Notices
Results 1 to 70 of 70

Thread: Warmest January in 32 years

  1. #1 Second warmest february in 32 years 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    The global-average lower tropospheric temperature remained high, at +0.61 deg. C for February, 2010. This is about the same as January, which in our new Version 5.3 of the UAH dataset was +0.63 deg. C. February was second warmest in the 32-year record, behind Feb 1998 which was itself the second warmest of all months. The El Nino is still the dominant temperature signal; many people living in Northern Hemisphere temperate zones were still experiencing colder than average weather.


    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/03/...-5-3-unveiled/

    i suspect that public interest in climate change will shift back to public support for curbing emissions, if 2010 proves to be another 1998.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: Second warmest february in 32 years 
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    i suspect that public interest in climate change will shift back to public support for curbing emissions, if 2010 proves to be another 1998.
    I doubt it will have any effect. Take the El-Nino out of it, and what do you have?

    Since the rise in 1998 proved to be a temporary natural cycle, why base 2010 GHG fears again?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: Second warmest february in 32 years 
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Take the El-Nino out of it, and what do you have?
    Since the graph covers 30 years, the warming effect can still be seen since El Nino happens every five. What we still have is evidence of this being the warmest decade on record, even when we account for short term variations resulting from oceanic activity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    I doubt it will have any effect. Take the El-Nino out of it, and what do you have?

    Since the rise in 1998 proved to be a temporary natural cycle, why base 2010 GHG fears again?
    Your argument makes no sense. The el ninos represent spikes in an overall upward trend.

    human nature, however, is such that these spikes fuel GW fears - just as 'flat' trends fuel skepticism.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Re: Second warmest february in 32 years 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Take the El-Nino out of it, and what do you have?
    Since the graph covers 30 years, the warming effect can still be seen since El Nino happens every five. What we still have is evidence of this being the warmest decade on record, even when we account for short term variations resulting from oceanic activity.
    This simply makes no sense.

    there is noise in the data, and the trend is upwards. Any talk about removing upward spikes to 'correct' for something is completely nonsensical. We are measuring global temperatures.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    I'm unsure how your response applies to mine. I completely agree with the point you've put forth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7 Re: Second warmest february in 32 years 
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Take the El-Nino out of it, and what do you have?
    Since the graph covers 30 years, the warming effect can still be seen since El Nino happens every five. What we still have is evidence of this being the warmest decade on record, even when we account for short term variations resulting from oceanic activity.
    This simply makes no sense.

    there is noise in the data, and the trend is upwards. Any talk about removing upward spikes to 'correct' for something is completely nonsensical. We are measuring global temperatures.
    Nobody is saying we should remove the upward spikes. I am not going to disagree with the satellite data. Still, there are several natural variation that are hard to properly remove and see the effect of GHG's. This is only a little over 30 years of data. Now I assume they have a calibration function to keep the data consistent, but is they don't, what if the calibration is also drifting?

    Having studied the methodology that NOVA uses in their thin film measuring equipment, I still have problems accepting that satellite data from the 70's can accurately, even into the 90's can accurately sift through all the distortions if IR through the atmosphere. The results interpreted from the data is still questionable to me. The methodology cannot be simpler than determining multiple thin film thicknesses on silicone wafers. Going through multiple layers and gas contents, the results end up being SWAG's. At least in thin film measurements, we normally had absolute know thicknesses of the previous built layers, and we are using the light spectrum in an easier way to interpret.

    Still, I will assume the temperature is correct for the purposes of discussion. 30 years of multiple variable causes is still no proof that it is AGW.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    I doubt it will have any effect. Take the El-Nino out of it, and what do you have?

    Since the rise in 1998 proved to be a temporary natural cycle, why base 2010 GHG fears again?
    Your argument makes no sense. The el ninos represent spikes in an overall upward trend.

    human nature, however, is such that these spikes fuel GW fears - just as 'flat' trends fuel skepticism.
    It seems that public opinion is driven stronger by weather and surface temperatures on land than oscillations in ocean surface temperature. Most of the public in the Northern hemisphere seem to be reacting to the harsh winter in North America, Europe and Asia and forming current opinion on that reality. It will be interesting to see which direction lower troposphere temperatures go once El Nino is gone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    It seems that public opinion is driven stronger by weather and surface temperatures on land than oscillations in ocean surface temperature. Most of the public in the Northern hemisphere seem to be reacting to the harsh winter in North America, Europe and Asia and forming current opinion on that reality. It will be interesting to see which direction lower troposphere temperatures go once El Nino is gone.
    Good point. The hydrosphere I think if one of the least considered factors, but very important. The change of winds make radical changes to where these energy changes take place. Just the evaporation and condensation of water makes such a difference in the atmospheric temperatures. The oceans can have significant effects on the lad area temperatures by this process, but satellites are going to see the changes in the ocean so readily, and they can only see the surface heat, but the first few hundred feet circulate so readily. As accurate as the satellite data may be, it still doesn't tell us the gross or net energy we are dealing with.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    As accurate as the satellite data may be, it still doesn't tell us the gross or net energy we are dealing with.
    Or you could search for three minutes, if curious:
    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/...ent-0-700.html
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    As accurate as the satellite data may be, it still doesn't tell us the gross or net energy we are dealing with.
    Or you could search for three minutes, if curious:
    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/...ent-0-700.html
    I'm glad to see you found 1955 satellite data.

    Noble prize for you is coming I bet.

    My point was that the satellites don't measure the whole content of heat. Even you Atlantic reading don't matter, it's a small piece of the ocean. Just because the atmosphere temperature changes by satellite measurements, it doesn't mean that you can attribute it to any one thing until you isolate the other factors.

    My point had to do with the enthalpy of vaporization of water, at 40.65 kJ/mol. The amount of moisture in the air has a huge effect on the atmospheric temperature.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Oh, for the love of thor. Must all of these threads always turn into the same ridiculous bullshit when you and Cypress become involved?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Oh, for the love of thor. Must all of these threads always turn into the same ridiculous bullshit when you and Cypress become involved?
    Go away troll. Contribute some actual meaningful dialog, or go away.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Oh, for the love of thor. Must all of these threads always turn into the same ridiculous bullshit when you and Cypress become involved?
    Perhaps it would be better to simply provide a bunch of links that make barely relevant arguments and routinely fail to address the issue at hand. Hundreds of posts and still no evidence that AGW can or will ever rise to dangerous levels. The belief that AGW is a threat to our ecosystem is not supported by evidence. It is a philosophical/metaphysical belief that enjoys no scientific evidence. I suppose this topic will prove equally difficult for your brand of argumentation.

