mufcdiver.

quote:

Do you think this could stand a thread of its own suricat?

I don't think so. I only have the Internet for research and I've already knocked myself out trying to find info. The Google book was pointless and the papers were only part papers, but it does look as though UV causes a similar effect to pressure banding on radiative absorption spectra in the scant info I've seen. Nothing concrete.

Best regards, suricat.

Know how you feel suricat, its like a metaphoric desert out there!
I'll let you know if I find anything

Son of Mulder.

quote:

suricat here's another potential empirical falsification to follow over the next few weeks. It's easy to understand and plausible.

Of course it is, this is an old trick. It's how The House of Commons won power over The House of Lords in the UK. The House of Commons just kept making Peers until the Commons sympathisers in The House of Lords held the majority. Average biasing is rooted in politics, following a General Election the first thing the new government does is alter the constituency boundaries to bias future elections in their favour (all under the presumption of greater stability).

I saw this earlier and pondered on the point of dividing the globe into pentagonal sectors (like a football), then grid each pentagon evenly. You would still be faced with grid biasing due to differing populations within the grid. It's a bit like trying to see a digital picture with only a random 40%, or less, of the clamped texels showing in the whole picture.

Do you remember me saying to Steve_M that "I wouldn't believe global ave temps unless we had a 'one kilometre' square grid" and his response "I wish"?

Even with the '+c offset' differences on the graph between satellites, I still think the satellites are more believable.

Best regards, suricat.

mufcdiver.

quote:

Know how you feel suricat, its like a metaphoric desert out there!
I'll let you know if I find anything

Thanks for your sentiment muf.

Truth be known, I'm glad to get into something at times (even if I do "overdo it" a bit on occasions). This "carer" lark can get you down a bit when it's 24-7 and it also limits your plans for doing other things.


After posting on "biasing" to SoM I decided to have one more go at this, so I googled 'UV biasing' and got this:
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-dis...C1292-2009-print.pdf
A discussion communiqué concerning the satellite pixel (transmitted data content) available for interpretation into surface level data.

It looks like a lost cause for satellites on surface UV. Despite my doubt that the correct sensors are being used to gather the full "solar variation", it seems that information about the atmospheric admittance isn't sent from the satellite either. Thus, ground crews need to splice other data from other satellites that scanned at other times into the mix to get a surface UV insolation level. Plenty of margin for error!

Just after I told SoM that I put my main trust in satellites too!

Best regards, suricat.

Son of Mulder, mufcdiver, et al.

It looks as though our posts are to be incorporated into another site (yet again). I would strongly advise that everyone saves copies of their posts and copies of important responses for reasons of community continuity and cohesion, if nothing else. It seems that the continuity of data, as we've discovered from the change to GaGaJoyJoy site from the C4 Communities site, doesn't comply with data protection laws. Data is lost!

Please make a backup of anything that you consider to be important.

Best regards, suricat.

Hey guys! How goes it with all that falsification?

Here's a good book to read, to make sure you are well armed...

"What's the worst that could happen: A rational response to the climate change debate"
by
Greg Craven

I can't put it down! I'm reading it right now! It's a laugh a minute! Tee hee!

Son of Mulder.

Here's an interesting piece by Doug L Hoffman:
http://theresilientearth.com/?...african-dust-new-co2
Concerning dust from the Sahara to the Amazon Basin. It seems that the Sahara Desert fertilises the Amazon Basin with about 40 million tons of minerals in a year. Perhaps it helps heat the atmosphere, but it shades the ocean. That's an awful lot of global dimming!

There are also some useful links, including papers.


Hi Lucibee, nice to hear from you again.

Best regards, suricat.

OK, and what's the mechanism for the action of dust on the climate that would explain the recent increases in temperature?

Oh right! There are no recent increases in temperature. So why are we looking at dust again?

Hi, Lucibee.

quote:

OK, and what's the mechanism for the action of dust on the climate that would explain the recent increases in temperature?

I thought you were conversant with global warming and global cooling Luci. Warming may be caused by an increase in solar insolation, or a reduction in outgoing long-wave radiation and cooling may be caused by a reduction in solar insolation, or an increase in outgoing long-wave radiation (or partly by each of those mentioned before, as a mix).

There are also biasing effects that move energy from one part of the climate system to another. For example, atmospheric dust (aerosol particulates) may well (depending on the type of particulate) absorb, or reflect, more energy in the atmosphere than would be if the particulate wasn't there. The end result - whether the atmosphere absorbs more energy or not - is that Earth's surface doesn't receive as much solar insolation. Solar insolation is biased to alter from its normal surface and ocean warming, to the atmosphere or back into space.

