Up In The Atmosphere

[Gray-Wolf]

CO2 levels are higher now than they have been for two million years. Were these natural processes lying dormant all this time?

http://news.national...on-dioxide.html

I get the idea someone has abandoned 'understanding' for the "We Use Wishful Thinking" (W.U.W.T.) school of climate study?:smiliz19:

Edited December 24, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[knocker]

Clues to future climate may be found in the way an ordinary drinking glass shatters.

http://nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=118267&org=NSF&from=news

[jethro]

A new paper on "The Brewer-Dobson circulation and total ozone from seasonal to decadal time scales"

http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/11/13829/2011/acpd-11-13829-2011.pdf

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111020145106.htm

Well, hole not fixed yet?

[Gray-Wolf]

didn't know where to stick this so i chose here!

The last 'horizon' I watched on global dimming was back in the 90's I believe? Well this is bang up to date and it appears that the subject is no longer fringe but mainstream.

If we have underestimated the impacts of dimming by a factor of ten then I have to wonder just what will happen once the cleaner technology China is employing starts to rapidly clean up the contributions of dimming from there?

I know we will not solve the 9/11 effect so we have some respite from the full impacts of the GHG forcing but what of the impacts of the Albedo Flip (reckoned to be equivalent to 20yrs of CO2 outputs?)?

If you were dismissive of AGW due to 'missing Heat' then maybe you ought to watch the above prog?

Edited November 7, 2012 by Gray-Wolf

[Polar Maritime]

[Gray-Wolf]

I suppose we will get the proof as to whether the loss of Ozone has impacted the Antarctic Continents climate then?

I was worried about current warming smashing into Antarctica but after watching the Horizon above (and the temp gains we seem set to inherit once we clean up our sulphate/particulate pollution) and knowing the 'new temp forcing' ftrom albedo flip it'll be a nightmare trying to figure which is having the most impact. One thing appears sure, Greenland will take a back seat once Antarctica kicks off (as will the climate woes driven by Arctic ice loss)!

[Methuselah]

Where are all the Global Dimming sceptics?

[jethro]

Where are all the Global Dimming sceptics?

Are there any?

[laserguy]

Where are all the Global Dimming sceptics?

Give us time, we've still to bury the twitching corpse of AGW.

[jethro]

Come on Laser, surely even you can't argue with global dimming. As any one who's ever lit a fire knows, it causes smoke and soot; go back to the times of before the clean air act and it was all too common for cities to be enveloped by sooty pollution. Industrial pollution in countries like China is immense, it all wafts up in the atmosphere creating a reflective veil. The introduction of the Clean Air Acts had an impact upon the atmosphere and temperatures on the ground. If China cleans it's act up, it is bound to have an impact and there's a real likelihood that it will impact temperatures, but it does have to be offset by the likely increase in albedo. Sooty pollution has been shown to have a large negative impact upon ice retention in the Arctic, some studies citing it as being likely to be at least equal in responsibility as higher temps for the melting ice pack. Over time, if large nations like China dramatically reduce their pollution, we should see a marked improvement in the reflective quality of the ice, which in turn may offset at least some of any resulting temperature increase.

[Interitus]

ozone hole video

Activiry? Reconised?

Anyway, NASA have called the second smallest hole in 20 years and there appears to be a trend towards recovery in terms of hole size and ozone concentrations http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/ but this is far from being fixed with complete recovery not expected to be till probably at least the middle of the century.

Climatic effects will likely be gradual accordingly - are we totally sure what these would be or the effect of the ozone hole?

[laserguy]

Come on Laser, surely even you can't argue with global dimming.

Take it easy J - twas intended humourously - should have added a smiley! I do miss the pea-soupers of my youth tho'...

[Gray-Wolf]

As for sceptics on the subject I'd mentioned , a few weeks back, the Sulphate umbrella only to be told that this only occurs with stratospheric Sulphate's. After watching the horizon it seems clear that the paper we saw 18 months ago about 'smaller Raindrops increasing the reflectivity of clouds was part of this 'dimming' study.