    We have public opinion polls showing declines in both interest and belief that AWG is as serious as the IPCC makes it out to be. This decline has been accelerating as news about scientific errors in published reports and the practices of prominent climate scientists continues to come out. At the same time, recent weather is also driving public opinion according to surveys.

    I can see why you are bothered to hear that public opinion is moving away from your viewpoint, but that is hardly reason to ridicule your opponents.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15 Re: Second warmest february in 32 years 
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    i suspect that public interest in climate change will shift back to public support for curbing emissions, if 2010 proves to be another 1998.
    I hope you are correct. My primary concern is that the public has been so ferociously misinformed for so many years that many are really not sure what to believe anymore... Further, many have made a decision based on politics instead of evidence, and that's really difficult to overcome.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Even more difficult to overcome is lack of evidence. You certainly have a low opinion of society to believe that most in a world of free information can be taken in by misinformation.

    The reality is that evidence to support your view is nowhere to be found but your prior comitment prevents you from recognizing this issue. You see evidence for minor warming as evidence for dangerous warming, and you are so uncritical that it is missed on you, but not on the majority.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,303
    At risk of sounding naive, I rather go with the boolean value of "ice, or water" than degrees centigrade. This is readily observable, it's data one may work with, and it's also what finally matters most to humans, ecology, and climate anyway.

    For illustration, Vancouver just had its warmest February on record. However the thermometer value was not really important; that fact that we had to bring snow by truck convoy to the Olympic venue was important. Civilization, life, and climate all revolve around that phase change: pipelines built on permafrost, planting times of crops, global sea levels. These are true/false conditions with true/false consequences. The levee holds, or it doesn't.

    I'm not saying ice volume and distribution is all that matters. But in my naiveté I see this as a seriously relevant impact in itself, where we can measure the impact directly. Climate change is better expressed, at least to the public I think, in these values. Climatologists maybe need a reminder that a thermometer's effect is only in the mind.



    @Cypress. How'd you like to be the Governor of Alaska, deciding how to bring that oil out of the northern fields, long-term. Are you gonna trust the frozen ground under your pipeline doesn't melt, or are you gonna build a tanker terminal on the Beaufort Sea? How'd you like to gamble with the or risks of one scenario or another? Yet you seem triumphant that opinion polls show decreased interest in climate change.

    Do you want citizens, business, and governments to take these phase changes seriously or not?
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    At risk of sounding naive, I rather go with the boolean value of "ice, or water" than degrees centigrade. This is readily observable, it's data one may work with, and it's also what finally matters most to humans, ecology, and climate anyway.
    OK, but can you quantify how much of the ice melt is cause by warming, and how much of the ice melt if cause by soot?

    For that matter, how much of the warming is caused by ice melt?

    What I see prevalent is that soot is melting the ice which in turn increases the warming. You know, it's a serious change in local albedo...
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    For illustration, Vancouver just had its warmest February on record. However the thermometer value was not really important; that fact that we had to bring snow by truck convoy to the Olympic venue was important. Civilization, life, and climate all revolve around that phase change: pipelines built on permafrost, planting times of crops, global sea levels. These are true/false conditions with true/false consequences. The levee holds, or it doesn't.
    Then let's focus on elimination anthropogenic soot. Not only do we know it is a serious component of Global Warming, but it is far easier to stop, and has almost an immediate effect.
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    I'm not saying ice volume and distribution is all that matters. But in my naiveté I see this as a seriously relevant impact in itself, where we can measure the impact directly. Climate change is better expressed, at least to the public I think, in these values. Climatologists maybe need a reminder that a thermometer's effect is only in the mind.
    Again, soot is a serious threat to the ice. It makes it melt so much more rapid.
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Do you want citizens, business, and governments to take these phase changes seriously or not?
    I want us to focus on root problem analysis and solutions. Not treating they symptoms.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,303
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    OK, but can you quantify how much of the ice melt is cause by warming, and how much of the ice melt if cause by soot?

    For that matter, how much of the warming is caused by ice melt?

    What I see prevalent is that soot is melting the ice which in turn increases the warming. You know, it's a serious change in local albedo...
    My point is only that, ultimately, what matters is the ice or lack thereof. The degree of soot or mercury rise is not important in itself. So, if you want to say something absolutely relevant about the arctic you don't say how the temperature or albedo has changed, you say how the ice has changed to water. And no one's going to accuse you of fudging the data on that, when you can sail a frikken cruise ship through it.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    As a reminder, the topic of the thread is that this is the second warmest february in 32 years.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21 Warmest January in 32 years 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Going back a month, looks like January set a record.

    The global-average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly soared to +0.72 deg. C in January, 2010. This is the warmest January in the 32-year satellite-based data record.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/0...ature-warmest/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    OK, but can you quantify how much of the ice melt is cause by warming, and how much of the ice melt if cause by soot?

    For that matter, how much of the warming is caused by ice melt?

    What I see prevalent is that soot is melting the ice which in turn increases the warming. You know, it's a serious change in local albedo...
    My point is only that, ultimately, what matters is the ice or lack thereof. The degree of soot or mercury rise is not important in itself. So, if you want to say something absolutely relevant about the arctic you don't say how the temperature or albedo has changed, you say how the ice has changed to water. And no one's going to accuse you of fudging the data on that, when you can sail a frikken cruise ship through it.
    I was making the point that soot accelerates the melting of ice. As the ice melts faster and exposes more water, the albedo of that area decreases significantly and is relatively warmer than it would otherwise be.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    As a reminder, the topic of the thread is that this is the second warmest february in 32 years.
    Am I to assume that you don't think the amount of ice cover influences the global temperature?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    [NOTE: These satellite measurements are not calibrated to surface thermometer data in any way, but instead use on-board redundant precision platinum resistance thermometers (PRTs) carried on the satellite radiometers. The PRT's are individually calibrated in a laboratory before being installed in the instruments.]
    Wouldn't it be funny if the satellite sensor is drifting for a long term upward rise in readings. I noticed they said it was calibrated in the laboratory. These things drift. On earth they would remain stable, but being bombarded by cosmic and gamma radiation, there is likely either an upward or downward drift.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    [NOTE: These satellite measurements are not calibrated to surface thermometer data in any way, but instead use on-board redundant precision platinum resistance thermometers (PRTs) carried on the satellite radiometers. The PRT's are individually calibrated in a laboratory before being installed in the instruments.]
    Wouldn't it be funny if the satellite sensor is drifting for a long term upward rise in readings. I noticed they said it was calibrated in the laboratory. These things drift. On earth they would remain stable, but being bombarded by cosmic and gamma radiation, there is likely either an upward or downward drift.
    Equally amusing if recorded periodic cooling was actually due to instrument error. Or if drift was measuring warming less than what is actually occuring.

