New Research

[jonboy]

What was theoretical about the Ozone Hole? I take it then you have another explanation that you are about to share, not only with us but also a couple of Nobel prize winners.

 

Well Knocker if you bother to read some of my previous posts you would see what my take is but then that would seem hard work for some who would rather use sarcasm as a mean's of debate

[Methuselah]

...we might actually find out CO2 isn't the great evil and that CFC's and other pollutants don't have the the catastophic influence on our atmosphere that the 'THEORIES' and 'MODELS' would have us believe 

Though, with the weight of evidence being what it is (overwhelming?), such an outcome is about as likely as faster-than-light space travel; both would contravene the laws of physics...

[knocker]

Well Knocker if you bother to read some of my previous posts you would see what my take is but then that would seem hard work for some who would rather use sarcasm as a mean's of debate

 

I did read your earlier posts on the subject but you appear to doing something that you advocate against. That is casting theoretical doubts against some slam dunk science. Another point that should be considered is that global warming has slowed the recovery of the ozone hole(s).

[mikeworst]

Ha, now for someone criticizes "the dark side"for dropping non sequiturs your's is a beauty. "That is casting theoretical doubts against some slam dunk science."

 

The second is also the same. " Another point that should be considered is that global warming has slowed the recovery of the ozone hole(s)."

 

"They" did not know about the ozone hole until until technology allowed them to detect it. It is unknown and impossible to determine whether this hole existed or not before this discovery although it is now known that the size does fluctuate. Therefore recovery (to what exactly) are they talking about?

 

[knocker]

 

"They" did not know about the ozone hole until until technology allowed them to detect it. It is unknown and impossible to determine whether this hole existed or not before this discovery although it is now known that the size does fluctuate. Therefore recovery (to what exactly) are they talking about?

 

 

 

That of course is completely untrue. They were measuring column ozone using the Dobson Spectrophotometer decades prior to the discovery of the hole and it was this instrument that discovered it. It was not there before. I assume by 'technology allowed them to detect it' you mean satellites confirmed it. Obviously recovery to pre-CFC levels. but slowed down by the Stratosphere cooling.

 

 

They do know it wasn't there in the 50s, 60s and 70s and suddenly appeared with the advent of CFCs and Molina & Rowland (1974) pointed out that CFCs transported into the stratosphere would be photolysed to yield reactive chlorine, which in turn would destroy ozone. Which it then went on to do. Another damn coincidence.

 

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/64332-antarctic-ice-discussion/page-35#entry2861164

Edited December 16, 2013 by knocker

[Methuselah]

That of course is completely untrue. They were measuring column ozone using the Dobson Spectrophotometer decades prior to the discovery of the hole and it was this instrument that discovered it. It was not there before. I assume by 'technology allowed them to detect it' you mean satellites confirmed it. Obviously recovery to pre-CFC levels. but slowed down by the Stratosphere cooling.

Most claims made by dyed-in-the-wool 'sceptics' are like that, Malcolm...Since when has objectivity ever been allowed to stand in the way of the sort of sophistic, casuistic nincompoopery that seeps out of of WUWT et al?  

[mikeworst]

I stand by what I said. They were indeed monitoring ozone before but did not or were not able to detect the thinning until the 70s. They do not know what the status quo was prior to this and not what is normal or vice versa. Solar activity may provide answers in due course.

[knocker]

I stand by what I said. They were indeed monitoring ozone before but did not or were not able to detect the thinning until the 70s.

 

It was actually 1984. Care to explain why the 1957-77 values are wrong as I assume this is what you are saying?

 

However, it seems reasonably certain from a critical consideration of the satellite data over the period 1979-86 the actual decrease in global-mean total ozone was about five per cent (Bowman, 1988), an appreciable but not catastrophic fall. It was therefore sensational when BAS observations by conventional spectrophotometric measurements from the ground at Halley Station showed a deep minimum in spring with the 1984 values down by about a third from the 1957-77 values (Farman et al)

[knocker]

Assessing the impact of climate change on a global scale

 

 

Thirty research teams in 12 different countries have systematically compared state-of-the-art computer simulations of climate change impact to assess how climate change might influence global drought, water scarcity and river flooding in the future.Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-12-impact-climate-global-scale.html#jCp

Edited December 16, 2013 by knocker

[Gray-Wolf]

Keep calm Knocks! it's been cold in the U.S. , snowed in the middle east and Antarctic sea ice is trending above norm! Nothing awry here!!!!

 

EDIT: More on the Alps.

 

http://www.ibtimes.com/snow-italian-alps-melting-unprecedented-rate-ohio-state-university-study-finds-1510864?

 

30yrs of melting? Thats not 20 years of cooling is it?

