It's Really Getting Warm up North
Eric Swanson
please read the story in the New York Times:
August 18, 1998
As Alaska Melts, Scientists Consider the Reasons Why
http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/science/081898sci-alaska-thaw.html
---------------------------------------------------------------
--
Eric Swanson For e-mail, remove "XS" from end of address
--------------------------------------------------------------
Harold
wrote:
>For those who continue to deny that Global Warming is real,
>please read the story in the New York Times:
>
> August 18, 1998
>
> As Alaska Melts, Scientists Consider the Reasons Why
>
The article states, "Scientists are not certain how much of the
regional warming relates to over-all warming of the globe, if any."
Of course, I forgot, you know so much more than they do, huh?
Regards, Harold
---
"We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic
statements, and make little mention of the doubts we may have.
Each of us has to find a balance between being effective and
being honest."
- Dr. Steven Schneider, Our Fragile Earth", Discover,
Oct. 1987. pg 47
Surfin' Al
year. This would not be unusual, except it was December.
Harold <Harold.B...@removethis.usm.edu> wrote in article
<35dd33c5....@nntp.st.usm.edu>...
Harold
>Where I live (northern New England) I had stuff growing in my garden last
>year. This would not be unusual, except it was December.
And this means what to you? You think this is a unique event in world
history?
It was so cold in Southern Mississippi last year that my ten year old
fig tree was killed.
And?
Regards, Harold
----
"Yesterday's rainstorm was just one of the disastrous effects of global warming,
a visiting international expert said. The bird flu, red tide and mad cow disease
are also symptoms of the greenhouse effect, according to Shen Sin-yan, director
of the Global Warming International Centre in the US. Dr Shen is in Hong Kong
for the 9th Global Warming International Conference and Expo."
---From "Rainstorm a side-effect of global warming," the Hong Kong Standard,
June 10, 1998.
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
>On 20 Aug 1998 01:05:58 GMT, "Surfin' Al" <ha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>Where I live (northern New England) I had stuff growing in my garden last
>>year. This would not be unusual, except it was December.
>And this means what to you? You think this is a unique event in world
>history?
>It was so cold in Southern Mississippi last year that my ten year old
>fig tree was killed.
so it was so warm in Minnesota in Feb, people were calling city hall
complaining about those damn skeeters, and the golf courses were
opened.
But he is right, the expansion of the growing season in the north is
a inidactor of global warming.
>And?
>Regards, Harold
>----
>"Yesterday's rainstorm was just one of the disastrous effects of global warming,
>a visiting international expert said. The bird flu, red tide and mad cow disease
>are also symptoms of the greenhouse effect, according to Shen Sin-yan, director
>of the Global Warming International Centre in the US. Dr Shen is in Hong Kong
>for the 9th Global Warming International Conference and Expo."
> ---From "Rainstorm a side-effect of global warming," the Hong Kong Standard,
> June 10, 1998.
__________________________________________________
Let The White Rose enlighten you.
http://prairie.lakes.com/~gdy52150/whiterose.htm
gdy weasel
________________________________________________
The Spark Miller thusly spoke:
"According to Climatologists, the earth was much warmer in its'
entire history than its today..."
Now I wonder what happen to those Ice Ages?
Michael Ejercito
(gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com) wrote:
> Harold.B...@removethis.usm.edu (Harold) wrote:
>
> >On 20 Aug 1998 01:05:58 GMT, "Surfin' Al" <ha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>Where I live (northern New England) I had stuff growing in my garden last
> >>year. This would not be unusual, except it was December.
>
> >And this means what to you? You think this is a unique event in world
> >history?
>
> >It was so cold in Southern Mississippi last year that my ten year old
> >fig tree was killed.
>
> so it was so warm in Minnesota in Feb, people were calling city hall
> complaining about those damn skeeters, and the golf courses were
> opened.
> But he is right, the expansion of the growing season in the north is
> a inidactor of global warming.
Since global warming is happening,when will new nuclear power plants be
constructed?
Michael
Larry Hewitt
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com wrote in message <6rk589$ri4$1...@supernews.com>...
>Harold.B...@removethis.usm.edu (Harold) wrote:
>
>>On 20 Aug 1998 01:05:58 GMT, "Surfin' Al" <ha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>Where I live (northern New England) I had stuff growing in my garden last
>>>year. This would not be unusual, except it was December.
>
>>And this means what to you? You think this is a unique event in world
>>history?
>
>>It was so cold in Southern Mississippi last year that my ten year old
>>fig tree was killed.
>
>so it was so warm in Minnesota in Feb, people were calling city hall
>complaining about those damn skeeters, and the golf courses were
>opened.
> But he is right, the expansion of the growing season in the north is
>a inidactor of global warming.
>
And a cause of concern for the future.
A recent study out of Manitoba, Canada not only rebuts one of the linchpins
of the anti-warming crowd, but raises the specter of an exponential growth
rate of CO2 levels.
THeir theory was that the incresed growing season would act a s a carbon
sink - as the grwoing season expanded plants would grow longer, and broad
leaf succulents would have a survivable grwoing season. THe increased
biological activity would pull more carbon out of the air, reducing CO2
levels.
They were correct in this. What they overlooked was that there is far more
CO2 locked up in peat bogs and permafrost than in live vegetation. The
Canadian scientists found that the longer warm seasons were accelerating
the decomposition of plant material at a rate higher than it was being
replaced by new growth. The rate of decay will increase exponentially with
temperature increases. They estimate there is enough carbon locked in arctic
and subarctic permafrost and peat bogs to raise atmospheric CO2 levels 50%
Larry
Rick
do any good to use short term events (like humanity) to prove global-wide
effects. The last long term study I heard of (hearsay so you can ignore me
if you want), showed that we are still in recovery from our last mini-ice
age. Perhaps the global hot heads would like to go back to the
pre-industrial age. Without all of our new technology destroying the earth,
the temperatures during the medieval times were HOTTER than now.
I have no reference, so ignore if you want. If I can dig it up I'll post
it.
RickP
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com wrote in message <6rk589$ri4$1...@supernews.com>...
>Harold.B...@removethis.usm.edu (Harold) wrote:
>
>>On 20 Aug 1998 01:05:58 GMT, "Surfin' Al" <ha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>Where I live (northern New England) I had stuff growing in my garden last
>>>year. This would not be unusual, except it was December.
>
>>And this means what to you? You think this is a unique event in world
>>history?
>
>>It was so cold in Southern Mississippi last year that my ten year old
>>fig tree was killed.
>
>so it was so warm in Minnesota in Feb, people were calling city hall
>complaining about those damn skeeters, and the golf courses were
>opened.
> But he is right, the expansion of the growing season in the north is
>a inidactor of global warming.
>
Harold
wrote:
>
>gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com wrote in message <6rk589$ri4$1...@supernews.com>...
>>Harold.B...@removethis.usm.edu (Harold) wrote:
[edited]
>> But he is right, the expansion of the growing season in the north is
>>a inidactor of global warming.
And the fact that the growing season in other areas is an indication
of global warming too, no doubt.
have you taken that math class I suggested.
>>
>And a cause of concern for the future.
>
>A recent study out of Manitoba, Canada not only rebuts one of the linchpins
The only linchpin I have is the following:
The data do not show global warming due to human activity. In fact,
it does not show global warming at all.
[deleted]
Edward William Clayton
: On Fri, 21 Aug 1998 13:37:29 -0400, "Larry Hewitt" <hew...@charm.net>
: wrote:
: >
: >gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com wrote in message <6rk589$ri4$1...@supernews.com>...
: >>Harold.B...@removethis.usm.edu (Harold) wrote:
: [edited]
: >> But he is right, the expansion of the growing season in the north is
: >>a inidactor of global warming.
: And the fact that the growing season in other areas is an indication
: of global warming too, no doubt.
: have you taken that math class I suggested.
: >>
: >And a cause of concern for the future.
: >
: >A recent study out of Manitoba, Canada not only rebuts one of the linchpins
: The only linchpin I have is the following:
: The data do not show global warming due to human activity. In fact,
: it does not show global warming at all.
What time span are you considering, and what is the source of your data?
Ted
: [deleted]
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
>A longer growing season this year does not prove global warming. It doesn't
the longer growing season doesn't just apply to this year, my gwad
start thinking for a change since the growing season isn't even over
yet. The change has been on average since the 60s.