    Amusing possibilities all.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,303
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    As a reminder, the topic of the thread is that this is the second warmest february in 32 years.
    ...and if projected statistics might grab public attention.

    My comment is the numbers themselves are meaningful to those already keen in this. It would be more meaningful to business and consumers if we said farmers have to plough the fields additionally because weeds weren't killed by hard frost over winter, for example, or housing developers know that above a certain temperature bundles of asphalt shingles fuse together and construction must be delayed at significant loss.

    The southern oscillation illustrates my point of how laypeople relate to climate change. Today, El Nino and La Nina are common terms in the (Pacific Northwest) back-yard gardener's vocabulary. We decide if and when to plant raspberries, or whatever, on those terms, not the meaningless global average or local deviation expressed in degrees centigrade.

    My suggestion is to put climate change in real terms. That means "In this city, this will happen."
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    As a reminder, the topic of the thread is that this is the second warmest february in 32 years.
    Am I to assume that you don't think the amount of ice cover influences the global temperature?
    there are two means to melting ice. Well. three if you count pressure, but this can be discounted in the present context.

    One is to warm the ice. The second is to salt the ice without changing the temperature.

    It seems clear that soot will warm the ice, and may or may not provide some salting effects (I doubt it, soot is not ionc as I understand it.)

    Thus, when you ask
    OK, but can you quantify how much of the ice melt is cause by warming, and how much of the ice melt if cause by soot?
    I would hazard a guess that 100% is caused by warming. Whether that warming is due to AGHG or soot seems beside the point for the purpose of the your question.

    Most environmentalists would likely be quite content to rgulate GHG as well as soot. I certainly would. Throw in more regulation of deoforestation and a bit of education about the effects of overpopulation and we are beginning to get somewhere.

    And finally, of course ice cover directly affects albedo, and is a well-known feedback loop in GW. ice melt also allows accelerated methane release from permafrost and melting clathrates, additional positive feedbacks. It's all a bit dreadful really.

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../327/5970/1246 (abstract at link, subscription required)

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...-methan-carbon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    The ice also melts as previous melt water channels it's way through the sheet. It erodes it, making every crack bigger. There is also cavitation which occurs as the melt continues, and this magnifies the melting caused by warming alone by a LOT. Finally, much of the melt water runoff gets below the ice sheet, making the ice sheet float on top, move around, and effectively creating a negative pressure which sucks in warmer ocean water below the ice sheet... thus further accelerating the melt.

    When Wild Cobra tries to talk about ice melting based on temperature alone, his comments stop reflecting reality since temperature is not the only factor driving the significant melt, nor are soot and albedo effects.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    As a reminder, the topic of the thread is that this is the second warmest february in 32 years.
    Hmm, I thought the topic was short term temperature readings and the impact they might have on public opinion.

    Most people I talk with seem to understand that you shouldn't put too much emphasis on monthly global temperatures during strong El Nino and La Nina periods because of the uncharacteristic temperature results introduced by unusual sea surface temperatures. What is your experience?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    As a reminder, the topic of the thread is that this is the second warmest february in 32 years.
    Hmm, I thought the topic was short term temperature readings and the impact they might have on public opinion.

    Most people I talk with seem to understand that you shouldn't put too much emphasis on monthly global temperatures during strong El Nino and La Nina periods because of the uncharacteristic temperature results introduced by unusual sea surface temperatures. What is your experience?
    Are you suggesting that one thread (even two) amongst the dozens here represents 'too much emphasis?'
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,303
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    Most environmentalists would likely be quite content to rgulate GHG as well as soot. I certainly would.
    Soot is the classic stinky eyesore pollution. Since the 1800's air pollution meant soot.

    However I've shown in another thread temperatures over the last century closely correlate inversely with anthropic soot production. I think soot masked a rising background CO2 driver. For explanation, soot AKA black carbon becomes hydrophilic after few days in atmosphere therefore promoting low altitude water cloud... reflects solar. See free radical's OP temperature graph, where it's marked Mt. Pinatubo.



    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    When Wild Cobra tries to talk about ice melting based on temperature alone
    He's aware of other factors... like surface carbon.. obviously. Temperature is the first one mentioned of course.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    I've engaged with WC on enough threads, Pong, to not be as certain as you to the "obvious" nature of WCs understandings when dealing with climate issues.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    Most environmentalists would likely be quite content to rgulate GHG as well as soot. I certainly would.
    Soot is the classic stinky eyesore pollution. Since the 1800's air pollution meant soot.

    However I've shown in another thread temperatures over the last century closely correlate inversely with anthropic soot production. I think soot masked a rising background CO2 driver. For explanation, soot AKA black carbon becomes hydrophilic after few days in atmosphere therefore promoting low altitude water cloud... reflects solar. See free radical's OP temperature graph, where it's marked Mt. Pinatubo.



    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    When Wild Cobra tries to talk about ice melting based on temperature alone
    He's aware of other factors... like surface carbon.. obviously. Temperature is the first one mentioned of course.
    That's been a common misconception. Granted, you are correct that it has limited effects in the atmosphere, but it still heats in the atmosphere. Where it gets more powerful as a radiative factor is the difference it was when it deposits on snow and ice. It dramatically changes the emissivity and albedo.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    [NOTE: These satellite measurements are not calibrated to surface thermometer data in any way, but instead use on-board redundant precision platinum resistance thermometers (PRTs) carried on the satellite radiometers. The PRT's are individually calibrated in a laboratory before being installed in the instruments.]
    Wouldn't it be funny if the satellite sensor is drifting for a long term upward rise in readings. I noticed they said it was calibrated in the laboratory. These things drift. On earth they would remain stable, but being bombarded by cosmic and gamma radiation, there is likely either an upward or downward drift.
    Equally amusing if recorded periodic cooling was actually due to instrument error. Or if drift was measuring warming less than what is actually occuring.