I could go on, as there are other phenomenon that can cause biasing, but I'll not.

Personally (although I'm sure most others would disagree), I think that the recent total solar insolation level is the prime candidate for the recent changes that we've observed, together with a less marked effect by agents introduced from anthropogenic sources.

quote:

Oh right! There are no recent increases in temperature. So why are we looking at dust again?

Two main reasons. There seems to be new "open" evidence, and Son of Mulder's pet subject is/was aerosols. Why pose this question?

Best regards, suricat.

It just baffles me why you spend so much time and energy on this when there are people paid to do this stuff for you.

I would have thought that the most comforting thing is that if we are responsible (ok, albeit partly), then at least we can do something about it.

However, if we are as insignificant as all you "sceptics" are making out, then heaven help us all! The climate has been terribly fickle in the past.

I don't doubt that aerosols, cosmic rays, TSI fluctuations (albeit small), dust storms, con trails, etc etc all play their part - but we cannot model them and use them to tell us what may happen 10 or 20 years down the line until we understand them a little better.

And in the meantime, the temperature just keeps going up and the ice keeps on melting (even though TSI is going down!).

Lucibee.

quote:

It just baffles me why you spend so much time and energy on this when there are people paid to do this stuff for you.

So are you telling me that you would submit your vote to any which person that volunteers to make your vote (whichever way)! I think not (otherwise, you would not be here)! You are here to "have your say" as much as the next person (like myself). I implore dialogue!

As an engineer I'll be the first to admit that the recent conjecture and theory that science "turns up" is often "hard to digest" (at the least), but so many of these - theories, conjectures - are so outside of the real and natural world that they really do need to be taken to task. The science domain is currently so full of pseudo-science that the "real science" just doesn't seem to come through.

Guess why I post.

quote:

I would have thought that the most comforting thing is that if we are responsible (ok, albeit partly), then at least we can do something about it.

A most important statement Luci! The point is, is our AGW signature enough to make a difference (either way)? What does comfort have to do with this?

But then again, that is a factor of what the AGW debate is about.

Personally, I don't want to pursue this line of debate further. I'm more interested in the science of it.

quote:

And in the meantime, the temperature just keeps going up and the ice keeps on melting (even though TSI is going down!).

Another reason for my interest in this subject.

BTW. New ice is increasing in the NH (looks like dirty ice melts, but new ice [devoid of particulate contamination] doesn't)!

Best regards, suricat.

To your first point, no, I would not submit my vote to "any which person"! Would you? My point is that we do not need to understand all the science as fully as all the experts put together in order to make up our minds about this. That is why the IPCC was formed.

I am even more swayed by the urgency of this problem since companies such as Shell, BP, and Exxon have come on board.

The science domain is not full of pseudo-science. The blogosphere might well be, but that's not the peer-reviewed science domain. I would suggest that you are looking in the wrong places.

Our AGW signature is now accepted as being enough to make the difference. Comfort probably has very little to do with this if you are not intending to stick around for the next 20 years or so. If you are, however, then it might be wise to listen up!


Finally - what is this evidence about new ice in the NH? I think you might misunderstand the significance of the quantities of new ice. An increase in 1-year ice is an indication that older ice is disappearing at a faster rate. If we are only left with 1-year ice, then that means that it is not very long before the north pole will be ice-free in summer.

Is that what you are talking about?

No need for dust:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/20...not-computer-models/

quote:

Originally posted by Lucibee:
No need for dust:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/20...not-computer-models/

What did you say about blogs

Lucibee.

quote:

To your first point, no, I would not submit my vote to "any which person"! Would you?

I thought that my previous posts made this self evident, but for the record. No!

quote:

My point is that we do not need to understand all the science as fully as all the experts put together in order to make up our minds about this.

I concur, but when we see controversy to our pertinent and personal understanding, should we not post on this? You never know, we may even be able to learn by this process (myself included). Surely a relative understanding of the science offered is a prerequisite to a decision of who should be given any proxy of your vote.

quote:

That is why the IPCC was formed.

No! That is why the IPCC was formed by a political body. The WMO (an arm of the UN) evoked the existence of the IPCC at the request of the UN to quantify the level of anthropogenic "forcings" to our climate. Thus, the IPCC was set up by a policy issue of the UN to the WMO and is a political body that reports back to the WMO and the UN (bodies that only consider policy)! Why should they have any interest in science other than population and voting potential, besides the usual humanitarian effort?

