Climate change

[Al_U_Card]

[luke warm]

heheh

[PassedOut]

Taking advantage of a new business opportunity: Weather Monitoring Company Turns to Greenhouse Gases

 

The company behind one of the largest networks of weather monitoring stations on the planet and the purveyor of the ubiquitous WeatherBug application and Web site is betting that providing greenhouse gas data will also prove to be a lucrative market.

 

AWS Convergence Technologies of Maryland plans to announce on Wednesday that it is rebranding itself Earth Networks, and that it will be making a capital investment of $25 million over the next five years to deploy a network of 100 greenhouse gas sensors at various sites around the planet 100 in the United States, 25 in Europe and 25 more at locales yet to be determined.

 

The network, which will initially monitor concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane two critical greenhouse gases will be the first commercial venture of its kind and will substantially increase the density and level of detail of currently available greenhouse gas data.

Interesting idea, and the information will certainly be useful if they pull this off. (Hope they can add to 100 or 150 better than Tom Zeller, Jr.)

[Al_U_Card]

That device will come in handy HERE if it wasn't already obvious that "The best laid schemes o' mice and men.....etc."

[PassedOut]

Good to see that progress continues in measuring the various elements that affect climate change: A Better Yardstick for Solar Cycles

 

New research presented at a recent conference of the American Geophysical Union suggests that improvements in instruments deployed in space and in the equations done back on Earth will provide a more stable and dependable database to make conclusions about the suns influence. For example, a new paper in Geophysical Research Letters cites the measurements of a new space-based tool, the Total Irradiance Monitor, to argue that earlier measurements slightly overestimated total solar irradiance in the past three decades.

 

The paper, by Greg Kopp of the University of Colorados Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics in Boulder and Judith L. Lean of the Naval Research Laboratorys Space Sciences Division, presents the findings of one of three groups that have been using different yardsticks to examine the suns activity when it emerges from a period when sunspots have been at a minimum.

 

If measurements of the three new, more finely calibrated yardsticks match up, said Dr. Robert Cahalan, who leads the Climate and Radiation Branch at NASAs Goddard Space Flight Center, it could allow scientists to zoom in on changes in solar cycles over time. Our real interest is one answer were still unsure of, he added. How does all this up-ing and down-ing in recent decades compare with, say, Galileos time, 400 years ago?

 

The reason we want to know that is if the sun has been brightening, then it has been causing part of the global warming. If its been dimming, its canceling part of the global warming, he said. In the former case, the impact of human activity may not be as great as feared. In the latter, it may be worse.

In either case, we need to know the answer.

[luke warm]

“The reason we want to know that is if the sun has been brightening, then it has been causing part of the global warming. If it’s been dimming, it’s canceling part of the global warming,” he said. In the former case, the impact of human activity may not be as great as feared. In the latter, it may be worse."

 

In either case, we need to know the answer.

why? imagine for a moment it's the former case - what do you expect would happen?

[hrothgar]

why? imagine for a moment it's the former case - what do you expect would happen?

 

I know that ready comprehension isn't one of your strong points, however, the author's use of the word "slightly" probably means that (one way or another) there wouldn't be significant changes to the results of the models. Indeed, the full blown article directly states

 

And while it is unlikely to affect their findings that human activity plays a major role in warming,

the new research will probably produce a better understanding of sunspot cycles and their impact on the Earth’s atmosphere.

 

With this said and done:

 

1. Passed Out's quote directly stated that scientists suspect that "earlier measurements slightly overestimated total solar irradiance".

2. The quote reading "The reason why we want to understand..." appears to be an attempt to frame the discussion. In no way is this a claim that the sun is brightening.

 

In any case, if the sun had gotten slightly brighter over the last decade, this probably means that the impact of C02 on global temperature isn't quite as strong as we thought.

However, the scientists are stating that they believe the bias is in the other direction.

The effects of C02 is probably (very slightly) stronger than was originally believed.

However, based on this article I'd still guess that there isn't any material change to the modls.

[luke warm]

The effects of C02 is probably (very slightly) stronger than was originally believed. However, based on this article I'd still guess that there isn't any material change to the models.

then if i understand what you're saying (which isn't likely since ready comprehension isn't one of my strong points) we don't really need to know the answer... that's what i thought

[Al_U_Card]

then if i understand what you're saying (which isn't likely since ready comprehension isn't one of my strong points) we don't really need to know the answer... that's what i thought

From the NASA GISS personnel blurb for Dr. Hansen,

 

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/jhansen.html

 

in his own words…(my bolding)

 

One of my research interests is radiative transfer in planetary atmospheres, especially interpreting remote sounding of the earth’s atmosphere and surface from satellites. Such data, appropriately analyzed, may provide one of our most effective ways to monitor and study global change on the earth. The hardest part is trying to influence the nature of the measurements obtained, so that the key information can be obtained.

 

Pretty much sums it all up, I daresay.

[PassedOut]

we don't really need to know the answer...

Have to disagree with you on this one.

 

'Me generation' politicians in the US like latch on to arguments from the fringe elements of climate science to avoid taking actions necessary to prevent calamity for future generations. Those fringe elements dispute the accuracy of models that show the serious damage caused by mankind's continuing to pour billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year.

 

One of the fringe claims has been that the models are wrong because they do not sufficiently account for changes in the sun. Accurate measurements are important to make sure that changes in the sun are correctly accounted for. And now we know.