    Amusing possibilities all.
    This is true. I have always been open to this. Are others?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,341
    The Feb and Jan threads are merged.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    Thus, when you ask
    OK, but can you quantify how much of the ice melt is cause by warming, and how much of the ice melt if cause by soot?
    I would hazard a guess that 100% is caused by warming. Whether that warming is due to AGHG or soot seems beside the point for the purpose of the your question.
    OK, I disagree with that. I think it's important to know how much is cause by the heating caused by the soot collecting solar energy and atmospheric IR vs. how much is because of temperature. Now I will not attempt to quantify that number, at least not now. I'm not even sure I can. This goes back to something I mentioned before. Wouldn't it be much easier to regulate world wide soot emissions rather than CO2, and see what results that has?

    I too, am worried about AGW. However, my fear of it solely lies with soot on ice. Not CO2.

    The arctic and antarctic regions are part of the global temperature. I have a rather solid belief that the loss of ice influences the temperature to a notable degree.

    Wasn't there recently something like a 60 km piece of ice shelf that broke away in the antarctic due to a collision by another? During our winter, of course, the southern hemisphere is exposed more to the sun. Rather than having a large reflective area, we have a more open water closer to the pole that now collects more heat than it reflects.

    Is that a concern to you?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,303
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    Most environmentalists would likely be quite content to rgulate GHG as well as soot. I certainly would.
    Soot is the classic stinky eyesore pollution. Since the 1800's air pollution meant soot.

    However I've shown in another thread temperatures over the last century closely correlate inversely with anthropic soot production. I think soot masked a rising background CO2 driver. For explanation, soot AKA black carbon becomes hydrophilic after few days in atmosphere therefore promoting low altitude water cloud... reflects solar. See free radical's OP temperature graph, where it's marked Mt. Pinatubo.



    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    When Wild Cobra tries to talk about ice melting based on temperature alone
    He's aware of other factors... like surface carbon.. obviously. Temperature is the first one mentioned of course.
    That's been a common misconception.
    What has?

    I dunno. You go on to suggest we regulate world wide soot emissions rather than CO2, and see what results that has. Experiment? But dude, we've done just that, twice already, and see an immediately correlating rise in temperature. Replace coal with gas plus Great Depression factory closures -> temperatures soared. Early 70's smog controls -> temperatures soared again.

    Maybe Londoners recall the bone-chilling "pea soup" fogs...?
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    Most environmentalists would likely be quite content to rgulate GHG as well as soot. I certainly would.
    Soot is the classic stinky eyesore pollution. Since the 1800's air pollution meant soot.

    However I've shown in another thread temperatures over the last century closely correlate inversely with anthropic soot production. I think soot masked a rising background CO2 driver. For explanation, soot AKA black carbon becomes hydrophilic after few days in atmosphere therefore promoting low altitude water cloud... reflects solar. See free radical's OP temperature graph, where it's marked Mt. Pinatubo.



    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    When Wild Cobra tries to talk about ice melting based on temperature alone
    He's aware of other factors... like surface carbon.. obviously. Temperature is the first one mentioned of course.
    That's been a common misconception.
    What has?

    I dunno. You go on to suggest we regulate world wide soot emissions rather than CO2, and see what results that has. Experiment? But dude, we've done just that, twice already, and see an immediately correlating rise in temperature. Replace coal with gas plus Great Depression factory closures -> temperatures soared. Early 70's smog controls -> temperatures soared again.

    Maybe Londoners recall the bone-chilling "pea soup" fogs...?
    How about Asia? Are we speaking global, or local? What good does it do to only regulate our CO2 emissions when China's emissions exceed ours? Why are their coal burning power facilities bellowing out so much soot? At least most of our plants use (relatively) clean burning technology now.The arctic ice is melting, and I'm pretty sure Asia's soot is that cause rather than temperature.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    temperatures over the last century closely correlate inversely with anthropic soot production. I think soot masked a rising background CO2 driver. For explanation, soot AKA black carbon becomes hydrophilic after few days in atmosphere therefore promoting low altitude water cloud... reflects solar. See free radical's OP temperature graph, where it's marked Mt. Pinatubo.

    I dunno. You go on to suggest we regulate world wide soot emissions rather than CO2, and see what results that has. Experiment? But dude, we've done just that, twice already, and see an immediately correlating rise in temperature. Replace coal with gas plus Great Depression factory closures -> temperatures soared. Early 70's smog controls -> temperatures soared again.

    Maybe Londoners recall the bone-chilling "pea soup" fogs...?
    Are you sure it wasn't sulfate reduction that caused the temperatures to rise. Soot and sulphate are often produced together, but can have opposite climate effects AFAIK.

    And yes, I remember my mum walking in front of the car with a flashlight while dad drove us very slowly home in a London peasouper, sometime in the fifties.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    Are you sure it wasn't sulfate reduction that caused the temperatures to rise. Soot and sulphate are often produced together, but can have opposite climate effects AFAIK.

    And yes, I remember my mum walking in front of the car with a flashlight while dad drove us very slowly home in a London peasouper, sometime in the fifties.
    I didn't think to ask him about the sulfur.

    I agree, soot and sulfur have opposite effects. Soot warms, sulfur cools.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,303
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    Are you sure it wasn't sulfate reduction that caused the temperatures to rise. Soot and sulphate are often produced together, but can have opposite climate effects AFAIK.
    Good question - I'm not sure at all. I also had sulphate in mind but conversationally used "soot" as a proxy. Practically they're both products of dirty combustion so curbing one curbs the other. Cobra's proposal to regulate Chinese soot would in practice reduce other aerosols... bringing China in line with the clean CO2 emission standard established in the early 70's, which at the time we imposed to "clean up the environment".

    I do know that fresh soot is hydrophobic, yet becomes hydrophilic as it remains in the atmosphere (Don't ask me how). Then it's a CCN, especially for ice (?).

    Anyway I should have said "dirty emissions" not black carbon in particular. This is a really counterintuitive inverse correlation with last century's northern hemisphere temperatures. Flies against all common sense that "dirty air pollution is bad for the environment". But I'm not dismissing the importance of greenhouse gases - rather in my interpretation the historic CO2 driving was stronger then temperatures would indicate because the effect was counteracted by parallel increase in CCN emission, thus low altitude fog and cloud.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Practically they're both products of dirty combustion so curbing one curbs the other.
    No, this is not necessarily true. Soot is a product of incomplete combustion, and soot emissions can be reduced by better combustion design, and use of particulate filters. This doesn't reduce sulfate emissions. Sulfate is the result of burning sulfur in fuel. Every bit of sulfur in the fuel gets oxidized to SO2 or SO3 and will go out the stack in an old plant or will be captured in scrubbers, or by limestone in the furnace in a newer or retrofitted plant. Soot and sulfur require different treatments and it's possible to virtually eliminate one while leaving the other untouched.