 

EDIT:EDIT:

 

Can we use one data point and pretend it represents a whole region???

Edited December 16, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[knocker]

Quantitatively evaluating the effects of CO₂ emission on temperature rise

 

Abstract

This study quantitatively evaluated the effect of carbon dioxide emissions (CDE) on temperature change in five regions and globally through an elasticity coefficient method. The results revealed that for the period 1960–2008, the sensitivity of temperature to CO₂ emission in North America was the highest with an elasticity coefficient of 0.317; South America was the lowest with elasticity of 0.005. The contribution of CO₂ to temperature rise in North America and Oceania are the largest during 1990–2008, reaching 57.8% and 51.5% respectively. The contribution rates in Asia, South America, and Africa were 43.7%, 38.9%, and 34.2%, respectively. For the period 1960–2010, the temperature elasticity values of the entire world in relation to CDE are 0.0213, indicating that a 100% change in CDE will result in a 2.13% change in global temperature. It is estimated that CDE is responsible for 50.2% of the global temperature increase during 1990–2010, which in turn leads to the implication that CDE is the important reason for global warming.

 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1040618213009129

[VillagePlank]

A quick question: if the link between CO₂ and temperature is so well established (implied by consensus, and IPCC virtual certainties) why on Earth would anybody spend valuable cash assets to establish it yet again. And again. And again. And again - repeat ad nauseum - and again .... Surely the money would be better spent on finding ways of mitigating the implied catastrophe just around the corner? Or don't - read: shouldn't - we care about that?

[Methuselah]

A quick question: if the link between CO₂ and temperature is so well established (implied by consensus, and IPCC virtual certainties) why on Earth would anybody spend valuable cash assets to establish it yet again. And again. And again. And again - repeat ad nauseum - and again .... Surely the money would be better spent on finding ways of mitigating the implied catastrophe just around the corner? Or don't - read: shouldn't - we care about that?

I don't really know; but, I suspect the fossil-fuel lobby's penchant for telling folks exactly what they want to hear (carry on as usual and bury your head in the sand) might play a considerable part?

[BornFromTheVoid]

A quick question: if the link between CO₂ and temperature is so well established (implied by consensus, and IPCC virtual certainties) why on Earth would anybody spend valuable cash assets to establish it yet again. And again. And again. And again - repeat ad nauseum - and again .... Surely the money would be better spent on finding ways of mitigating the implied catastrophe just around the corner? Or don't - read: shouldn't - we care about that?

 

The link between CO2 and temperature is well established. What isn't, are the subsequent feedbacks.

1.5 to 4.5C sensitivity is still a pretty big range, and so narrowing it down will help with deciding what kind of mitigation might be necessary. Besides, not every study requires huge amounts of grant money. Simply applying a new statistical analysis method to freely available data won't always take lots of time and money

[VillagePlank]

I don't really know; but, I suspect the fossil-fuel lobby's penchant for telling folks exactly what they want to hear (carry on as usual and bury your head in the sand) might play a considerable part?

 

I'm fairly certain that in most respects churning out a research paper, crucially, with a predetermined outcome (the consensus says what the outcome is, the IPCC review of the literature validates the consensus) isn't scientific. The argument that more papers with the same conclusion is a necessary consequence of fossil fuel lobby pressure seems to me to be pandering to some sort of argumentum ad populum, which I know isn't scientific because it dispenses with even cursory basic logic.

[Gray-Wolf]

Isn't this just how science works sparks? don't we continually 'check' to see if modern understanding gives an even fuller understanding of properties?

 

As far as CO2 being a GHG? well that we know but how much CO2 alone impacts, and on what time scales under various speeds and amounts of forcing?

 

When we compared Paleo events we only see ( according to recent research?) the PETM placing GHG's into the planets atmosphere at higher rates than we have been? all other GHG events have been cripplingly slow allowing ample time for a 'slow' unravelling of it's heating potential via the 'known feedbacks'?

 

Can we be sure about how fast the GHG alone will drive change and to what extent we are spared by the slower uptake of 'feedback' mechanisms ( or is the Arctic now primed to unleash a wicked fast response?)

[Methuselah]

I'm fairly certain that in most respects churning out a research paper, crucially, with a predetermined outcome (the consensus says what the outcome is, the IPCC review of the literature validates the consensus) isn't scientific. The argument that more papers with the same conclusion is a necessary consequence of fossil fuel lobby pressure seems to me to be pandering to some sort of argumentum ad populum, which I know isn't scientific because it dispenses with even cursory basic logic.

But, with all due respect, you are not really in a position to make that claim, are you? If there is a 'logical fallacy', the contention that consensus of data questions the reality is surely it?