>do any good to use short term events (like humanity) to prove global-wide
>effects. The last long term study I heard of (hearsay so you can ignore me
>if you want), showed that we are still in recovery from our last mini-ice
>age. Perhaps the global hot heads would like to go back to the
>pre-industrial age. Without all of our new technology destroying the earth,
>the temperatures during the medieval times were HOTTER than now.
1997 the hottest year in the last 600 years. Now the authors stopped
at 600 do the unrealible nature of the temp record prior to that. Face
it global warming is happening now, and its man caused.
>I have no reference, so ignore if you want. If I can dig it up I'll post
>it.
>RickP
>gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com wrote in message <6rk589$ri4$1...@supernews.com>...
>>Harold.B...@removethis.usm.edu (Harold) wrote:
>>
>>>On 20 Aug 1998 01:05:58 GMT, "Surfin' Al" <ha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>Where I live (northern New England) I had stuff growing in my garden last
>>>>year. This would not be unusual, except it was December.
>>
>>>And this means what to you? You think this is a unique event in world
>>>history?
>>
>>>It was so cold in Southern Mississippi last year that my ten year old
>>>fig tree was killed.
>>
>>so it was so warm in Minnesota in Feb, people were calling city hall
>>complaining about those damn skeeters, and the golf courses were
>>opened.
>> But he is right, the expansion of the growing season in the north is
>>a inidactor of global warming.
>>
>>>And?
>>
>>>Regards, Harold
>>>----
>>>"Yesterday's rainstorm was just one of the disastrous effects of global
>warming,
>>>a visiting international expert said. The bird flu, red tide and mad cow
>disease
>>>are also symptoms of the greenhouse effect, according to Shen Sin-yan,
>director
>>>of the Global Warming International Centre in the US. Dr Shen is in Hong
>Kong
>>>for the 9th Global Warming International Conference and Expo."
>>> ---From "Rainstorm a side-effect of global warming," the Hong Kong
>Standard,
>>> June 10, 1998.
>>
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
>gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com wrote in message <6rk589$ri4$1...@supernews.com>...
>>Harold.B...@removethis.usm.edu (Harold) wrote:
>>
>>>On 20 Aug 1998 01:05:58 GMT, "Surfin' Al" <ha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>Where I live (northern New England) I had stuff growing in my garden last
>>>>year. This would not be unusual, except it was December.
>>
>>>And this means what to you? You think this is a unique event in world
>>>history?
>>
>>>It was so cold in Southern Mississippi last year that my ten year old
>>>fig tree was killed.
>>
>>so it was so warm in Minnesota in Feb, people were calling city hall
>>complaining about those damn skeeters, and the golf courses were
>>opened.
>> But he is right, the expansion of the growing season in the north is
>>a inidactor of global warming.
>>
>And a cause of concern for the future.
>A recent study out of Manitoba, Canada not only rebuts one of the linchpins
>of the anti-warming crowd, but raises the specter of an exponential growth
>rate of CO2 levels.
>THeir theory was that the incresed growing season would act a s a carbon
>sink - as the grwoing season expanded plants would grow longer, and broad
>leaf succulents would have a survivable grwoing season. THe increased
>biological activity would pull more carbon out of the air, reducing CO2
>levels.
>They were correct in this. What they overlooked was that there is far more
>CO2 locked up in peat bogs and permafrost than in live vegetation. The
>Canadian scientists found that the longer warm seasons were accelerating
>the decomposition of plant material at a rate higher than it was being
>replaced by new growth. The rate of decay will increase exponentially with
>temperature increases. They estimate there is enough carbon locked in arctic
>and subarctic permafrost and peat bogs to raise atmospheric CO2 levels 50%
yes I believe that study showed bogs releasing much more methane gas
than previously believed. Or possibly that was another Canadian study.
>Larry
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
>In article <6rk589$ri4$1...@supernews.com>, gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
>(gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com) wrote:
>> Harold.B...@removethis.usm.edu (Harold) wrote:
>>
>> >On 20 Aug 1998 01:05:58 GMT, "Surfin' Al" <ha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>Where I live (northern New England) I had stuff growing in my garden last
>> >>year. This would not be unusual, except it was December.
>>
>> >And this means what to you? You think this is a unique event in world
>> >history?
>>
>> >It was so cold in Southern Mississippi last year that my ten year old
>> >fig tree was killed.
>>
>> so it was so warm in Minnesota in Feb, people were calling city hall
>> complaining about those damn skeeters, and the golf courses were
>> opened.
>> But he is right, the expansion of the growing season in the north is
>> a inidactor of global warming.
> Since global warming is happening,when will new nuclear power plants be
>constructed?
there will be no nukes junior.
> Michael
Harold
Clayton) wrote:
>Harold (Harold.B...@removethis.usm.edu) wrote:
>: On Fri, 21 Aug 1998 13:37:29 -0400, "Larry Hewitt" <hew...@charm.net>
>: wrote:
>
>: >
>: >gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com wrote in message <6rk589$ri4$1...@supernews.com>...
>: >>Harold.B...@removethis.usm.edu (Harold) wrote:
>
>: [edited]
>
>: >> But he is right, the expansion of the growing season in the north is
>: >>a inidactor of global warming.
>
>: And the fact that the growing season in other areas is an indication
>: of global warming too, no doubt.
>
>: have you taken that math class I suggested.
>: >>
>: >And a cause of concern for the future.
>: >
>: >A recent study out of Manitoba, Canada not only rebuts one of the linchpins
>
>: The only linchpin I have is the following:
>
>: The data do not show global warming due to human activity. In fact,
>: it does not show global warming at all.
>
>What time span are you considering, and what is the source of your data?
What period do you want?
The best data is the satellite data. The ground data are the least
reliable (covering about 18% of the globe), and do show a small global
warming.
>: "Yesterday's rainstorm was just one of the disastrous effects of global warming,
>: a visiting international expert said. The bird flu, red tide and mad cow disease
>: are also symptoms of the greenhouse effect, according to Shen Sin-yan, director
>: of the Global Warming International Centre in the US. Dr Shen is in Hong Kong
>: for the 9th Global Warming International Conference and Expo."
>: ---From "Rainstorm a side-effect of global warming," the Hong Kong Standard,
>: June 10, 1998.
Regards, Harold
----
"An Ice Age is coming and I welcome it as much-needed changing.
I see no solution to our ruination of earth except for a drastic
reduction of the human population."
- David Foreman, in "From the Trenches", March 1, 1993
James G. Acker
: >: The data do not show global warming due to human activity. In fact,
: >: it does not show global warming at all.
: >
: >What time span are you considering, and what is the source of your data?
:
: What period do you want?
:
: The best data is the satellite data. The ground data are the least
: reliable (covering about 18% of the globe), and do show a small global
: warming.
Speaking as someone with some familiarity with satellite data
(though not a great deal) one would be hard put to assert that
satellite data is the "best" data to use to investigate the global
climate system. One reason is that no sensor has been designed
specifically for the express purpose of measuring the relevant
parameters. The MSU atmospheric temperatures are a derived quantity
from a different measurement. Another reason is that it is notoriously
hard to keep satellite sensors calibrated, and when they are on
different satellites, _inter-calibrated_. In fact, a scientist
who models the ocean-atmosphere system and attempts to predict oncoming
El Nino conditions with a 12-18 month lead time said that its really
hard to tell the difference between a trend that is climate-meaningful
from a trend that is simply correlated drift in the sensor (he was
speaking about sea-surface temperatures at the time).
Jim Acker
===============================================
| James G. Acker |
| REPLY TO: jga...@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov |
===============================================
All comments are the personal opinion of the writer
and do not constitute policy and/or opinion of government
or corporate entities.
Michael Ejercito
(gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com) wrote:
> meje...@csulb.edu (Michael Ejercito) wrote:
>
> >In article <6rk589$ri4$1...@supernews.com>, gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
> >(gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com) wrote:
>
> >> Harold.B...@removethis.usm.edu (Harold) wrote:
> >>
> >> >On 20 Aug 1998 01:05:58 GMT, "Surfin' Al" <ha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >>Where I live (northern New England) I had stuff growing in my garden last
> >> >>year. This would not be unusual, except it was December.
> >>
> >> >And this means what to you? You think this is a unique event in world
> >> >history?
> >>
> >> >It was so cold in Southern Mississippi last year that my ten year old
> >> >fig tree was killed.
> >>
> >> so it was so warm in Minnesota in Feb, people were calling city hall
> >> complaining about those damn skeeters, and the golf courses were
> >> opened.
> >> But he is right, the expansion of the growing season in the north is
> >> a inidactor of global warming.