    By the way, most sulfur is removed from liquid and gaseous fuels before they are burned. Not so much with coal.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    As a reminder, the topic of the thread is that this is the second warmest february in 32 years.
    Hmm, I thought the topic was short term temperature readings and the impact they might have on public opinion.

    Most people I talk with seem to understand that you shouldn't put too much emphasis on monthly global temperatures during strong El Nino and La Nina periods because of the uncharacteristic temperature results introduced by unusual sea surface temperatures. What is your experience?
    Are you suggesting that one thread (even two) amongst the dozens here represents 'too much emphasis?'
    I was suggesting that public opinion seems to reacts to weather where they are located but does not seem to react to word of global temperature fluxuations that are explainable by known short term mechanisms. I guess it is more real when they experience it directly.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,303
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    Practically they're both products of dirty combustion so curbing one curbs the other.
    No, this is not necessarily true. Soot is a product of incomplete combustion, and soot emissions can be reduced by better combustion design, and use of particulate filters. This doesn't reduce sulfate emissions. Sulfate is the result of burning sulfur in fuel. Every bit of sulfur in the fuel gets oxidized to SO2 or SO3 and will go out the stack in an old plant or will be captured in scrubbers, or by limestone in the furnace in a newer or retrofitted plant. Soot and sulfur require different treatments and it's possible to virtually eliminate one while leaving the other untouched.

    By the way, most sulfur is removed from liquid and gaseous fuels before they are burned. Not so much with coal.
    Apart from this ignoring that China "seriously cleaning up" its industrial emissions would certainly involve more use of nuclear, etc. so yeah, practically, sulfate, soot, and a slew of particulates tend to go together ...we were speaking in the past tense of last century's changing emissions. Like, the difference between open wood/coal/household waste burning fireplace vs. gas central furnace with ducts.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Perhaps you should have made clear that soot to you means carbon and sulfate. To me and to any engineer who has worked in the combustion field they are completely different things. Similarly, your statement that curbing one curbs the other is only true in a particular context that you have now defined, but did not before.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,303
    I can accept that the inverse correlation with dirty emissions (my observation) is of no interest. You'll have to accept that I have no interest in defending a tangential miscommunication like it was a point I intended to make.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Back to the worries about the coldest Jan and Feb. We have a relatively easy solution to curbing AGW. We have the ability to world wide, seriously reduce soot emissions without doing the harm that curbing CO2 would do to the same extent. It is in our power, as a global community, to do this. There is far too much resistance to curbing CO2 for several reasons. Both sides of the AGW argument agree that soot is a problem.

    Why not start there and see what happens?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,303
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    seriously reduce soot emissions... It is in our power, as a global community, to do this.
    Okay, let's examine how.

    Black carbon sources:

    42% open burning (i.e. forest fire)
    24% domestic heating and cooking with traditional technology biofuels and coal
    24% diesel engines (mainly transportation i.e. shipping)
    10% industrial processes and generation

    Which one would you like to attack? We'll explore feasible solutions.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    seriously reduce soot emissions... It is in our power, as a global community, to do this.
    Okay, let's examine how.

    Black carbon sources:

    42% open burning (i.e. forest fire)
    24% domestic heating and cooking with traditional technology biofuels and coal
    24% diesel engines (mainly transportation i.e. shipping)
    10% industrial processes and generation

    Which one would you like to attack? We'll explore feasible solutions.
    those numbers can in no way reflect today's numbers. 10% is far too low since China and other parts of Asia have industrialized to the point they are now. On top of that, if forest fires actually contributed to 42% of the soot, then why are we even concerned about man's CO2?

    Source please.
    Besides, most these don't matter. They fall out of the sky within a week. As I have repeatedly pointed out, the concern is when it lands on snow and ice. There is a temporary warming when there are fires. Over land, it doesn't change the warning much. It's not until it is over or on surfaces that normally reflect 80%+ of the irradiance. When it is deposited on snow and ice, the effect is lasting as it stays on top until covered, and absorbs as much as 90% instead of reflecting more than 80%.

    The feasibility is simple. Modern scrubbers on the equipment in Asia. This is where the winds carry them over the polar ice.

    ----added---

    Found those numbers. 2000 data for a 2004 study. China has been expanding their their fuel demand by something like 18% annually since then, until at least 2007. I haven't seen numbers since, but they exceeded our annual CO2 emissions in 2006. In 2000, they were 19% of the world BC (black carbon) emissions. We (USA) were at 6%, with all the heating and diesel vehicles we have. With all the dirty power China been generating, you can safely bet that 19% is much larger, and largely from power generation.

    See Bond et. al. 2004.

    Here's an interesting study:

    Black Carbon; A Review and Policy Recommendations

    Early in chapter 2:

    Although the effects of BC on climate are complex, ton for
    ton, as long as it remains lofted in the atmosphere, BC acts
    as a far stronger warming agent than carbon dioxide. One
    gram of BC spread instantaneously and evenly through the
    Earth’s atmosphere would produce a direct radiative forcing
    comparable to that of at least a ton of carbon dioxide (Box 2.1
    and Appendix 2.1).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Although the effects of BC on climate are complex, ton for
    ton, as long as it remains lofted in the atmosphere, BC acts
    as a far stronger warming agent than carbon dioxide. One
    gram of BC spread instantaneously and evenly through the
    Earth’s atmosphere would produce a direct radiative forcing
    comparable to that of at least a ton of carbon dioxide (Box 2.1
    and Appendix 2.1)
    That is almost irrelevant to most of the global warming issue - an interesting hypothetical not found in the situation. Unlike CO2, BC is not spread evenly throughout the atmosphere, and does not remain lofted for the necessary time. It does not accumulate in the atmosphere.

    Its most significant warming effects - melting glaciers, etc - depend exactly on its failure to remain lofted, and on its uneven spread upon deposition.