It's after 2 am and I can't respond to the remainder of your post here (I'm too knackered). Speak to you later.

Best regards, suricat.

Lucibee.

Hi again. I think you'll find that commercial companies go with the flow. They look for good PR and profit, so if the groundswell is strong enough for all to increase their end price in unison they'll all receive greater profit. Business has always been good at diversity and innovation.

It's not just the "blogosphere", the last two reviewed papers I read were absolute faff and it all came down to one incorrect assumption.

We humans have left an AGW signature ever since we lit fires for warmth and cooking. We increased our signature when we started farming and increased it again when we started moving our produce over increasing distances. Of course we make a difference, but for now I'll have to leave it to destiny for the answer to my own eventual fate.

This isn't what I implied. Old ice contains inclusions of soot and dust from the atmosphere and tiny dead fauna and flora which has slowly altered its albedo over the years, but new ice is clean and doesn't attract so much insolation. I think you'll find that Arctic ice melt is cyclic due to this.

Sorry for the compressed post style. BTW, did your House Martins come back this year?

quote:

No need for dust:

No comparison. It's a lot easier to model a phenomenon than it is to model a climate. I'd be more interested in why the Southern Oscillation (SO) exists than just using its index (SOI) to replicate another phenomenon.

I guess this is just because of a question I've asked myself for as long as I can remember. Why?

Best regards, suricat.

suricat:

quote:

Old ice contains inclusions of soot and dust from the atmosphere and tiny dead fauna and flora which has slowly altered its albedo over the years, but new ice is clean and doesn't attract so much insolation. I think you'll find that Arctic ice melt is cyclic due to this.

This is never included in any stories of ice melt suricat ; I take it you are talking about UV

mufcdiver.

quote:

This is never included in any stories of ice melt suricat ; I take it you are talking about UV

Oh. Another late post. Guess this is a part of my lifestyle!

Yes and no! Solid particulates are included with aerosols, but are really a different animal altogether. This may sound like a pun on words, but it isn't. A true "aerosol" is a compound that "evaporates" in air to the singular molecule level of its compound state. A "particulate" aerosol is a compound that doesn't evaporate in air to the singular molecule level of its compound state. Aerosols are reduced to their molecule level in the atmosphere, but solid particulates are not. Personally, I think that these aerosols should be separately categorised, but they're not. C'est la vie!

A word on absorption. Both solar insolation and OLR may, or may not, be absorbed by a single molecule of a true "aerosol" (depending on it's absorption spectrum). However, a "particulate" (a particle consisting of many molecules) represents a "surface albedo" that only reflects, or absorbs, insolation. When it absorbs, it warms the surrounding atmosphere altering the CC relationship for humidity and can generate "IR down-welling". However, when in ice, it just warms the ice more.

Either scenario for particulates also robs the ocean of warmth (global dimming).

Best regards, suricat.

Suricat, I think you need to do some basic research on the nature of politics.

Of course the UN is a political organisation - by its nature, politics is the means by which science (and other areas) is translated into action (policy). Until we have a mechanism whereby scientists can reach consensus and enact it on their own, we are stuck with bodies like governments and the UN, I'm afraid. Would you rather that a body was formed that had no mandate from the human population? At least most governments receive such a mandate from their people. Those that don't rarely seem to pay much attention to the UN!

Politics is a necessary part of the way in which our civilisation operates. On the whole, the UN's aim is to look after the interests of the people on this planet - which is why they are so concerned about global warming.

Businesses, on the other hand, are only interested in their bottom line - in the interest of their shareholders. They are only indirectly linked to the rest of the human population.

The martins are wheeling above my head, but none have nested here this year. Market forces dictated that the sparrows got all the best nesting sites (again).

Lucibee.

quote:

Suricat, I think you need to do some basic research on the nature of politics.

Not interested. Nature, yes. Policy, no. Does this make me a renegade?

All I'm interested in is the way that things work. I am an engineer after all!

quote:

Market forces dictated that the sparrows got all the best nesting sites (again).

With all due respect! These are not "Market forces". They form part of the "might is right" scenario for any conceptualisation of the natural progression of a species. This mimics fascism more than democracy.

Nothing to do with policy, or politics. Only survival of the species, thus, its all down to the survivability of conflict for each ethnic species and their adaptability in the face of an altered circumstance (though I'm sure you'll disagree).

Best regards, suricat.