way for a meaningful yet simple calculation to get into the right ball park for the non feedback climate sensitivity term given as 3 2 K W 1 m 2 in many references The simplistic calculation assuming uniform temperature change fixed lapse rate and emission height gives 3 7 or so I ve tried a simple integration over latitudes and that didn t seem to help Treating Earth as a grey body with emissivity of 0

    Original URL path: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/07/aerosols-chemistry-and-climate/comment-page-3/ (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Aerosols, Chemistry and Climate « RealClimate
    been in an excited state and thus the rate is simply dependent upon the size of population not the turn over in this population which will result from some molecules losing energy due to collisions while others gain energy Now lets turn to absorption What we are concerned with in determining a photon s chances of making it to space unlike emission isn t simply the local properties of the atmosphere but the path to space To make it to space a photon will be passing through different layers of atmosphere where the atmospheric density temperature and make up will vary over its path So what we need to consider is optical depth According to the Beer Lambert Bouguet law light traveling through a uniform medium will experience exponential decay along its path such that if it is cut in half over a given distance it will be cut in half again when it travels twice that distance and so on Now of course since we are dealing with the earth s atmosphere in this case the medium will not be uniform Nevertheless it is possible to define a dimensionless optical depth between any two points for any given wavelength assuming light travels in a straight line between those two points where the optical depth will be proportional to the logarithm of the probability that a given photon will make it from end point to end point or alternatively as the logarithm of the fraction of photons of that wavelength that will complete the path But then of course one also needs to take into account the fact that the photons may leave the atmosphere at an oblique angle which would mean that the path they take would have a greater optical depth than if they simply travelled perpendicular to the earth s surface Guenter Hess wrote in 346 However at the escape height which is below the height up to where LTE holds reemitted photons start to have a significant probability to escape to space The effective radiating height or altitude would be the mean height from which photons escape when emitted This would be a function of where they are emitted the path of transmission including the constitution of the atmosphere along that path the spectral absorptivity of the medium through which they travel but it would be a function of the energy of the photons themselves as you would need to weight the wavelength not simply by the number of photons but by the energy of the photons at that wavelength as you are trying to determine the average height from which thermal energy in the form of quantized thermal radiation escapes Needless to say that is all rather complicated And actually that isn t the way that it is normally done The average temperature of the earth is about 14 C However given the luminosity of the sun and the earth s albedo it is possible to calculate another average temperature something called the effective temperature or alternatively the effective radiating temperature This is the temperature that the earth would attain if one were to calculate it simply on the basis of solar irradiance the earth s distance from the sun the earth s albedo whatever light is reflected will not contribute to its thermal radiation field and shape or cross section Or alternatively the effective temperature is the brightness temperature of the earth measuring only the thermal radiation emitted by the earth averaged over the entire spectra Brightness temperature itself is normally applied to individual frequencies or wavelengths but in the case of a black body would remain constant over the entire spectra This temperature is approximately 18 C approximately 33 C below the earth s actual temperature with 33 C being essentially a measure of the strength of the earth s greenhouse effect Now under an admittedly unrealistic assumption of equal temperature throughout each equidistant layer of atmosphere one other feature of the atmosphere a linear falling off of temperature in the troposphere one can calculate an effective radiating height Within the troposphere we have a roughly constant lapse rate where the temperature decreases at a constant rate as a function of altitude which averaged over the entire globe is roughly 6 5 C km Given this we calculate the effective radiating height or altitude as approximately 5 5 km which is the average height at which the real temperature of the atmosphere is equal to that which it would be in the absence of any greenhouse effect i e the effective radiating temperature And as adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere increases the optical thickness or depth of the medium it raises the height from which photons escape and assuming a roughly constant lapse rate this will imply a warmer surface For more on that please see Tamino s essay Lapse Rate Guenter Hess wrote in 346 2 On a macroscopic level Averaged across the Sphere of the escape height Kirchhoff s law for extended media holds I wouldn t put it that way Kirchoff s law applies locally under local conditions What are the atmospheric constituents What are their absorptivities and emissivities etc It isn t dependent upon the structure of the atmosphere except insofar as LTE conditions obtain locally All I wished to underscore with the mention of scale is that all of the thermal energy which leaves the earth s climate system leaves by means of emission unless you wish to include the minute leakage of hydrogen or the rare bolloid collisions and the good majority of the energy which the earth radiates comes from photons that were emitted within the LTE region and escaped the atmosphere without absorption Emission is important at that scale for that reason It makes it possible for the energy entering the system to be balanced by the energy leaving the climate system once thermal quasi equilibrium is established But that balance between incoming and outgoing radiation is not a law but the achievement of

    Original URL path: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/07/aerosols-chemistry-and-climate/comment-page-8/ (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • North Atlantic Oscillation (“NAO”) « RealClimate
    al 2015 Part III Response to Nic Lewis SteveS Marvel et al 2015 Part III Response to Nic Lewis steve s Marvel et al 2015 Part III Response to Nic Lewis Andrew Kerber Blizzard Jonas and the slowdown of the Gulf Stream System Hank Roberts Blizzard Jonas and the slowdown of the Gulf Stream System doiknow Marvel et al 2015 Part III Response to Nic Lewis MartinM Anti scientists Don McKenzie Marvel et al 2015 Part III Response to Nic Lewis Matt Skaggs Anti scientists mikeworst New On line Classes and Models Marcus Pages Acronym index Data Sources Categories Climate Science Aerosols Arctic and Antarctic Carbon cycle Climate impacts Climate modelling El Nino Geoengineering Greenhouse gases Hurricanes Instrumental Record IPCC Oceans Paleoclimate Sun earth connections Communicating Climate Reporting on climate skeptics Extras Attic Comment Policy Contributor Bio s FAQ Glossary In the News Reviews Supplemental data Tutorials hydrological cycle Open thread RC Forum Scientific practice statistics The Bore Hole Books Contributors Highlights Dummies Guide to the latest Hockey Stick controversy El Nino Global Warming and Anomalous U S Winter Warmth Hurricanes and Global Warming Myth vs Fact Regarding the Hockey Stick On attribution On mismatches between models and observations On Sensitivity Part I Tropical Glacier Retreat Water Vapour feedback or forcing Welcome to RealClimate Other Opinions A Few Things Ill Considered Accuweather Climate Blog And Then There s Physics Andrew Dessler Brave New Climate C2ES Christian Science Monitor Climate Change Education Climate Communication Climate Matters Columbia Climate Science Watch ClimateArk ClimateConservative Org Climatedenial org ClimatePhys ClimateProgress ClimateSight Cntr for Enviro Journalism Deep Climate Deltoid deSmogBlog DotEarth Earth Discovery Channel Ecologically Orientated Effets de Terre FR George Monbiot globalchange Grist Climate and Energy Horatio Algeranon Hot Topic HotWhopper James Empty Blog Jeff Masters Wunder Blog John Fleck Kate has things to

    Original URL path: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=23 (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive



  •