    It would be a very good idea to scrub it from the stack emissions, but the benefit would not be likely in any curbing of the greenhouse warming - might actually make some of the effects worse (still worth doing, no argument, but for other reasons).
    Quote Originally Posted by WC
    On top of that, if forest fires actually contributed to 42% of the soot, then why are we even concerned about man's CO2?
    The soot from forest fires tends to shade and cool, not warm. We are most concerned about CO2 because its warming effect is steady and increasing, and is changing the global climate. It will, for example, trap heat energy absorbed by BC that would otherwise radiate into space - a lot of the melting effects of BC at high latitudes seem to derive from that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    The soot from forest fires tends to shade and cool, not warm.
    I thought the opposite was true. A quick google turned up this article for instance, which mentions that : "The very fine soot, known as black carbon, that is released into the atmosphere by fires also contributes to warming."

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0423142332.htm

    I can see how it might as as a cooling agent if it gets into the stratosphere.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,303
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Which one would you like to attack?
    China and other parts of Asia
    industrialized
    the equipment in Asia.
    China
    dirty power China
    Okay, so I think you'd like to focus on Chinese industry. I'll try to suspend comments on why a conservative American engineer might target this one.

    I think you're basically suggesting smokestacks in China should have modern particulate scrubbers retrofitted? This would capture soot and some other pollutants.

    I guess China will manufacture these domestically? Who pays? The workers will have to pay, if costs are borne by their factories. How do we make the workers want to do that? They're in a pretty competitive situation here. Neither is Beijing in a position to go shutting down non-compliers i.e. seizing control of the means of production ...anathema to communist values. It seems to me that China has internal impediments to this sort of top-down regulation. On the other hand, Beijing does make helpless noises about the disregard of national standards, and every citizen is well aware of growing air pollution. I think the will to pay for scrubbers goes out the window when groups sit down to plan increased efficiency.

    I think the additional cost of modern air scrubbers will become affordable when value of production overshadows it. So it becomes a relatively minor cost. That already happened in wealthy industrialized countries. China's headed this way too.

    Got any other ideas on how to implement emissions scrubbers in China?



    Personally I'm not so sure that scrubbing the particulates, while still producing clean GHG emissions, is good for the global heat budget. Notice "ship tracks", where dirty diesel exhaust demonstratively nets a powerful low-altitude cloud seeding effect. This helps by partially counteracting the longer-term warming of CO2 also emitted. Remember last century's temperature ups and downs inversely correlating with dirty combustion of one kind and another. In practice, when you scrub the soot you're going to scrub out other CCNs besides. And even soot itself may be a net cooler depending on its contribution to cloud... we just don't know enough about that.

    Just to make plain: I'm not suggesting that dirty combustion is good. I'm suggesting that given the option, between producing equal volumes of CO2, with a "dirty" component or not, the dirty option may be lesser of two evils... in context of global warming.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Okay, so I think you'd like to focus on Chinese industry. I'll try to suspend comments on why a conservative American engineer might target this one.
    China is simply the biggest problem.
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    I think you're basically suggesting smokestacks in China should have modern particulate scrubbers retrofitted? This would capture soot and some other pollutants.
    Yes.
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    I guess China will manufacture these domestically? Who pays? The workers will have to pay, if costs are borne by their factories. How do we make the workers want to do that? They're in a pretty competitive situation here. Neither is Beijing in a position to go shutting down non-compliers i.e. seizing control of the means of production ...anathema to communist values. It seems to me that China has internal impediments to this sort of top-down regulation. On the other hand, Beijing does make helpless noises about the disregard of national standards, and every citizen is well aware of growing air pollution. I think the will to pay for scrubbers goes out the window when groups sit down to plan increased efficiency.
    The first thing is to stop pointing fingers at the wrong place, and get it recognized for what it is. Se then either shame them into doing it themselves, tax all products from them based on energy usage, or pay for it ourselves rather than destroying our nation with unmanageable carbon caps. Take your pick, or think of others.
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    I think the additional cost of modern air scrubbers will become affordable when value of production overshadows it. So it becomes a relatively minor cost. That already happened in wealthy industrialized countries. China's headed this way too.
    Yes, but until then, please recognize that CO2 emissions is not the only AGW problem we have. Keep an open mind and look at the apparent assessment of CO2 radiative forcing calculations. We see the temperature changes, and assigned a gross delta radiative forcing value to it. We remove all known factors, and get 1.66 watts/sq. meter by the IPCC assessment for CO2. With scientific of soot as high as 0.9 watts and solar as high as assessments of 0.66 watts in the AR4, this is already 1.34 watts higher than used in the AR4. I have two goals here. To point out that CO2 is not as strong as people believe, and that black carbon is far cheaper to control, without changing our way of life.
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Got any other ideas on how to implement emissions scrubbers in China?
    Simply stop buying from them until the correct the problem. There is now adequate scientific proof that soot is a major contributor to the melting of the Arctic ice. That's not where the problems of soot end.
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Personally I'm not so sure that scrubbing the particulates, while still producing clean GHG emissions, is good for the global heat budget. Notice "ship tracks", where dirty diesel exhaust demonstratively nets a powerful low-altitude cloud seeding effect.
    So are you saying it's pointless to address the easiest things to fix? Diesel technology is improving, in fact, it is remarkably clean today compared to just five years ago. How about petitioning congress to set a schedule as to when only new efficient designed ship engines can come to our ports. No different than regulating car sales by emission here.
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    This helps by partially counteracting the longer-term warming of CO2 also emitted.
    The ocean will eventually come into equilibrium with CO2. Long term CO2 will be regulated by temperature of the ocean. Not by emission.
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Remember last century's temperature ups and downs inversely correlating with dirty combustion of one kind and another.
    The you agree that there is an effect at least.

    An area under a dirty soot cloud will be cooler, however, it collects nearly all the solar heat that strikes it. Just because it doesn't warm near the source, doesn't mean it doesn't warm.
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    In practice, when you scrub the soot you're going to scrub out other CCNs besides. And even soot itself may be a net cooler depending on its contribution to cloud... we just don't know enough about that.
    Science knows soot to be a warming aerosol. Not cooling. It collects the heat rather than reflect it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Just to make plain: I'm not suggesting that dirty combustion is good.
    That's a given. I don't suspect anyone would call it a good thing.
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    I'm suggesting that given the option, between producing equal volumes of CO2, with a "dirty" component or not, the dirty option may be lesser of two evils... in context of global warming.
    We simply disagree. I say with confidence that you are wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,303
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    shame them into doing it themselves
    That's not going to work, because on the principle that all men are equal Chinese have the moral high ground with respect to Canadians. Per capita, modern Canadians still produce as much soot as developing Chinese, and as for other major pollutants... per capita... frankly we are way out of line. If I own an island all to myself, may I unashamedly pour paint into the sea?