[VillagePlank]

I am absolutely in a position to make that observation. I note your use of the word 'claim'

 

Papers that reiterate any finding that is already known are at the very least a complete and utter waste of time and money. The particular paper in question, above, concludes with "which in turn leads to the implication that CDE is the important reason for global warming." Emphasis, mine. Err, well, yes - hasn't there been a huge consensus over the last decade that have already concluded that; and, if that's the case, then the conclusion was already apparent before the first iota of effort was expended on research. It does not take a genius to figure out that this is, by definition, not good.

Edited December 20, 2013 by Sparkicle

[knocker]

I wasn't aware that the sensituivity of the climate in relation to CO₂  increases was known but still under debate.

[VillagePlank]

I wasn't aware that the sensituivity of the climate in relation to CO₂  increases was known but still under debate.

 

Thank you. So, as far as you know, the sensitivity could be nil?

Edited December 20, 2013 by Sparkicle

[knocker]

Clouds blown by the solar wind

 

In this letter we investigate possible relationships between the cloud cover (CC) and the interplanetary electric field (IEF), which is modulated by the solar wind speed and the interplanetary magnetic field. We show that CC at mid–high latitudes systematically correlates with positive IEF, which has a clear energetic input into the atmosphere, but not with negative IEF, in general agreement with predictions of the global electric circuit (GEC)-related mechanism. Thus, our results suggest that mid–high latitude clouds might be affected by the solar wind via the GEC. Since IEF responds differently to solar activity than, for instance, cosmic ray flux or solar irradiance, we also show that such a study allows distinguishing one solar-driven mechanism of cloud evolution, via the GEC, from others.

 

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/4/045032/pdf/1748-9326_8_4_045032.pdf

[knocker]

External forcing of the early 20th century Arctic warming

 

Abstract

The observed Arctic warming during the early 20th century was comparable to present-day warming in terms of magnitude. The causes and mechanisms for the early 20th century Arctic warming are less clear and need to be better understood when considering projections of future climate change in the Arctic. The simulations using the Bergen Climate Model (BCM) can reproduce the surface air temperature (SAT) fluctuations in the Arctic during the 20th century reasonably well. The results presented here, based on the model simulations and observations, indicate that intensified solar radiation and a lull in volcanic activity during the 1920s–1950s can explain much of the early 20th century Arctic warming. The anthropogenic forcing could play a role in getting the timing of the peak warming correct. According to the model the local solar irradiation changes play a crucial role in driving the Arctic early 20th century warming. The SAT co-varied closely with local solar irradiation changes when natural external forcings are included in the model either alone or in combination with anthropogenic external forcings. The increased Barents Sea warm inflow and the anomalous atmosphere circulation patterns in the northern Europe and north Atlantic can also contribute to the warming. In summary, the early 20th century warming was largely externally forced.

 

http://www.tellusa.net/index.php/tellusa/article/view/20578

[knocker]

Strange that I would be in a haste to post something unread don't you think. Perhaps I have an open mind? No, that's unthinkable.

 

Of course one could argue that with current low solar irradiation changes being dissimilar it adds credence to CO₂ being the main driver for the current warming.

Edited December 26, 2013 by knocker

[knocker]

Climate sensitivity to CO2 more limited than extreme projections: research

http://phys.org/news/2011-11-climate-sensitivity-co2-limited-extreme.html

 

Bremerhaven, 27 November 2012. Climate scientists are still grappling with one of the main questions of modern times: how high will global temperatures rise if the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide doubles. Many researchers are now turning to the past because it holds clues to how nature reacted to climate change before the anthropogenic impact. The divergent results of this research, however, have made it difficult to make precise predictions about the impact of increased carbon dioxide on future warming. An international team of scientists have evaluated previously published estimates and assigned them consistent categories and terminology. This process should assist in limiting the range of estimates and make it easier to compare data from past climate changes and projections about future warming. The group has presented its new method in the current edition of the journal Nature.

 

http://www.awi.de/en/news/press_releases/detail/item/new_approach_allows_past_data_to_be_used_to_improve_future_climate_projections/?cHash=0d43dd0015899cd93700b646ea50c055

[knocker]

Missed this one.

 

Reforestation helped trigger Little Ice Age, researchers say

 

The power of viruses is well documented in human history. Swarms of little viral Davids have repeatedly laid low the great Goliaths of human civilization, most famously in the devastating pandemics that swept the New World during European conquest and settlement.

 

In recent years, there has been growing evidence for the hypothesis that the effect of the pandemics in the Americas wasn't confined to killing indigenous peoples. Global climate appears to have been altered as well.

 

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2009/january7/manvleaf-010709.html