> > Since global warming is happening,when will new nuclear power plants be
> >constructed?
>
> there will be no nukes junior.
Okay,so I guess the whole world can warm up to that fact,gdsybozo52150.
Michael
Harold
Acker) wrote:
>Harold (Harold.B...@removethis.usm.edu) wrote:
>
>: >: The data do not show global warming due to human activity. In fact,
>: >: it does not show global warming at all.
>: >
>: >What time span are you considering, and what is the source of your data?
>:
>: What period do you want?
>:
>: The best data is the satellite data. The ground data are the least
>: reliable (covering about 18% of the globe), and do show a small global
>: warming.
>
> Speaking as someone with some familiarity with satellite data
>(though not a great deal) one would be hard put to assert that
>satellite data is the "best" data to use to investigate the global
>climate system. One reason is that no sensor has been designed
>specifically for the express purpose of measuring the relevant
>parameters. The MSU atmospheric temperatures are a derived quantity
>from a different measurement.
It is derived from microwave radiation measurement, which is
incredibly sensitive to the temperature. In fact, a hell of a lot
more sensitive than a Hq thermometer.
You seem to be implying otherwise. Do you believe this implication
you have advanced?
>Another reason is that it is notoriously
>hard to keep satellite sensors calibrated, and when they are on
>different satellites, _inter-calibrated_.
You seem to imply (without saying), that this means they are not
calibrated to a significant accuracy. They can be calibrated against
each other, and against the balloon data.
Do you, with your implication, not know this?
>In fact, a scientist
>who models the ocean-atmosphere system and attempts to predict oncoming
>El Nino conditions with a 12-18 month lead time said that its really
>hard to tell the difference between a trend that is climate-meaningful
>from a trend that is simply correlated drift in the sensor (he was
>speaking about sea-surface temperatures at the time).
More anecdotal ("It is warmer here Monica") stories.
Another implication, without saying so, that the data is not more
accurate than a Hg thermometer.
Thanks for your input.
Regards, Harold
----
"The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a
likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind."
---Nigel Calder, International Wildlife, June 1975
Harold
Ejercito) wrote:
>In article <6rmrnm$hsg$3...@supernews.com>, gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
>(gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com) wrote:
>
[deleted]
> Okay,so I guess the whole world can warm up to that fact,gdsybozo52150.
I don't think you should bother answering her Michael. Her ignorance
is massive, as exemplified by the following exchange we had about
simple math:
I asked goody:
"Jobber A pays 20% of total cost as labor, 20% as profit (before tax)
and 60% for materials to make products.
"Jobber B produces the materials for Jobber A. Jobber B spends 20% of
total costs as labor, 20% for profit and 60% for his materials.
Got it so far? Now, question, what part of the total cost is labor
for Jobber A?
20% (his direct costs)
+ 12% (20% of 60% for his supplier)
= 32% total"
To which goody replied:
"yup and the profits are
20% (his direct costs)
+ 12% (20% of 60% for his supplier)
= 32% total
so labor and profits are 64% of the cost. But wait you didn't solve
the problem you said his orginal expenses were 60% that leaves you
with a 104% of the selling price. Back to figuring harold."
To which I responded:
"Sorry, you are wrong. I was kind of wondering if you would do that.
You see, you rightly took 60% of profits and labor, getting 32% for
each, but forgot to do the same with the material costs. Total
material costs for Jobber A are 60% of 60% (36%). Then,
36% final material costs
32% final labor costs
32% final profit"
For cases where this kind of ignorance is on display, I find a
killfile very useful.
James G. Acker
: On 24 Aug 1998 16:28:50 GMT, jga...@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G.
: Acker) wrote:
:
: >Harold (Harold.B...@removethis.usm.edu) wrote:
: >
: >: >: The data do not show global warming due to human activity. In fact,
: >: >: it does not show global warming at all.
: >: >
: >: >What time span are you considering, and what is the source of your data?
: >:
: >: What period do you want?
: >:
: >: The best data is the satellite data. The ground data are the least
: >: reliable (covering about 18% of the globe), and do show a small global
: >: warming.
: >
: > Speaking as someone with some familiarity with satellite data
: >(though not a great deal) one would be hard put to assert that
: >satellite data is the "best" data to use to investigate the global
: >climate system. One reason is that no sensor has been designed
: >specifically for the express purpose of measuring the relevant
: >parameters. The MSU atmospheric temperatures are a derived quantity
: >from a different measurement.
:
: It is derived from microwave radiation measurement, which is
: incredibly sensitive to the temperature. In fact, a hell of a lot
: more sensitive than a Hq thermometer.
:
: You seem to be implying otherwise. Do you believe this implication
: you have advanced?
Harold, sensitivity is one thing. Keeping any instrument
delivering accurate data is another thing. Take your thermometer
example. Let's say you want to take 100 measurements of 100 samples
with your thermometer. How do you make certain that the 89th
measurement is as accurate as the first measurement?
Answer: You would have to check against a standard periodically.
Something you're dead certain is at a set temperature. For satellites,
there are two ways of doing this. One is to check it against an
onboard calibration source. The other is to get ground-truth data
and compare that data to what the satellite is telling you.
See the problem?
: >Another reason is that it is notoriously
: >hard to keep satellite sensors calibrated, and when they are on
: >different satellites, _inter-calibrated_.
:
: You seem to imply (without saying), that this means they are not
: calibrated to a significant accuracy. They can be calibrated against
: each other, and against the balloon data.
No, they are calibrated, very precisely in fact. But once
they are in space, it's hard to check that calibration. For instrumental
series, some intercalibration programs are better than others.
The instruments on the balloons are subject to the same types
of problems.
All I'm really trying to say is that you cannot implicitly
say that satellite data is the best data simply because it's satellite
data. I know, for a fact, that some instruments have exhibited
drift -- drift which looks like real data trends. It's a notorious,
pervasive problem with all satellite remote-sensing data, specifically
that which is trying to measure quantities very accurately. I
categorically state that I do not know how much the MSU data is subject to
these problems. I only state that I know they are potential liabilities
in all such types of data.
: Do you, with your implication, not know this?
:
: >In fact, a scientist
: >who models the ocean-atmosphere system and attempts to predict oncoming
: >El Nino conditions with a 12-18 month lead time said that its really
: >hard to tell the difference between a trend that is climate-meaningful
: >from a trend that is simply correlated drift in the sensor (he was
: >speaking about sea-surface temperatures at the time).
:
: More anecdotal ("It is warmer here Monica") stories.
If you want the scientist's name, and the specific context in which
he made the statement, I can supply it. I prefer not to name-drop,
so if you insist I'll email it to you. In fact, I authored an article
about the meeting at which he made the statement, and it was in a
widely-available publication. In fact, if you want to read the whole
report, I've still got a reprint of it, and I can make a copy for your
reading pleasure.
: Another implication, without saying so, that the data is not more
: accurate than a Hg thermometer.
Please don't put words in my mouth. If an instrument isn't
working right, it doesn't deliver accurate data, period, no matter how
well-designed and sensitive it is.
Accuracy and precision are two different things.
: Thanks for your input.
You're quite welcome.
Scott Nudds
> >year. This would not be unusual, except it was December.
(Harold) wrote:
> And this means what to you? You think this is a unique event in world
> history?
When weather patterns are globally showing similar variations from the
norm - as they are - it is indeed unique.
Referring to the Bush administration - "You began to see the National
Association of Manufacturers and Chamber of Commerce and some of the
unions, certainly the energy industry, the chemical industry, autos,
aluminum, coal, steel, railroads, a whole range of industries begin to
get involved. (opposing global warming) And that gave the politics and
economics primacy over the science at that time." - WILLIAM REILLY,
FORMER ADMINISTRATOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION - ABC Saturday Night -
April 11, 98
--
<---->
Joshua Halpern
: Harold (Harold.B...@removethis.usm.edu) wrote:
: : On 24 Aug 1998 16:28:50 GMT, jga...@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G.
: : Acker) wrote:
: : >Harold (Harold.B...@removethis.usm.edu) wrote:
: : Another implication, without saying so, that the data is not more
: : accurate than a Hg thermometer.
Given the correct Hg thermometer and perhaps access to some triple
point cells, yes, although I might prefer a platinum resistence
thermometer. (Caveat the satellites are averaging over a much
larger volume)
josh halpern
Harold
>In sci.environment James G. Acker <jga...@news.gsfc.nasa.gov> wrote:
>: Harold (Harold.B...@removethis.usm.edu) wrote:
>: : On 24 Aug 1998 16:28:50 GMT, jga...@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G.