    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    tax all products from them based on energy usage
    They do something because their lean profits can't afford better. Correct this behaviour by shrinking their profits?

    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    pay for it ourselves rather than destroying our nation with unmanageable carbon caps
    You know that's not going to happen.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Simply stop buying from them until the correct the problem.
    See above, and above.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    set a schedule as to when only new efficient designed ship engines can come to our ports
    This probably wouldn't hurt so much. I think the shippers could take it in stride. On the other hand, where I am the obvious port is a freaking coal mountain superport exporting BC coal to Asia and fed by visibly fuming diesel trains. So fussing over coal ship emissions seems a bit bizarre in this context. But the combined ports of North America could have a significant impact.

    As you know, I suspect that impact (reduced cloud aerosols, same CO2) would net increased warming. Your plan eliminates ship tracks.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Pong, is there any point in this? Rather than seeking ways to mitigate a problem relatively easily contained, you are full of negativism. If my ideas aren't to you liking, have any of your own?

    I didn't come here to defend a position by also coming up with the solution. Then you also redirect my real concern over soot. Let me say again... Soot on Ice! Canada may produce more than China, but I really doubt it. A decade ago, I would agree. Not now. That point aside, the winds carry differently between the two points.

    AGW can be a problem in the future, but not because of CO2. I would hope that people at least keep an open mind about all causes, and stop focusing on CO2, which is the most economically damaging to control, with the least effect.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    AGW can be a problem in the future, but not because of CO2.
    So says you, and this is an assertion with which those who know far more about the subject than you tend to disagree over 97% of the time (yeah yeah... I know you'll argue they didn't specifically reference CO2, but it's taken implicitly in the question, so I'm unconcerned with your likely challenge to my comment).


    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    I would hope that people at least keep an open mind about all causes, and stop focusing on CO2
    Being open minded and ignoring valid science are not equal.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    which is the most economically damaging to control, with the least effect.
    Economics doesn't factor into validity, and your assertion of CO2 control having least effect is simply untenable.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    AGW can be a problem in the future, but not because of CO2.
    So says you, and this is an assertion with which those who know far more about the subject than you tend to disagree over 97% of the time (yeah yeah... I know you'll argue they didn't specifically reference CO2, but it's taken implicitly in the question, so I'm unconcerned with your likely challenge to my comment).


    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    I would hope that people at least keep an open mind about all causes, and stop focusing on CO2
    Being open minded and ignoring valid science are not equal.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    which is the most economically damaging to control, with the least effect.
    Economics doesn't factor into validity, and your assertion of CO2 control having least effect is simply untenable.
    Again, you offer nothing of value. Only following me around, which is forbidden by the rules. You criticize me with no valid reason, except your hatred.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    You criticize me with no valid reason, except your hatred.
    What you call "hatred," I call a compulsion to challenge bullshit in all it's forms, especially as pertains to subjects like climate change, evolution, and american and constitutional history. Cheerio. 8)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,303
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Pong, is there any point in this? Rather than seeking ways to mitigate a problem relatively easily contained, you are full of negativism. If my ideas aren't to you liking, have any of your own?
    I sincerely considered the feasibility of your proposal, personal likes aside. If you had instead targeted the (global) 24% domestic heating and cooking with traditional technology biofuels and coal I could have said good news: Chinese and Indians sorely want clean modern kitchens and central heating. Development will surely eliminate these sources of pollution.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Canada may produce more than China, but I really doubt it. A decade ago, I would agree.
    I meant Canadians produce more than Chinese. Actually for soot it's about equal, per capita. For greenhouse gases like CO2 a Canadian is one bad, bad global citizen. Overall, Chinese pollute relatively little compared to industrialized people.

    The position taken by heavily populated countries like China, India, Bangladesh (which do produce a remarkable amount of soot as seen by satellite) is that it is unreasonable to expect every country regardless of population pollute the same. The US argument regarding China normally compares the two countries like they should pollute equally, because hey all sovereign states are equal peers right? Canadians sagely agree. :wink:
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    You criticize me with no valid reason, except your hatred.
    What you call "hatred," I call a compulsion to challenge bullshit in all it's forms, especially as pertains to subjects like climate change, evolution, and american and constitutional history. Cheerio. 8)
    Then show me how I am wrong, else shut up.

    I really wonder if you have a shred of intelligence. You repeatedly link articles that are suppose to validate your opinion and prove me wrong. Let’s look at your latest link:

    97% of active climatologists agree that human activity is causing global warming

    OK, lets start by looking at the material. The survey was sent out to 10,357 Earth Scientists. 3,146 completed the survey. Of these, only 79 of them were “Active Climatologists.” Now if you had both integrity and intelligence, you would realize that the questions asked are framed to give a yes answer to both. Hell, I’ll even say YES!

    1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

    2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
    If you took the time to look up the word “significant,” you’ll see it doesn’t mean “major." One meaning is noticeable, and yes, there is noticeable anthropogenic warming.”
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    The position taken by heavily populated countries like China, India, Bangladesh (which do produce a remarkable amount of soot as seen by satellite) is that it is unreasonable to expect every country regardless of population pollute the same. The US argument regarding China normally compares the two countries like they should pollute equally, because hey all sovereign states are equal peers right? Canadians sagely agree. :wink:
    My position is that cleaner methods of coal burning are available, and should be used. I really think it would make a big difference is Asia would use clean technology.

    As for per-capita, yes, Asia can you imagine if all of Asia's population used as much energy per capita as we do, and Canada? There per capita pollution may be the same, but based on a lower standard of living. What happens when all Asia citizens use as much energy as we do if they don't clean up their emissions?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,303
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    There per capita pollution may be the same, but based on a lower standard of living. What happens when all Asia citizens use as much energy as we do if they don't clean up their emissions?
    As in the coal-powered industrial revolution, before cleaner gas engines and furnaces took over in the 1910's? As in the post WW2 industrial boom, before clean air regulations of the late 1960's? Just look at the temperature record for northern hemisphere or arctic.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    There per capita pollution may be the same, but based on a lower standard of living. What happens when all Asia citizens use as much energy as we do if they don't clean up their emissions?
    As in the coal-powered industrial revolution, before cleaner gas engines and furnaces took over in the 1910's? As in the post WW2 industrial boom, before clean air regulations of the late 1960's? Just look at the temperature record for northern hemisphere or arctic.
    It's not the same thing, and from where we are, the soot wasn't carried to the Arctic. Soot in the air alone has just a minor net increase, but other aerosols are in the older combustion which likely caused the cooling scare of the 70's in my opinion. I see soot being most harmful to Mother Earth where it changes the albedo the most. On the Arctic snow and ice. It has other effects like changing precipitation, but we we speak of warming, the starting albedo makes all the difference.