 

Another of the fringe claims has been that negative cloud feedback would mitigate the effects of the buildup of CO2. Last year accurate measurements tossed that claim into the garbage bucket also.

 

It is a fact that CO2 is a heat-trapping gas and that we are causing a rapid increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Those who deny the effects of that need to explain why the predictions of the models are wrong. And accurate measurements answer whether or not the models can be trusted.

 

In my view, learning the answer to questions like that is always useful.

[hrothgar]

then if i understand what you're saying (which isn't likely since ready comprehension isn't one of my strong points) we don't really need to know the answer... that's what i thought

 

I don't think that there is enough information available to support this assertion.

Even if the results of the model don't change significantly, there still could be enormous value in improving its reliability.

[hotShot]

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2010GL045777.shtml

The most accurate value of total solar irradiance during the 2008 solar minimum period is 1360.8 ± 0.5 W m⁻² according to measurements from the Total Irradiance Monitor (TIM) on NASA's Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) and a series of new radiometric laboratory tests. This value is significantly lower than the canonical value of 1365.4 ± 1.3 W m⁻² established in the 1990s, which energy balance calculations and climate models currently use.

The numbers indicate that 2008 the suns radiation was 0.34% lower than it has been 1990.

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/19/a-better-yardstick-for-solar-cycles/

With 2010 tying 2005 for the warmest year on record, and 10 of the last 13 years ranking as the 10 warmest ever, it becomes ever more difficult to sustain an argument that global warming is not occurring.

This means that we reached these temperature records with less radiation from the sun. This suggests that the atmosphere has absorbed the radiation more effectively, that it is a better heat trap than the assumed.

[luke warm]

With 2010 tying 2005 for the warmest year on record, and 10 of the last 13 years ranking as the 10 warmest ever, it becomes ever more difficult to sustain an argument that global warming is not occurring.

This means that we reached these temperature records with less radiation from the sun. This suggests that the atmosphere has absorbed the radiation more effectively, that it is a better heat trap than the assumed.

does this mean it's already been answered, or are we talking about two different things?

[Al_U_Card]

UHI

Something else to consider

[Al_U_Card]

Climategate part 2

[luke warm]

Climategate part 2

pretty typical... but again, it won't matter

[Al_U_Card]

Well, a new crack has appeared. Eugene Wahl has admitted to receiving an e-mail from Michael Mann requesting that he delete e-mails. The mainstream media is still asleep but the blogoshpere is coming alive. It is only a matter of time.

[kenberg]

Well, a new crack has appeared. Eugene Wahl has admitted to receiving an e-mail from Michael Mann requesting that he delete e-mails. The mainstream media is still asleep but the blogoshpere is coming alive. It is only a matter of time.

 

Some thought needs to be given to this probing of email. Example: Yesterday I wrote a letter of recommendation for a former student. He signed the standard waiver of his right to see what I wrote. But of course the Washington Post signed no such waiver. I wrote the letter and then sent it by email to the secretary who put it on letterhead stationery and sent it off. I said generally nice things, I wouldn't have agreed to write the letter unless I could do that, but I would prefer not to see it in the public record.

 

This sort of thing is not unusual. Recently I had a long distance discussion with someone on a somewhat delicate matter. He sent me his candid views and asked that I please delete the email after reading it. There was no evil intent here, just a normal progression to a decision.

 

I recognize the need to catch wrongdoers but as things are going we will have to hold all of our conversations in person with machinery noise in the background and begin with an electronic probe for bugs. I am prepared to defend the public pronouncements I make. I would like to be able to hold informal email conversations without looking over my electronic shoulder.

[Al_U_Card]

I agree, so long as those exchanges do not involve billions of tax dollars.

[hrothgar]

I agree, so long as those exchanges do not involve billions of tax dollars.

 

Let's see how far this spirit of full disclosure extends, oh yee of the anonymous profile...

 

To start with:

 

What's your real name?

Where do you live?

Who do you work for?

 

I'll note in passing that most anyone whose been on these forms any length of time knows

 

Name: Richard Willey

Location: Natick MA

Employer: The MathWorks

 

And half of you seem to have tracked me down on Facebook

[Al_U_Card]

A good primer on the broad strokes of climate reality and [CO2] with links to additional information.

 

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/03/new-here-the-ten-second-guide-to-the-world-of-skeptics/

[luke warm]

A good primer on the broad strokes of climate reality and [CO2] with links to additional information.

 

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/03/new-here-the-ten-second-guide-to-the-world-of-skeptics/

well if australia is 1/100th of a degree, imagine what india and china together would do... 1/100th here, 1/100th there, it mounts up... pretty soon you're talking real change

[PassedOut]

Acceleration of the contribution of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets to sea level rise

[Al_U_Card]

"drives flow behavior not captured in present models"

 

model generated "results" are not empirical data and the "science" is so not settled.

 

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2011/03/02/science.1200109

 

There is also the drop in the rate of sea-level rise over the last decade. For an interglacial, melt is to be expected. The rate fluctuates and is not alarming in terms of cm/decade rate of rise.

 

http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/paintimage3357.jpg?w=640&h=263&h=263

 

 

The atolls adjust as do the sea shores. Besides, infrastructure mitigation is proven. "Control" of [CO2] and its putative effect on temperature and earthly processes (other than helping agricultural productivity) ... not so much.

[Al_U_Card]

 

 

Most interesting, especially the mention of Grudd 2008 at about 13 minutes in regarding wood density of tree-rings.