>: : Acker) wrote:
>: : >Harold (Harold.B...@removethis.usm.edu) wrote:
>SNIP...
>: : Another implication, without saying so, that the data is not more
>: : accurate than a Hg thermometer.
>
>Given the correct Hg thermometer and perhaps access to some triple
>point cells, yes, although I might prefer a platinum resistence
>thermometer. (Caveat the satellites are averaging over a much
>larger volume)
I could be wrong, but I do not think that the majority of the
thermometer measurements under discussion are as reliable as what you
apparently have in mind.
Regards, Harold
-------
"The answer to global warming is in the abolition of private
property and production for human need. A socialist world
would place an enormous priority on alternative energy
sources. This is what ecologically-minded socialists have
been exploring for quite some time now."
---Louis Proyect, Nov. 27, 1997
Harold
Acker) wrote:
I don't really think you can, to be honest. You would need to
calibrate your instrument after each use, and that is too expensive.
> Answer: You would have to check against a standard periodically.
>Something you're dead certain is at a set temperature.
Even then, how often are tou doing it? If you check every 500 uses,
you have no guarantee that drift between 200 and 300 did not drift
back after number 400.
>For satellites,
>there are two ways of doing this. One is to check it against an
>onboard calibration source. The other is to get ground-truth data
>and compare that data to what the satellite is telling you.
> See the problem?
No. Because you can also check against each other (there is more than
one satellite in the sky at the same time), and you can check against
balloon data when that is also in the area.
[deleted]
Regards, Harold
----
Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the
cooling trend . . . But they are almost unanimous in the view
that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for
the rest of the century." Newsweek, 1975.
Scientists concluded almost unanimously that global warming
is real and the time to act is now." Vice-President Al Gore,
1992.
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
>On 24 Aug 1998 22:04:56 GMT, jga...@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G.
>Acker) wrote:
>I don't really think you can, to be honest. You would need to
>calibrate your instrument after each use, and that is too expensive.
>> Answer: You would have to check against a standard periodically.
>>Something you're dead certain is at a set temperature.
>Even then, how often are tou doing it? If you check every 500 uses,
>you have no guarantee that drift between 200 and 300 did not drift
>back after number 400.
>>For satellites,
>>there are two ways of doing this. One is to check it against an
>>onboard calibration source. The other is to get ground-truth data
>>and compare that data to what the satellite is telling you.
>> See the problem?
>No. Because you can also check against each other (there is more than
>one satellite in the sky at the same time), and you can check against
>balloon data when that is also in the area.
hopefully harold doesn't have to calibrate an instrument, for if he
did the data would certainly be unrealiable. Wheres the absolute
reference harold comparing measurements from 2 satellites doesn't mean
squat when they bothare wrong.
>[deleted]
>Regards, Harold
>----
>Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the
>cooling trend . . . But they are almost unanimous in the view
>that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for
>the rest of the century." Newsweek, 1975.
>Scientists concluded almost unanimously that global warming
>is real and the time to act is now." Vice-President Al Gore,
>1992.
__________________________________________________
Joshua Halpern
: On 25 Aug 1998 03:00:48 GMT, Joshua Halpern <j...@IDT.NET> wrote:
: >In sci.environment James G. Acker <jga...@news.gsfc.nasa.gov> wrote:
: >: : On 24 Aug 1998 16:28:50 GMT, jga...@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G.
: >: : Acker) wrote:
: >: : >Harold (Harold.B...@removethis.usm.edu) wrote:
: >: : Another implication, without saying so, that the data is not more
: >: : accurate than a Hg thermometer.
: >Given the correct Hg thermometer and perhaps access to some triple
: >point cells, yes, although I might prefer a platinum resistence
: >thermometer. (Caveat the satellites are averaging over a much
: >larger volume)
: I could be wrong, but I do not think that the majority of the
: thermometer measurements under discussion are as reliable as what you
: apparently have in mind.
Not what I said. Your comparison was the (sic) "satellite" data to a
Hg thermometer, not all Hg thermometers over all time. Note that the
satellite data set is what, 20 years old? The valid comparison would
be thermometers (not all Hg) used for surface temperature measurements
(maybe not the one outside your door) in the last 20 years. I would
take that bet.
josh halpern
Michael Ejercito
wrote:
> Referring to the Bush administration - "You began to see the National
> Association of Manufacturers and Chamber of Commerce and some of the
> unions, certainly the energy industry, the chemical industry, autos,
> aluminum, coal, steel, railroads, a whole range of industries begin to
> get involved. (opposing global warming) And that gave the politics and
> economics primacy over the science at that time." - WILLIAM REILLY,
> FORMER ADMINISTRATOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION - ABC Saturday Night -
> April 11, 98
warming,because restrictions on carbon dioxide emmisions will increase
demand for nuclear power. What do you have to say about THAT?
Michael
Harold
>In sci.environment Harold <Harold.B...@removethis.usm.edu> wrote:
>: On 25 Aug 1998 03:00:48 GMT, Joshua Halpern <j...@IDT.NET> wrote:
>: >In sci.environment James G. Acker <jga...@news.gsfc.nasa.gov> wrote:
>: >: Harold (Harold.B...@removethis.usm.edu) wrote:
>: >: : On 24 Aug 1998 16:28:50 GMT, jga...@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G.
>: >: : Acker) wrote:
>: >: : >Harold (Harold.B...@removethis.usm.edu) wrote:
>: >SNIP...
>: >: : Another implication, without saying so, that the data is not more
>: >: : accurate than a Hg thermometer.
>
>: >Given the correct Hg thermometer and perhaps access to some triple
>: >point cells, yes, although I might prefer a platinum resistence
>: >thermometer. (Caveat the satellites are averaging over a much
>: >larger volume)
>: I could be wrong, but I do not think that the majority of the
>: thermometer measurements under discussion are as reliable as what you
>: apparently have in mind.
>
>Not what I said. Your comparison was the (sic) "satellite" data to a
>Hg thermometer, not all Hg thermometers over all time. Note that the
>satellite data set is what, 20 years old? The valid comparison would
>be thermometers (not all Hg) used for surface temperature measurements
>(maybe not the one outside your door) in the last 20 years. I would
>take that bet.
It would be interesting. SInce you are taking the bat, produce the
data.
Regards, Harold
----
"To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up
some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements
and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each
of us has to decide the right balance between being
effective, and being honest."
--- Dr Stephen Schneider
James G. Acker
I wrote:
: > Harold, sensitivity is one thing. Keeping any instrument
: >delivering accurate data is another thing. Take your thermometer
: >example. Let's say you want to take 100 measurements of 100 samples
: >with your thermometer. How do you make certain that the 89th
: >measurement is as accurate as the first measurement?
:
: I don't really think you can, to be honest. You would need to
: calibrate your instrument after each use, and that is too expensive.
Not necessarily after each use. But for any type of measurement,
in order to have meaningful data you have to calibrate against a
standard -- or limit the sources of error in the way you are performing
the measurement.
This is, by the way, why there was an agency called the National
Bureau of Standards, which has morphed into NIST. It still is where
a) many of the primary standards are kept, and b) where methods are
constantly being developed to reduce measurement uncertainty.
: > Answer: You would have to check against a standard periodically.
: >Something you're dead certain is at a set temperature.
:
: Even then, how often are tou doing it? If you check every 500 uses,
: you have no guarantee that drift between 200 and 300 did not drift
: back after number 400.
You have to check often enough to ensure certainty.
: >For satellites,
: >there are two ways of doing this. One is to check it against an
: >onboard calibration source. The other is to get ground-truth data
: >and compare that data to what the satellite is telling you.
: > See the problem?
:
: No. Because you can also check against each other (there is more than
: one satellite in the sky at the same time), and you can check against
: balloon data when that is also in the area.
Either one of these are valid calibration methods. As I said,
I don't know how the MSU calibration works, and how good it is. I've
seen other responses here on this thread, and anytime the measurement
uncertainty is larger than the quantity being measured, you have to
take any pronouncements made on the basis of the data with a certain
amount of seasoning.
Joshua Halpern
: This is, by the way, why there was an agency called the National
: Bureau of Standards, which has morphed into NIST. It still is where
: a) many of the primary standards are kept, and b) where methods are
: constantly being developed to reduce measurement uncertainty.
NOTE: They have a wonderful little museum, really just a large
room next to the library where many of the early standards can be
seen. There are excellent written explanations of each. It is
worth at least two stars (a detour).
josh halpern
Paul Farrar
>
> Not necessarily after each use. But for any type of measurement,
> in order to have meaningful data you have to calibrate against a
> standard -- or limit the sources of error in the way you are performing
> the measurement.
> Bureau of Standards, which has morphed into NIST. It still is where
> a) many of the primary standards are kept, and b) where methods are
> constantly being developed to reduce measurement uncertainty.
This is absolute calibration -- calibration against a reproducible
physical standard. The problem we have with the MSUs is that such
absolute calibration as can be done has uncertainties which are
great enough that for climate monitoring the instruments are, for
all practical purposes, completely uncalibrated. If the absolute
calibration were good enough for climatology, the debates we are
seeing would not exist. The calibration is, however, good enough to
catch gross errors and malfunctions (and has).
As a substitute for absolute calibration, Spencer & Christy and,
separately, Prabhakara et al. have tried to match the satellites
(9 total) to each other by determining constants to be added to
each satellite's readings to give a floating common scale. These
constants typically run about 0.6K, which is considerably larger
than the purported time series being detected.
It's easy see weakness in the procedure of matching during short
overlaps (particularly since the satellites aren't in the same
orbits at these times) and hoping you don't have undetected drifts
during the long periods of solo operation, such as that in MSU2R
found by Wentz and Schabel. Without absolute calibration capable of
hauling the series back to a standard at regular intervals any
matching errors propagate forward forever and are mistaken for
climate trends.
The impressive-sounding correlations with radiosondes ("balloons")
aren't of any help against calibration drift because correlation is
very poor at detecting drifts in the presence of other, correlated
signals (which MSUs are fairly good at).
You can see why Christy, Wentz, Gaffen, etc. all complain about the
lack of satellite systems designed for climate monitoring (as
opposed to weather forecasting and monitoring). Christy, of course,
is more optimistic about the capabilities of current systems than
most other atmospheric scientists are.
>
>
> : > Answer: You would have to check against a standard periodically.
> : >Something you're dead certain is at a set temperature.
> :
> : Even then, how often are tou doing it? If you check every 500 uses,
> : you have no guarantee that drift between 200 and 300 did not drift
> : back after number 400.
>
> You have to check often enough to ensure certainty.
>
>
> : >For satellites,
> : >there are two ways of doing this. One is to check it against an
> : >onboard calibration source. The other is to get ground-truth data
> : >and compare that data to what the satellite is telling you.
> : > See the problem?
> :
> : No. Because you can also check against each other (there is more than
> : one satellite in the sky at the same time), and you can check against
> : balloon data when that is also in the area.
>
> Either one of these are valid calibration methods. As I said,
> I don't know how the MSU calibration works, and how good it is. I've
> seen other responses here on this thread, and anytime the measurement
> uncertainty is larger than the quantity being measured, you have to
> take any pronouncements made on the basis of the data with a certain
> amount of seasoning.
They sound like good ideas, but with the instruments and earth that
actually exist...
Although there are almost always two satellites up at any time,
they are on opposite sides of the earth and can never even get
close to making the same measurements. During the overlaps when
replacements are being made, the satellites still aren't in exactly
the same orbits. (Orbital decay is one reason for the
replacements.) These periods are used for determining matching
constants and the absolute calibration does not allow them to
validate each other.
Checking against "balloon data" is done for absolute calibration,
but this is complicated by the fact that the MSUs and radiosondes
(which measure temperature itself) take no comparable measurements.
Radiation models are used to convert various surface-based data to
expected values for the microwave flux which the MSUs measure. The
uncertainties in this procedure translate into the calibration
uncertainties mentioned earlier.
Steve Hemphill
I find it curious there is so much confusion on this concept.
Visualize this:
A heat source (the sun) radiates heat transparent to an
insulation (uv in atmosphere) to an object (Earth) surrounded
by this insulation (CO2 etc.) having a defined thickness and R
value per unit thickness. The object obviously comes to
equilibrium eventually, balancing the heat loss (ir) by a gain
in temperature which increases the blackbody radiation rate
until the outgoing equals the incoming. Consider an
electrical cord through a partially evacuated thermos to a
light bulb above some water.
Now increase (e.g. evacuate more of the thermos) the
effectiveness (R value per inch of thickness) but not the
thickness, of the insulation (atmosphere).
What happens?
Until the mass inside the thermos (ocean water, cycling from
surface to subsurface over a period of hundreds of years)
gains enough heat throughout to equalize the increased
retention of energy with outgoing heat and therefore
re-equalized blackbody radiation, the temperature gradient
through the insulation will not be linear, and with an
increase in R value will initially become colder in the
outermost part of the insulation blanket (stratosphere) than
it was at the previous equilibrium, let alone the future
equilibrium.
So stratospheric cooling is consistent with global warming
caused by increased atmospheric insulation.
--
Steve H
Climate Change:
http://www.ihighway.com/~shemphill/nino.html
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The good water goes up, the bad water goes down.
anon.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
webmaster@localhost
abuse@localhost
root@localhost
postmaster@localhost
Joshua Halpern
: In article <6s19r2$2...@post.gsfc.nasa.gov>,SNIP....
: Radiation models are used to convert various surface-based data to
: uncertainties in this procedure translate into the calibration
: uncertainties mentioned earlier.
MODELS!!! horrors, we know how evil they are. I assume those
are CONSERVATIVE models, and in no way LIBERAL in their assumptions.
josh halpern
kolla
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Phil. G. Felton
This is an over simplification of the atmosphere however, the stratosphere
is not transparent to UV rather O2 and O3 absorb and are responsible for
stratospheric heating (about 23% is absorbed). Thus in the stratosphere
temperature increases with altitude, reduction in O3 above about 30 km will
lead to cooling in the stratosphere. So your model should include a second
layer.
Phil.
Scott Nudds
> A longer growing season this year does not prove global warming.
True. But a longer growing season and higher average global
temperatures does.
BELL LABS EXPERT FINDS PATTERN OF GLOBAL WARMING IN SEASONAL DATA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scientist Finds Unprecedented Shift in Timing of Seasons
--------------------------------------------------------
In 1989, the George C. Marshall Institute published a report saying that
"a large part of the 0.5'C warming of the earth in the last 100 years
may be the result of a combination of natural variability and solar
variability." In Scientific Perspectives on the Greenhouse Problem, the
institute's self-styled "greenhouse skeptics" suggested that
"non-greenhouse factors could account for nearly all the temperature
rise, with the greenhouse effect contributing a negligible amount."
That argument received a setback in April when Science published a new
study by David J. Thomson of AT&T Bell Labs (Murray Hill, NJ). Thomson's
analysis demonstrates that solar variability "is at most a minor factor
in the increase in average temperature observed over the last century."
Thomson is a respected expert on "time-series" analysis, the study of
data-sets in which the chronological order of data and correlations
among components of the data are relatively important.
In "The Seasons, Global Temperature, and Precession" (Science, vol 268,
pp 59-67, 7 April 1995), Thomson does not argue that solar variability
has zero effect on climate, but instead suggests that for the last fifty
years the effect of solar variability appears to be swamped by the
impacts of mounting concentrations of greenhouse gases.
Thomson reached these and other important conclusions by examining
long-term monthly average temperature records going back several
centuries. He also studied seasonal variations in the amount of sunlight
striking the upper atmosphere. In a sophisticated statistical analysis
(including consideration of changes in the earth's orbit), Thomson found
that the timing of the seasons began to change dramatically around 1940.
Since 1940, he says, "the rate of change in the timing of the seasons in
the Northern Hemisphere is without precedent in the instrumental data
records." Thomson warned that "given the importance of a stable seasonal
cycle for biological processes and the problems that late springs or
early frosts cause for agriculture, an unpredictable ... [change in the
timing of the seasons] may be a more serious problem to society than
changes in the amplitude of the annual cycle or even of the average
temperature."
What might explain the change in the timing of the seasons and the
observed increases in temperatures? Thomson analyzed several possible
explanations including the effects of solar variability, El Niño events,
volcanoes, perturbations in the earth's orbit, and increasing
concentrations of CO2 and of atmospheric particles called aerosols. He
found that each of these may have contributed to the climate changes.
But the correlation was strongest with increasing CO2 levels.
Thomson's analysis will be probed and debated. The impacts of solar
variability and CO2 levels on global temperatures and on the seasons
still are not completely understood. But his study adds a new dimension
to scientists' understanding of climate change and is evidence that a
pattern of climate change is emerging in the empirical observations.
SOURCES AND ADDITIONAL READING
* Arris, Lelani, "Shifting Seasons Detected in Temperature and
Rainfall Records," Global Environmental Change Report, VII (8):
1-3 (28 April 1995).
* Kerr, Richard A., "Sun's Role in Warming in Discounted," Science,
2681 (5207): 28-29 (7 April 1995).
* Schneider, David, "Global Warming is Still a Hot Topic,"
Scientific American, 272 (2): 13-14 (February 1995).
* Thomson, David J., "The Seasons, Global Temperature, and
Precession," Science, 268: 59-67 (7 April 1995).
Published in Global Change (Electronic Edition), July 1995. Copyright
© 1995 by Center for Global Change. Global Change encourages readers
to reproduce and disseminate this article. We ask only that Global
Change be cited as the source and that the author(s) of the articles be
properly credited. For more information, contact Global Change,
Editorial Office, 1347 Massachusetts Ave., SE, Washington, D.C.
20003-1540. Tel/Fax: +1 202 547 0850. Send e-mail (Internet) to
nsu...@igc.apc.org
"Rick" wrote:
> It doesn't do any good to use short term events (like humanity) to
> prove global-wide effects.
So Rick's position then, is that we have to wait a hundred thousand
years or so to detect any human induced change in the global
environment.
Fortunately the worlds scientists are more rational.
Even Carbon Industry shills disagree with Rick.
"Is there any common ground? Of all people, Michaels insists there could
be. "When it comes to it, the modelers and the skeptics are not so far
apart," he says. Indeed, if pressed, Michaels, Lindzen, Spencer and
other skeptics suggest a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere would raise
average temperatures by between 1 and 1.5 'C. And 1.5 'C is the bottom
end of the modelers' range of predictions." - NEW SCIENTIST: 19 July
1997
"Rick" wrote:
> The last long term study I heard of (hearsay so you can ignore me
> if you want), showed that we are still in recovery from our last mini-ice
> age.
8,300 years ago it was .73'C warmer than it is today. In the last 100
years global temperatures have risen by .5'C. The temperature rise seen
today is 10 times faster than the temperature rise seen then. Also,
projections are that within the next 100 years, temperatures will be
higher than at any time in the last 160,000 years.
Finally, the "little ice age" was only about .22'C colder than today,
the cumulative warming over the next century will be ten times greater
than this.
If a .22'C decline in global average temperature is termed a "little
ice age", what is 10 times greater warming being called?
Global warming? Can't be - Ostriches like Rick tell us that he can't
see anything - so it must all be a scam.
"Rick" wrote:
> Perhaps the global hot heads would like to go back to the
> pre-industrial age.
I don't think so. Technology isn't the problem in itself. Its the
use of technology for frivolous wasteful ends.
--
<---->
Harold
wrote:
Reilly always has been simplistic in his approach to opponents.
Unions do oppose the implementation of global warming restraints,
because it would cost jobs.
Many in the chemical industry and in other industries would welcome
more attention to global warming, since many of them would plan to
make a lot of money on the changes mandated by the government.
The primary worry of most business is that everyone be subject to the
same rules. If a chemical company faces restrictions on its US plants
which make its output uneconomical in comparison to a plant in the
Yucatan, where do you think they will move their operations, or build
their next plant?
Steve Hemphill
I agree it's a simplification, but it reflects (no pun intended) one
of, if not the major, reasons the stratophere is cooling. It's simple
energy balance: Watts in plus storage increase equals watts out.
How, qualitatively, does the decrease in O3 decrease stratospheric
temperatures? It would seem to be much more effective, watt for watt,
but at much higher altitude.
At any rate, the stratophere has been cooling much faster than the
troposphere, which is almost exactly level in comparison:
http://science.msfc.nasa.gov/newhome/essd/essd_strat_temp.htm
I wonder where the Navy deep water temperature data is... It would
seem there'd be some long term trend there, especially near or just
south of where it sinks. Increased Arctic sea ice melt would offset
that some, though, as well as the apparent massive temperature gains
of the Arctic Ocean water peeking out from under the ice:
Animation, http://manati.wwb.noaa.gov/orad/sub/sst_anomaly_6m.html
GIFs, http://psbsgi1.nesdis.noaa.gov:8080/PSB/EPS/SST/climo.html
Which would suddenly make it a mass balance problem. One thing's for
sure, you can sure tell around here whose feet are on the ground and
who thinks they live in the stratosphere...
Phil. G. Felton
Absorption of solar radiation by O3 causes the temperature of the stratosphere
to increase with altitude. If the O3 concentration is reduced the absorption
is shifted to lower altitudes thus changing the temperature distribution with
altitude.
Phil.
(rest deleted)
Steve Hemphill
> Absorption of solar radiation by O3 causes the temperature of the stratosphere
> to increase with altitude. If the O3 concentration is reduced the absorption
> is shifted to lower altitudes thus changing the temperature distribution with
> altitude.
This is true. However, you say O3 reduction causes a
temperature decrease above ~ 30 km, true? Wouldn't the lower
stratosphere then receive more? This would mean it should be
heating as you say, but at ~ 18 km it's still cooling. Also,
and more importantly, the lower troposphere at ~ 8 km isn't
heating either, and has been basically stable in comparison to
the higher altitudes:
http://science.msfc.nasa.gov/newhome/essd/essd_strat_temp.htm
Wouldn't this mean CO2 enrichment is having more insulating
effect than O3 degradation has in warming the atmosphere?
What's the vertical distribution of O3 and uv penetration?
Certainly O3 decrease has an offsetting effect on atmospheric
temperature decline with altitude, but it appears to be
buried, strengthening my statement.
Phil. G. Felton
> Phil. G. Felton wrote:
>
> > Absorption of solar radiation by O3 causes the temperature of the
stratosphere
> > to increase with altitude. If the O3 concentration is reduced the
absorption
> > is shifted to lower altitudes thus changing the temperature
distribution with
> > altitude.
>
> This is true. However, you say O3 reduction causes a
> temperature decrease above ~ 30 km, true? Wouldn't the lower
> stratosphere then receive more? This would mean it should be
See below.
> heating as you say, but at ~ 18 km it's still cooling. Also,
> and more importantly, the lower troposphere at ~ 8 km isn't
> heating either, and has been basically stable in comparison to
> the higher altitudes:
> http://science.msfc.nasa.gov/newhome/essd/essd_strat_temp.htm
>
> Wouldn't this mean CO2 enrichment is having more insulating
> effect than O3 degradation has in warming the atmosphere?
> What's the vertical distribution of O3 and uv penetration?
O3 concentrations: ~0.5 parts per million by volume (ppmv) at 15 km,
rising to ~8 ppmv at ~35 km, falling to ~3 ppmv at 45 km.
UV light with wavelengths between 240 and 320 nm is absorbed by
ozone, which then falls apart to give an O atom and an O2 molecule.
The O atom encounters another O2 molecule, however (at all times,
the concentration of O2 far exceeds that of O3), and recreates O3:
O3 + hv -> O2 + O
O + O2 -> O3
Thus ozone absorbs UV radiation without itself being consumed;
the net result is to convert UV light into heat. This is what causes
the temperature of the stratosphere to increase with altitude, giving
rise to the inversion layer that traps molecules in the troposphere.
The ozone layer determines the form of the stratosphere, thus any
change in O3 distribution with altitude will change the temperature
distribution. With the above mechanism there is also a destruction
mechanism if an oxygen molecule collides with an ozone molecule the ozone
is destroyed creating two oxygen molecules. It is the balance between the
formation and destruction which determines the steady state O3 concentration.
The addition of species to the stratosphere which catalyse the destruction
of O3 has caused a reduction in the SS O3 concentration. If the concentration
higher in the atmosphere is reduced then more UV can reach lower into the
atmosphere and create O3 there, however whether that causes a corresponding
increase in O3 at lower altitudes depends on the concentration of the other
species. Thus as the O3 layer gets thinner it also moves to lower altitude
and the corresponding isotherm moves to lower altitude with it. Consequently
the temperature at any given altitude will fall with the O3 concentration.
Phil.
Scott Nudds
> >(though not a great deal) one would be hard put to assert that
> >satellite data is the "best" data to use to investigate the global
> >climate system. One reason is that no sensor has been designed
> >specifically for the express purpose of measuring the relevant
> >parameters. The MSU atmospheric temperatures are a derived quantity
> >from a different measurement.
(Harold) wrote:
> It is derived from microwave radiation measurement, which is
> incredibly sensitive to the temperature.
But represents a summation of all radiance directed toward the
satellite receiver from ground - including surface contamination -,
through the entire atmosphere to the satellite receiver. Obtaining
temperature at a specific altitude is not a simple matter of taking a
measurement. Determining temperature requires multiple measurements
taken from multiple angles, where each measurement requires compensation
for satellite altitude (the most recent analysis failure), land cover
type, season, time of day, sensor drift, the effects of volcanism, etc.
> In fact, a hell of a lot more sensitive than a Hq thermometer.
And a lot more contaminated that a mercury thermometer that measures
classic temperature <directly> through direct thermal contact with the
air in question.
> >Another reason is that it is notoriously
> >hard to keep satellite sensors calibrated, and when they are on
> >different satellites, _inter-calibrated_.
(Harold) wrote:
> You seem to imply (without saying), that this means they are not
> calibrated to a significant accuracy. They can be calibrated against
> each other, and against the balloon data.
And this is part of the problem. Calibrating replacement censor b
with sensor a, allows calibration to drift.
Calibrating sensor a with sensor b, makes a lie of the claim that
because sensor a's (satellite) measurements correspond with sensor b's
(Balloon) measurements, there is much if any significance to the
correlation.
(Harold) wrote:
> "The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a
> likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind."
> ---Nigel Calder, International Wildlife, June 1975
Bashears still can't find any references to support such claims in
peer reviewed literature - so he is forced to post supposed quotes from
popular magazines.
Bashears has had years to find references from peer reviewed
scientific literature. He should have found thousands of references by
now.
After years of trying - why the continued failure?
--
<---->
Scott Nudds
> >there are two ways of doing this. One is to check it against an
> >onboard calibration source. The other is to get ground-truth data
> >and compare that data to what the satellite is telling you.
> > See the problem?
(Harold) wrote:
> No. Because you can also check against each other (there is more than
> one satellite in the sky at the same time), and you can check against
> balloon data when that is also in the area.
Oh, there are lots of satellites up there Harold. But there have
only been a hand full of satellites equipped with MSU's. And these
satellite aren't in the same orbit are they Harold? They don't pass
over the same areas at the same time of day, do they Harold? These
satellites don't measure surface temperature do they Harold? These
satellites aren't designed to detect long term temperature variations
and are therefore unsuitable for this purpose, aren't they Harold?
These satellites have only been collecting data for 20 years haven't
they Harold? The cooling trend that was initially reported isn't
compensated for volcanic cooling is it Harold? The cooling trend that
was initially reported has now been found to be the result of orbital
decay hasn't it Harold?
Bashears quotes:
> Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the
> cooling trend . . . But they are almost unanimous in the view
> that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for
> the rest of the century." Newsweek, 1975.
For years we have been asking Bashears for references to peer review
research from the 70's that warns of the imminent onset of dramatic
cooling. There are thousands of articles in the current scientific
press confirming global warming.
Bashears has found only 1 - perhaps 2, if we are generous - references
from the 70's that can be interpreted to warn of cooling - but even
these reports are referring to continued increases in particulate
cooling - a cooling factor that is completely accepted by the scientific
community today.
--
<---->
Steve Hemphill
>
> In article <35E9D15E...@ihighway.com>, shem...@bigfoot.com wrote:
>
> > Phil. G. Felton wrote:
> >
> > > Absorption of solar radiation by O3 causes the temperature of the
> stratosphere
> > > to increase with altitude. If the O3 concentration is reduced the
> absorption
> > > is shifted to lower altitudes thus changing the temperature
> distribution with
> > > altitude.
> >
> > This is true. However, you say O3 reduction causes a
> > temperature decrease above ~ 30 km, true? Wouldn't the lower
> > stratosphere then receive more? This would mean it should be
>
> See below.
>
> > heating as you say, but at ~ 18 km it's still cooling. Also,
> > and more importantly, the lower troposphere at ~ 8 km isn't
> > heating either, and has been basically stable in comparison to
> > the higher altitudes:
> > http://science.msfc.nasa.gov/newhome/essd/essd_strat_temp.htm
> >
> > Wouldn't this mean CO2 enrichment is having more insulating
> > effect than O3 degradation has in warming the atmosphere?
> > What's the vertical distribution of O3 and uv penetration?
>
> O3 concentrations: ~0.5 parts per million by volume (ppmv) at 15 km,
> rising to ~8 ppmv at ~35 km, falling to ~3 ppmv at 45 km.
So, since density is over 20 times as high at 15 km than 35 km, this
means there's more O3 per unit volume at 15 km, right? (20/16)
> UV light with wavelengths between 240 and 320 nm is absorbed by
> ozone, which then falls apart to give an O atom and an O2 molecule.
> The O atom encounters another O2 molecule, however (at all times,
> the concentration of O2 far exceeds that of O3), and recreates O3:
>
> O3 + hv -> O2 + O
> O + O2 -> O3
>
> Thus ozone absorbs UV radiation without itself being consumed;
> the net result is to convert UV light into heat. This is what causes
> the temperature of the stratosphere to increase with altitude, giving
> rise to the inversion layer that traps molecules in the troposphere.
> The ozone layer determines the form of the stratosphere, thus any
> change in O3 distribution with altitude will change the temperature
> distribution. With the above mechanism there is also a destruction
> mechanism if an oxygen molecule collides with an ozone molecule the ozone
> is destroyed creating two oxygen molecules. It is the balance between the
> formation and destruction which determines the steady state O3 concentration.
> The addition of species to the stratosphere which catalyse the destruction
> of O3 has caused a reduction in the SS O3 concentration. If the concentration
> higher in the atmosphere is reduced then more UV can reach lower into the
> atmosphere and create O3 there, however whether that causes a corresponding
> increase in O3 at lower altitudes depends on the concentration of the other
> species. Thus as the O3 layer gets thinner it also moves to lower altitude
> and the corresponding isotherm moves to lower altitude with it. Consequently
> the temperature at any given altitude will fall with the O3 concentration.
At that altitude. If ozone is being destroyed at above 30 km
(typically) and more uv is coming through that level, I'd think the
random redirection of photons at lower altitude causing the inversion
would then lower the heating effect altitude further into the
stratosphere. All other things being equal (gag) wouldn't the lower
stratosphere then show an increase in heat as the mean ratio of
distances to the surface vs. to space decreases?
Phil. G. Felton
No the units are already ppm by volume.
Phil.
(rest deleted)
Steve Hemphill
No, you're thinking of density, or mass per unit volume. Ppm "by
volume" is to differentiate from ppm by mass. One is the portion of
something compared to the total when measured by the volume taken up,
and the other is as measured by the mass (or weight in gravity)
compared to the total mass (or weight). Ppm is a ratio, density is
not.
Therefore if the concentration by ppm of x decreases by a factor of 16
but the concentration of everything increases by 20, the density of x
increases by 25% (20/16), so it's packed more tightly and, in this
case, catches more photons per unit thickness. We're talking here
about air much thinner than the surface, at 30 km the density is only
1% of surface density. Meteorologists talk about the "500 millibar
level" because at the surface the pressure is about one bar, or 1000
millibar, and that means half the air is above it and half is below
it. That's at about 5 km or 3 miles high.
That's why CO2 retains more heat closer to the surface.
Phil. G. Felton
No I was not, I was using the established definition of ppmv which follows:
"The density of the air in the atmosphere depends upon altitude, and in a
complicated way because the temperature also varies with altitude. It is
therefore awkward to report concentrations of atmospheric species in units
like g/cc or molecules/cc. Instead,it is convenient to report the "mole
fraction", the relative number of molecules of a given type in an air sample.
Atmospheric scientists usually call a mole fraction a "mixing ratio". Typical
units for mixing ratios are parts-per-million, billion, or trillion by volume,
designated as "ppmv", "ppbv", and "pptv" respectively. (The expression "by
volume" reflects Avogadro's Law - for an ideal gas mixture, equal volumes
contain equal numbers of molecules - and serves to distinguish mixing ratios
from "mass fractions" which are given as parts-per-million by weight.) Thus
when someone says the mixing ratio of hydrogen chloride at 3 km is 0.1 ppbv,
he means that 1 out of every 10 billion molecules in an air sample collected
at that altitude will be an HCl molecule."