    I just hope that Asia has recognized their pollution problem, and works to clean it up.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,303
    Aren't you forgetting about Japan? They were laying railroad same time as Europe and N. America, when it was all coal. Then a post war boom along with everybody else.

    Some months ago at your suggestion I really tried to find how China's air pollution goes especially to the Arctic. More than other industrialized countries. It doesn't. In fact you've got a lot of Californian scientists now saying China's air pollution streams across the Pacific to their state.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Some months ago at your suggestion I really tried to find how China's air pollution goes especially to the Arctic. More than other industrialized countries. It doesn't. In fact you've got a lot of Californian scientists now saying China's air pollution streams across the Pacific to their state.
    Remember my response with the Polar Jet Stream?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Maybe I'm wrong about Asia being the largest problem for the arctic, but look at the difference in intensity:



    The above is found in a NASA link below. A quick quote from each link:


    Aerosols May Drive a Significant Portion of Arctic Warming
    Though greenhouse gases are invariably at the center of discussions about global climate change, new NASA research suggests that much of the atmospheric warming observed in the Arctic since 1976 may be due to changes in tiny airborne particles called aerosols.

    Emitted by natural and human sources, aerosols can directly influence climate by reflecting or absorbing the sun's radiation. The small particles also affect climate indirectly by seeding clouds and changing cloud properties, such as reflectivity.
    The researchers found that the mid and high latitudes are especially responsive to changes in the level of aerosols. Indeed, the model suggests aerosols likely account for 45 percent or more of the warming that has occurred in the Arctic during the last three decades. The results were published in the April issue of Nature Geoscience.
    Black and White: Soot on Ice
    The research found that in the atmosphere over the Arctic, about one-third of the soot comes from South Asia, one-third from burning biomass or vegetation around the world, and the remainder from Russia, Europe and North America.

    South Asia is estimated to have the largest industrial soot emissions in the world, and the meteorology in that region readily sweeps pollution into the upper atmosphere where it is easily transported to the North Pole. Meanwhile, the pollution from Europe and Russia travels closer to the surface.
    Ice Albedo: Black Soot and Snow
    Black soot may contribute to melting glaciers and other ice on the planet and eventually a warmer Earth. Traveling potentially thousands of miles from its sources on air currents, this pollution eventually settles out of the air, onto land and into the oceans. On ice and snow, it darkens normally bright surfaces. Just as a white shirt keeps a person cooler in the summer than a black shirt, the vast stretches of polar ice covering much of the planet's top and bottom reflect large amounts of solar radiation falling on the planet's surface, helping regulate Earth's temperature. Soot lowers this albedo, or reflectivity, and the ice retains more heat, leading to increased melting.

    Soot-darkened ice retains more light, contributing to the process. As light is absorbed, the environment is heated, thus intensifying a feedback loop: a warmer planet yields more ice melting and thus an even warmer planet.
    Black Carbon Deposits on Himalayan Ice Threaten Earth's "Third Pole"
    Temperatures on the Tibetan Plateau -- sometimes called Earth's "third pole" -- have warmed by 0.3°C (0.5°F) per decade over the past 30 years, about twice the rate of observed global temperature increases. New field research and ongoing quantitative modeling suggests that soot's warming influence on Tibetan glaciers could rival that of greenhouse gases.
    Researchers led by Baiqing Xu of the Chinese Academy drilled and analyzed five ice cores from various locations across the Tibetan Plateau, looking for black carbon (a key component of soot) as well as organic carbon. The cores support the hypothesis that black soot amounts in the Himalayan glaciers correlate with black carbon emissions in Europe and South Asia.

    At Zuoqiupu glacier -- a bellwether site on the southern edge of the plateau and downwind from the Indian subcontinent -- black soot deposition increased by 30 percent between 1990 and 2003. The rise in soot levels at Zuoqiupu follows a dip that followed the enacting of clean air regulations in Europe in the 1970s.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Check this 15 mbyte mp4 file out:

    The global atmospheric black carbon density from August 1, 2009 through November 19, 2009, from the GOCART model. This version is laid over an image of the Earth.

    It clearly has a solid influence of soot from Asia. Some directly north-east, and some coming to the US, then diverting north.

    Others sizes and animations:

    Atmospheric Black Carbon Density

    Another:

    Global Transport of Black Carbon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,303
    That's great but history shows the opposite. Arctic temperatures peaked in 1941, then declined for decades. Meanwhile Japan's terrific post war boom left no (upward) mark... and what effect of firebombing and exploding oil tanks which you'd think would show a spike?

    Did you know they used to experience cloudy skies and rain after bombing raids? That is the folk memory anyway. Summers are pretty humid.

    How do you explain soot's inverse correlation with last century's ups and downs?
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    That's great but history shows the opposite. Arctic temperatures peaked in 1941, then declined for decades.
    There are several possible factors. We do know that solar irradiance increased from about 1900 to about 1050. Pollution cools, and may have started that effect in the 40's.
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Meanwhile Japan's terrific post war boom left no (upward) mark... and what effect of firebombing and exploding oil tanks which you'd think would show a spike?
    Small pollution compared to daily generation of several gigawatts.
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Did you know they used to experience cloudy skies and rain after bombing raids? That is the folk memory anyway. Summers are pretty humid.
    That's to be expected. It's called cloud seeding.
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    How do you explain soot's inverse correlation with last century's ups and downs?
    Soot is not the only component of burning coal. Prior to just a few decades ago, coal was burned with contaminants in it that produced far more than soot, and with a net cooling effect.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,303
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Soot is not the only component of burning coal. Prior to just a few decades ago, coal was burned with contaminants in it that produced far more than soot, and with a net cooling effect.
    Yes, I believe you're beginning to express my point. Now, you personally downplay CO2 driving. However I think the mainstream can better understand our historic temperature record as background of steadily increasing CO2 forcing, mitigated/masked by the historic ratio of "dirty" emissions.

    Of course if I'm correct, the solution is not just unpalatable. It is perhaps unthinkable.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •