quote:

Originally posted by suricat:
Observation of the real world - from what I can see of it - with the application of physics would be my preferred method.

Of course, and who could possibly disagree? Only the anti-science types?

quote:

Originally posted by legjoints:
No, not believers, and not gamblers either. The gamble would be to take no action and continue emitting CO2 at ever increasing rates.

Not believers or gamblers - just another group of people with a remarkable capacity for a conscientious devotion to a single idea.

You would apply the principle to your own personal life, wouldn't you? If you were taking a certain drug that you suspected may be seriously harming your health, would you stop taking it, or would you carry on taking it until there was absolute proof that the drug would kill you? - and the only proof of that would be your own death.
[/QUOTE]Sounds like the "principle" of a raving hypochondriac to me

Welcome to the church of the devotional and incurable Warmers.

Son of Mulder.

Somehow the word 'lemming' springs to mind. Not for what lemmings actually do, but from what the public were made to believe that they do.

I don't think we'll need to wait the whole 10 years. There is a pronounced mismatch when we look at the average global temperature 'trend' and the global increase of atmospheric CO2 described by the BBC here. It seems we have a reducing 'temperature trend increase' whilst CO2 levels show a 'worrying' increase? Is this credible, or just bad reporting?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7058074.stm

If this report is accurate, then reading the graph I posted last night defies reasonable logic in making CO2 the main protagonist for recent (30 years) global temperature perturbations.

Comments?

Best regards, suricat.

Suricat

quote:

If this report is accurate, then reading the graph I posted last night defies reasonable logic in making CO2 the main protagonist for recent (30 years) global temperature perturbations.

Comments?

Yes the thought had already crossed my mind that it has been hammered home over and over again that the models had predicted what has been happening over the last 30 years. I suspect that if the new atmospheric CO2 profile is introduced to the models then the last 7 years would be predicted warmer than they actually were.

So what has forced the relative cooling trend given the above scenario if the models are so trustworthy?

I'm sure a suitable correction will be found somewhere.

Son of Mulder.

Quote.
So what has forced the relative cooling trend given the above scenario if the models are so trustworthy?

I'm sure a suitable correction will be found somewhere.
EOQ.

Well I'm sure a 'parameter' will need adjustment somewhere, but as for your question I'd like to refer you to something you said earlier in this thread.

Quote.
As well as CO2, I currently only see your UV ideas relating to Ozone changes, deforestation and my aerosol balance change idea as the primary anthropogenic changes in the last 100 years and particularly the last 40 years that may be affecting climate.
EOQ.

It looks as though the debate may not be over. Though if it isn't CO2 then 'deforestation' also looks to be an unlikely candidate (ignoring albedo changes).

Best regards, suricat.

quote:

Originally posted by suricat:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7058074.stm

If this report is accurate, then reading the graph I posted last night defies reasonable logic in making CO2 the main protagonist for recent (30 years) global temperature perturbations.

Comments?

Best regards, suricat.

What I'm not clear on is whether the value of 0.038% for January 2007 is still correct. I thought it was obtained by measurement at Mauna Loa so why would it be wrong?

You will find reports of greater than expected CO2 rises several times during the last few years. Any measured concentrations would, of course, have to include the results of whatever increase (or decrease) occurred.

True Sceptic.

TS. I think that atmospheric CO2 'trends' are more important to understand these differences. The Mauna Loa and global trends and their annual mean growth rates can be seen at the NOAA web site.

www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

These trends show a continued increase. However, average global 'temperature increase' has reduced.

www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/CR_data/Monthly/Hadplot_globe.gif

Surely this demonstrates CO2 lag behind a temperature change lead?

Best regards, suricat.

Legjoints

quote:

If you were taking a certain drug that you suspected may be seriously harming your health, would you stop taking it, or would you carry on taking it until there was absolute proof that the drug would kill you?

But what if the drug was also known to be keeping me alive? Where does the precautionary principle get you then?

quote:

Originally posted by suricat:
True Sceptic.

TS. I think that atmospheric CO2 'trends' are more important to understand these differences. The Mauna Loa and global trends and their annual mean growth rates can be seen at the NOAA web site.

www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

These trends show a continued increase. However, average global 'temperature increase' has reduced.

www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/CR_data/Monthly/Hadplot_globe.gif

Surely this demonstrates CO2 lag behind a temperature change lead?

Best regards, suricat.

You know as well as I do that this is a complex relationship with various time lags, etc., and that we are talking about a very "noisy" system. It is no just about CO2.

My point was that the greater than expected increases don't change anything to date: they are already factored in. They do mean, however, that future increases, in both CO2 and temperature, might be greater than thought until quite recently, IOW things might start taking a path closer to the pessimistic predictions. Remember that these effects are subject to a delay!

quote:

Originally posted by Son of Mulder:
Legjoints

quote:

If you were taking a certain drug that you suspected may be seriously harming your health, would you stop taking it, or would you carry on taking it until there was absolute proof that the drug would kill you?

But what if the drug was also known to be keeping me alive? Where does the precautionary principle get you then?

The oil drug isn't keeping you alive. Face it, you're an addict. The sooner you kick your oil habit the better for all of us.

Legjoints

quote:

The oil drug isn't keeping you alive. Face it, you're an addict. The sooner you kick your oil habit the better for all of us.

No the patient is all of us (5 billion) sustained by oil, coal, gas, nuclear, intensive factory farming etc on a massive but still inadequate scale. And many of the 5 billion live in poverty so deserve better, not worse at the whim of some excuse of a so called precautionary principle.

True Sceptic.

Guess I've angered the gods. Post disappeared again. It's getting hard to state an opinion here at times. Though there was an inaccuracy in that post to do with the graph filtering. Subject ended!

Best regards, suricat.

True Sceptic.

I'll try to answer your question once again, but in a different way.

Quote.
You know as well as I do that this is a complex relationship with various time lags, etc., and that we are talking about a very "noisy" system. It is no just about CO2.
EOQ.

I completely concur, though these are the best graphs at our disposal and some would have it that CO2 is the 'be all and end all' of warming.

Quote.
My point was that the greater than expected increases don't change anything to date: they are already factored in. They do mean, however, that future increases, in both CO2 and temperature, might be greater than thought until quite recently, IOW things might start taking a path closer to the pessimistic predictions. Remember that these effects are subject to a delay!
EOQ.

I quite understand your concerns on this, but given that the prediction of future events is difficult and that many individuals claim that CO2 is the 'major cause' for global warming (temperature increase). Can you offer an explanation for the 'reduction' in the temperature trend graph when the CO2 trend seems almost unchanging (insolation changes [Milankovich] and sun spots understood)?

Best regards, suricat.

Son of Mulder.

I've been experimenting with 'debian slack ware' (linux based stuff) and 'another' search engine has thrown up a site that may interest you. It seems to describe processes that 'glue' together our theories. If you use this link http://www.ozone-sec.ch.cam.ac.uk/ and look at 'The Impacts of Aviation in the Atmosphere' you will see what I mean. 'Rogers et al., 2002' is the link.

There is also a depressing 'Winter Report 2004/05.pdf' if you care to read it. I cant understand why concern on ozone depletion within the Polar Vortex is 'bad news'. If O3 is in the 'polar vortex' it's on its way into the troposphere where it isn't wanted. Isn't it?

Best regards, suricat.

Son of Mulder.

The link didn't work properly. In the right hand column, click the 'Papers and Reports' link and you'll be at the correct page.

Best regards, suricat.

Suricat

quote:

I've been experimenting with 'debian slack ware' (linux based stuff) and 'another' search engine has thrown up a site that may interest you. It seems to describe processes that 'glue' together our theories. If you use this link http://www.ozone-sec.ch.cam.ac.uk/ and look at 'The Impacts of Aviation in the Atmosphere' you will see what I mean. 'Rogers et al., 2002' is the link.

There is also a depressing 'Winter Report 2004/05.pdf' if you care to read it. I cant understand why concern on ozone depletion within the Polar Vortex is 'bad news'. If O3 is in the 'polar vortex' it's on its way into the troposphere where it isn't wanted. Isn't it?

Interesting reading - thanks. But only the tip of the iceberg I feel. I'd like to see a similar analysis of how the overall changing profile of aerosols has affected the climate in the last 40 years. It's certainly clear from this paper how uncertain (range wise) the climatic affects are ie what values should be put into climate models, what are the forcings etc?.

As regards the depletion of ozone in the polar vortex, it seems to me that the worry is that it opens a window to UV that can drift over populated areas and increase the insolation of harmful UV rays and their associated heating, as well as cooling the stratosphere which could be interpreted as evidence of cooling induced by CO2.

As regards Debian slackware - this is new to me but I assume it's not 50's trouser fashion.

Suricat, The gods have intercepted my reply - I hope it appears later. Thanks for the references they are very interesting and emphasise how little seems to be understood about the overall affects of aerosols on UV and the climate. It would be interesting to see a broader paper on the affects of changing aerosol profiles over the last 40 years on the global climate.

As regards the polar vortex I think the worry is that the window opened by ozone depletion can drift over populated areas and as well as letting in harmful UV also cause associated heating in the troposphere and cooling in the stratosphere, which can be interpreted as caused by CO2.

Son of Mulder.

These interventions from the 'deities' are quite disconcerting at times, aren't they! Guess I'll have to learn to live with them.

quote:

Interesting reading - thanks. But only the tip of the iceberg I feel. I'd like to see a similar analysis of how the overall changing profile of aerosols has affected the climate in the last 40 years. It's certainly clear from this paper how uncertain (range wise) the climatic affects are ie what values should be put into climate models, what are the forcings etc?.

Well, this document mainly shows relevance to aviation, but with regard to this there is a more pronounced difference shown between the northern hemisphere and the southern hemisphere (chapter 2.2 and fig 2-1 on p22 [viz also fig 4-8 on p44] ) for atmospheric aerosol pollution (AAP) and not the west to east scenario that I believe you are looking for. You may also notice that fig 2-1 (etc) seems to reflect the differential of temperature anomalies documented between hemispheres (vis UK Met Office graphs). It seems NOx, N2O and O3 are 'partners' in some way, these nitrogenous compounds both create and destroy ozone (given the correct environment).

However, the west to east migration of AAP has historically resided close to the planet surface (due to its 'ground based' industrialisation category) and been tropospheric in its emphasis. Thus, shorter lived due to its residence within the active hydrosphere. Notwithstanding that this west to east tropospheric AAP profile is a continuing 'east' forcing, I don't currently know where this detail can be found (unless you accept IPCC details). Though approximately the last forty years is of great interest to me also (but for other reasons).

Yes, it's odd that after all these years of research and investment there is still not enough known about AAP, or any accurate differentiation between particulates, aerosols and ozone (not to mention clouds)! Did I mention 'clouds'??!!

quote:

As regards the depletion of ozone in the polar vortex, it seems to me that the worry is that it opens a window to UV that can drift over populated areas and increase the insolation of harmful UV rays and their associated heating, as well as cooling the stratosphere which could be interpreted as evidence of cooling induced by CO2.

My understanding of the 'polar vortex' is that it is the place where high altitude gasses come back towards the Earth. Like the 'plug hole' in a bath.

The whole point is that the 'polar vortex' is the place where the Brewer Dobson Circulation and the polar cell 'high altitude' gasses return to the troposphere and 'boundary layer' altitudes! AAPs don't matter as much here in the troposphere for climate purposes (because they are shorter lived), but O3 is undesirable (even if shorter lived), due to its almost direct conversion of ultraviolet radiation (UV) into infrared radiation (IR), it is a 'temperature forcing' agent. This is all quite apart from the 'oxidising', 'bleaching' and 'sterilising' nature that O3 exhibits when in contact with living organisms.

In other words, O3 in the polar vortex is a window for O3 to 'drift into' populated areas, but (hopefully) protect them from UVb? To me, this is totally undesirable! I reiterate, "it's on its way into the troposphere where it isn't wanted. Isn't it?".

Any protection from UVb offered by O3 can only be 'safely' expected from within the stratosphere, where terrestrial life is 'distanced' from its 'other' effects and the heat generated by this 'protective UV insolation conversion' can easily be radiated away. Sorry, but I can't see any good coming from O3 to planetary life in either polar vortex, unless it's the disappearance of it.

BTW, I'm assessing a new quote method suggested by True Sceptic. Is this better?

Best regards, suricat.

PS. 'Debian slack ware' has nothing to do with the 'bell bottom suit' in my wardrobe that is waiting for the fashion to make a 'comeback'.

Suricat,

quote:

Did I mention 'clouds'??!!

Glad you included these. Again a significant possible cause of forcing (positive or negative) which are affected by aerosols and thus affect UV as well. Your latest posting sums up as far as I've got with the UV / aerosol question.

I'm currently looking at the North Atlantic Oscilation and how this could have been affected by the aerosol changes (remove aerosols and it warms???) as this appears to be what essentially controls our climate in the UK/Europe and Arctic Sea Ice which both seem to have started to change 30ish years ago. Coincidence or not?

hello suricat.
i am the little cat.
i like botany and zoology

Hi, 'The Little Cat'. Welcome to the science forum.

suricat.

Son of Mulder.

I've not been at this climate stuff for a year yet and you are already asking me about the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). Well I've not had much to do with the NAO yet, but it bears a resemblance to 'stutter' or 'hunting' in a 'centrifugal pump', which is usually symptomatic of 'sudden inlet density changes' and not usually temperature changes per se. However, first there are a couple more 'other coincidences' that I would like to discuss about aerosols etc.

If we carefully look at the Hadley Centre's graph of 'Global Average Near-Surface Temperatures 1850 - June 2007', we can see that since 1920 the 'bumps' in the upward temperature trend seem to coincide with periods of 'high sunspot activity'. Whereas prior to 1920 there is little coincidence.

I know this graph has large error bars and is open to 'personal interpretation', but I don't know of a more accurate substitute for quick reference.

Could this sunspot coincidence be a natural 'harmonic period', or could it be a 'diagnostic symptom' of warming?

An extra coincidence is 'World War'. The 1914-18 War may have 'forced' the northern hemisphere during the 1920 period, and the Second World War may have 'forced' both hemispheres (based, as explained later, on the 'nitric' residue that follows the detonation of explosive ordinance).

It is understood that high sunspot activity is indicative of more intense 'soft X-ray' and 'UV' insolation. Given also that nitric and nitrous atmospheric compounds both create and destroy O3 dependant on locality and temperature. Should we reconsider that sunspots and UV on NOx, N2O and O3 may well play a more major role in recent temperature forcings when O3 is such a strong converter of UV to heat, even though it may only exist momentarily before its destruction and later recreation?

Best regards, suricat.