Then I look at the PDO-ve signals (post 98') I have to wonder about the Asian brown cloud over the Pacific and the drop in SST's that a 10% reduction in sunlight might drive? Could we also be mis-naming part of the PDO-ve with both cold upwelling and surface cooling making up the temps used to call the phase and would this explain why we are still posting top ten global temps whilst supposedly deep into a PDO-ve cycle?

And what of the Arctic influence that is now neshing into this mess???

One thing appears sure to me, we will take out a large percentage of the particulate pollution (as we in the west have) but we will not deal with the GHG side of the equation.

As for AGW/Global Dimming ? are the not both sides of the same coin? I'm sure that L.G. accepts that if we are losing 10% of the solar input then when we add that back in the PDO-ve 'suppressed top 10 temps' will become record high temps each year and the talk of 'missing heat' will turn into 'un-predicted heat' as both GHG's and Albedo flip hike temps?

What chance the Siberian Shelf sea methane then? What chance Greenland (albedo set to drop even lower next melt season)?

As I've said all along I'd rather be dead wrong about such things (I spent the night looking through the archives.....seems a lot of the name calling over my take on the Arctic was not only uncalled for but also wrong) but time and time again the facts turn out in support of my darkest fears.

Edited November 8, 2012 by Gray-Wolf

[keithlucky]

Try this simple piece of logic:

A colder sky cannot possibly heat a warmer surface, any more than a trillion 1 ton blocks of frozen CO2 radiating at 194.56 K could melt a 1 inch water ice cube radiating at 273.15 K.

In both cases it is forbidden by the laws of thermodynamics.

The colder substance/object radiates IR with a lower flux density than the warmer object. The IR from the colder substance/object cannot be thermalised by the warmer substance/object and therefore is just scattered/re-emitted at light speed.

No thermalisation occurs when IR travels from cold to hot.

[jethro]

Keith, please could you add a link for the source of that info - we need to stay the right side of the copyright laws.

[VillagePlank]

<snip>

Edited November 10, 2012 by Boar Wrinklestorm

[songster]

Try this simple piece of logic:

A colder sky cannot possibly heat a warmer surface, any more than a trillion 1 ton blocks of frozen CO2 radiating at 194.56 K could melt a 1 inch water ice cube radiating at 273.15 K.

In both cases it is forbidden by the laws of thermodynamics.

The colder substance/object radiates IR with a lower flux density than the warmer object. The IR from the colder substance/object cannot be thermalised by the warmer substance/object and therefore is just scattered/re-emitted at light speed.

No thermalisation occurs when IR travels from cold to hot.

Precisely so. Additionally, clothes have no effect. It is impossible for clothes to keep you warm, because your body is at 37 degrees C, while the outside of your clothes is at the same temperature as the ambient atmosphere. Your underpants are in breach of the laws of thermodynamics. Perhaps they should be prosecuted?

[BornFromTheVoid]

Here's the source of KL's post anywho http://climaterealis...=11482&id=10445

Under comments at the bottom of the page

[Gray-Wolf]

Seeing as we've just broken our own record for yearly outputs for CO2 i guess nobody does give a hoot about it all nor believe that we will see changes to our world from it....

[pottyprof]

Seeing as we've just broken our own record for yearly outputs for CO2 i guess nobody does give a hoot about it all nor believe that we will see changes to our world from it....

I think you're aiming at the wrong audience Ian. Most people would try and change things if they could. Try howling at parliament etc. and see if they are interested.... Try and force a debate. The tools are there. I'd happily sign something that tried to force those muppets to clarify things.

[Gray-Wolf]

I do not know whether it's just today P.P. but I just don't see that we have anything we could do any more?

If we'd had 3 or 4 Nukes total some towns and raise the spectre of fallout for the rest of the nation I'm sure we'd all pull together and money and novel cures would abound but because this disaster is in slow motion nobody has the will to view it for what it is or treat it as the deadly threat it is morphing into,

We are the frogs in the slowly warming pan.