See for example:
R. P. Wayne, Chemistry of Atmospheres, 2nd. Ed., Oxford, 1991.
T. E. Graedel and P. J. Crutzen, Atmospheric Change: an Earth System
Perspective, Freeman, NY 1993.
>
> Therefore if the concentration by ppm of x decreases by a factor of 16
> but the concentration of everything increases by 20, the density of x
> increases by 25% (20/16), so it's packed more tightly and, in this
> case, catches more photons per unit thickness.
This is incorrect as shown above, since you prefer absolute numbers they are
as follows:
about 10^12 molecules/cm^3 at 15 km, rising to nearly 10^13 at 25 km,
then falling to 10^11 at 45 km.
Joshua Halpern
: In article <35EF4F9F...@rt66.com>, shem...@bigfoot.com wrote:
: > Phil. G. Felton wrote:
: > > In article <35EE0D3B...@rt66.com>, shem...@bigfoot.com wrote:
: > > > Phil. G. Felton wrote:
: No I was not, I was using the established definition of ppmv which follows:
: "The density of the air in the atmosphere depends upon altitude, and in a
: > Therefore if the concentration by ppm of x decreases by a factor of 16
: > but the concentration of everything increases by 20, the density of x
: > increases by 25% (20/16), so it's packed more tightly and, in this
: This is incorrect as shown above, since you prefer absolute numbers they are
: as follows:
: about 10^12 molecules/cm^3 at 15 km, rising to nearly 10^13 at 25 km,
: then falling to 10^11 at 45 km.
but another factor that folk are missing in this discussion, is that
because of increasing density, reaction rates for reactions that
destroy ozone, also increase. The rate of ozone creation is
essentially controlled by the flux of UV light below 310 nm.
As a consequence, the equilibrium (between creation and destruction)
concentration of ozone will be less at lower altitudes, even
assuming the same UV flux.
josh halpern
Steve Hemphill
>
> In sci.environment Phil. G. Felton <fel...@princeton.edu> wrote:
> : In article <35EF4F9F...@rt66.com>, shem...@bigfoot.com wrote:
> : > Phil. G. Felton wrote:
> : > > In article <35EE0D3B...@rt66.com>, shem...@bigfoot.com wrote:
> : > > > Phil. G. Felton wrote:
> Phil is right on this,
but I disagree with you about Phil being right. Ppmv is a ratio. If
the density goes up more than the mixing ratio goes down, there are
more of them in there.
> : No I was not, I was using the established definition of ppmv which follows:
>
> : "The density of the air in the atmosphere depends upon altitude, and in a
>
> : > Therefore if the concentration by ppm of x decreases by a factor of 16
> : > but the concentration of everything increases by 20, the density of x
> : > increases by 25% (20/16), so it's packed more tightly and, in this
>
> : This is incorrect as shown above, since you prefer absolute numbers they are
> : as follows:
Uh, and where was it shown above? Are you really trying to say if the
density goes up by a factor of 20 and the mixing ratio goes down by a
factor of 16 the number of 03 molecules per unit volume decreases?
> : about 10^12 molecules/cm^3 at 15 km, rising to nearly 10^13 at 25 km,
> : then falling to 10^11 at 45 km.
>
> but another factor that folk are missing in this discussion, is that
> because of increasing density, reaction rates for reactions that
> destroy ozone, also increase. The rate of ozone creation is
> essentially controlled by the flux of UV light below 310 nm.
> As a consequence, the equilibrium (between creation and destruction)
> concentration of ozone will be less at lower altitudes, even
> assuming the same UV flux.
Phil also changed his reference elevations in the middle of the story,
first saying:
"O3 concentrations: ~0.5 parts per million by volume (ppmv) at 15 km,
rising to ~8 ppmv at **~35 km**, falling to ~3 ppmv at 45 km."
Then giving absolutes of:
"about 10^12 molecules/cm^3 at 15 km, rising to nearly 10^13 at **25
km**,
then falling to 10^11 at 45 km."
Phil, what's the number of molecules per cm^3 at 35 km?
I'm not arguing about the destruction of ozone being bad, etc., I just
think sending out confusing facts is part of the problem, and is
usually done by those with an ulterior motive.
--
Steve H
Climate Change:
http://www.ihighway.com/~shemphill/nino.html
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Hammer 'em with the facts.
Phil. G. Felton
> Joshua Halpern wrote:
> >
> > In sci.environment Phil. G. Felton <fel...@princeton.edu> wrote:
> > : In article <35EF4F9F...@rt66.com>, shem...@bigfoot.com wrote:
> > : > Phil. G. Felton wrote:
> > : > > In article <35EE0D3B...@rt66.com>, shem...@bigfoot.com wrote:
> > : > > > Phil. G. Felton wrote:
> > Phil is right on this,
>
> Thanks for the input, Josh. This partly explains the distribution,
> but I disagree with you about Phil being right. Ppmv is a ratio. If
> the density goes up more than the mixing ratio goes down, there are
> more of them in there.
>
>
> > : No I was not, I was using the established definition of ppmv which
follows:
> >
> > : "The density of the air in the atmosphere depends upon altitude, and in a
> >
> > : > Therefore if the concentration by ppm of x decreases by a factor of 16
> > : > but the concentration of everything increases by 20, the density of x
> > : > increases by 25% (20/16), so it's packed more tightly and, in this
> >
> > : This is incorrect as shown above, since you prefer absolute numbers
they are
> > : as follows:
>
> Uh, and where was it shown above? Are you really trying to say if the
> density goes up by a factor of 20 and the mixing ratio goes down by a
> factor of 16 the number of 03 molecules per unit volume decreases?
No, that's what you're trying to make me say! Creative editing of the thread
and deletion of the text I was referring to doesn't seem to be a very good
way to clarify matters. What was incorrect was your statement regarding the
relative concentrations rather than the logic of your argument and the data
showing that were presented.
>
> > : about 10^12 molecules/cm^3 at 15 km, rising to nearly 10^13 at 25 km,
> > : then falling to 10^11 at 45 km.
These numbers are fairly representative depending on the time of year and
latitude.
> >
> > but another factor that folk are missing in this discussion, is that
> > because of increasing density, reaction rates for reactions that
> > destroy ozone, also increase. The rate of ozone creation is
> > essentially controlled by the flux of UV light below 310 nm.
> > As a consequence, the equilibrium (between creation and destruction)
> > concentration of ozone will be less at lower altitudes, even
> > assuming the same UV flux.
This was one of the points I was making in the earlier post.
>
> Phil also changed his reference elevations in the middle of the story,
> first saying:
>
> "O3 concentrations: ~0.5 parts per million by volume (ppmv) at 15 km,
> rising to ~8 ppmv at **~35 km**, falling to ~3 ppmv at 45 km."
>
> Then giving absolutes of:
>
> "about 10^12 molecules/cm^3 at 15 km, rising to nearly 10^13 at **25
> km**,
> then falling to 10^11 at 45 km."
Thanks for pointing that out, I hadn't noticed. The source I was using gives
the data in both units, I posted them on different occasions and I didn't
pick up on the change which I assume was a typo? However if you wanted to
find out you could have referred to one of the sources I gave. Of course you
wouldn't expect the maximum mixing ratio to be at the same altitude as the
maximum concentration, would you? ;-)
>
> Phil, what's the number of molecules per cm^3 at 35 km?
It depends on the time of year and latitude, the peak ozone concentrations
typically lie in the 20-30 km band. If you take a look at the text I
referenced by Wayne you'll find a discussion of it. The concentration of O3
is highest towards the poles (e.g. about 10^13 molecules/cm3 @ 65N in spring
at an altitude of 20km and about 5x10^12 @ 5N at an altitude of about 28km).
The production rate of atomic O reaches a maximum at about 40km. There is
considerable variation in the O3 concentration and the altitude of the maximum
concentration (e.g. Wayne shows a plot from balloon obserations showing almost
constant O3 partial pressure from 22-32 km (100 nanobar)). This discussion
arose out of whether the depletion of ozone contributed to the stratospheric
cooling. Note that between 20km and 50km the temperature increases from about
215 K to about 275 K due to solar heating of the O3, above 50 Km the temperature
again decreases.
>
> I'm not arguing about the destruction of ozone being bad, etc., I just
> think sending out confusing facts is part of the problem, and is
> usually done by those with an ulterior motive.
Jumping to conclusions and making assumptions about what somebody meant to
say rather than what they said doesn't lead to clarity either! Someone trying
to mislead does not normally give sources and further reading references either.
It's a pity you didn't read the material before 'shooting from the hip'.
Phil.