clothcap (clothcap) wrote,

  • Music:

Mostly the satanic gas but some black stuff on ice too

(Two days' worth)
This slipped by me in all the hoo-ha over climategate.
Himalayan glacial melt probably driven by aerosols, notably black carbon. The Asians themselves appear to be a major factor in causing the problems that were claimed to be a product of AGW. NMG - Natives melting glaciers.
From NASA (the unextremists). The following excerpted from;
The Dark Side of Carbon: Will Black Carbon Siphon Asia’s Drinking Water Away? Dec. 14
Briefing Materials" [...] new research, by NASA’s William Lau and collaborators, reinforces with detailed numerical analysis what earlier studies suggest: that soot and dust contribute as much (or more) to atmospheric warming in the Himalayas as greenhouse gases. This warming fuels the melting of glaciers and could threaten fresh water resources in a region that is home to more than a billion people.
Download presentation slides (PDF)
Video: Tiny air pollution particles commonly called soot, but also known as black carbon, are in the air and on the move throughout our planet. The Indo-Gangetic plain, one of the most fertile and densely populated areas on Earth, has become a hotspot for emissions of black carbon (shown in purple and white). Winds push thick clouds of black carbon and dust, which absorb heat from sunlight, toward the base of the Himalayas where they accumulate, rise, and drive a "heat pump" that affects the region's climate. Credit: NASA's Scientific Visualization Studio
Watch movie

Another of the alarmist clamours felled? Full tale here: New Study Turns Up the Heat on Soot's Role in Himalayan Warming, (with links to more info.). 

Not only but also Dec. 14:
Is Declining Groundwater Storage Threatening Food Security in the United States and around the Globe?: New Observations of Major Groundwater Changes in California’s Central Valley and Other Aquifer Systems
I can't remember how long ago I banged the drum on this topic. It is a major problem in Africa, especially the north.

Breakthroughs in Weather, Climate and Greenhouse Gases from AIRS on Aqua Dec. 15

Above - AIRS mid-tropospheric CO2 trend presented as reverse propaganda followed by the real item (from here).
AIRS global CO2 concentrations, July 2009
Above - AIRS global CO2 concentrations, July 2009

Above - July 2004
Daily sample of AIRX2STC ascending granules.

Click the pic for larger.
The AIRS Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Standard Retrieval Product (AIRX2STC) consists of retrieved estimates of CO2, plus estimates of the errors associated with the retrieval.
In contrast to the rest of Level 2 products originally released, the CO2 Level2 products are at 90x90 km nominal horizontal resolution at nadir. AIRS CO2, Level 2, granules have been set as 6 minutes of data, 15 footprints cross track by 22 lines along track.
Note that this is exclusively climate-change oriented parameter, with variability on seasonal scales, and strong global annual growing trend. Thus, as seen in the figure, daily retrievals are relatively sparse and have little statistical significance until aggregated to e.g. monthly CO2 product, AIRX3C2M.

Halfway up a volcano on Mauna Loa, Hawaii -- and -- global over marine surface sites.
Above from here.

Regarding the Jet Propulsion Lab crew. Have they jumped on the CO2 alarm bandwagon? From the way the images are presented (colourwise) it sure seems that way. I imagine much of their funding is due to the hype. Would you behave more honestly in their shoes?
Human plus nature, ~2ppm p.a. Human emissions have been accelerating yet there is no acceleration evident in either the surface or the mid troposphere. Of the 2ppm, the human fraction at most can be a third.

The rocket scientist (here) doesn't take on board any BS from the incompetent propagandists at the IPCC or any other propaganda merchants.. The following is an example:
[...] RealClimate defense says,
"Another, quite independent way that we know that fossil fuel burning and land clearing specifically are responsible for the increase in CO2 in the last 150 years is through the measurement of carbon isotopes. … CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere." Id.

No error analysis is offered for this method of discrimination. The references are variously immaterial or not publicly available.
RealClimate's rehabilitated explanation still doesn't work to explain a model that implies that nCO2 and ACO2 have different solubility curves, nor that they can be faithfully modeled as if physically segregated.

The Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center makes a good case for a steady decline in the 13C/12C isotopic ratio background since 1980. Each of ten sites distributed across the globe from 150W to 180W shows a decline.

Consequently, a model other than burning fossil fuels is needed, and the IPCC provides it for the first time in the Fourth Assessment Report. It is an even more implausible model: the ocean outgases 20 PgC/yr of ACO2. The IPCC struggles to maintain its anthropogenic CO2 conjecture but has no coherent model.

"Changes in the 13C/12C ratio of atmospheric CO2 thus indicate the extent to which concurrent CO2 variations can be ascribed to variations in biospheric uptake. The calculation also requires specification of the turnover times of carbon in the ocean and on land, because fossil fuel burning implies a continuous release of isotopically light carbon to the atmosphere. This leads to a lowering of the atmospheric 13C/12C isotope ratio, which takes years to centuries to work its way through the carbon cycle (Keeling et al., 1980; Tans et al., 1993; Ciais et al., 1995a,b). Bold added, Climate Change 2001, Box 3.6, p. 207."
Is this a reference to two turnover times, one for the ocean and one for land, or to four turnover times, taking into account different physics for light and heavy CO2? The Consensus doesn't reveal how the turnover times affect the calculation, nor why the lifetimes run into centuries, which is contrary to its own data.
Three of the four references are not freely available to the public, and are not sufficiently cited by the IPCC Report. The abstracts can be read on line, but none even suggests the claims made for the IPCC passage. For Keeling et al, 1980, see
Back issues available only from 1994.

For Ciais et al., 1995a, see
AAAS membership required.

For Ciais et al, 1995b, see
This paper may be purchased for $9.

The fourth reference, Tans et al., 1993 ("Tans"), by Pieter P. Tans, Joseph A. Berry, and Ralph F. Keeling, is the only reference freely available, and it not only does not support the IPCC claims, but refutes them.

From the Science Forum
Courtesy of Wild Cobra:
CO2 already is about 95% opaque to the spectra it absorbs.

Click to view this image at its original location
Click on the image to view it at its original size

What is between the two sets of lines I added is a coverage of about 95%. there is so little radiative increase for CO2 to have, especially since it is logarithmic in nature [that is each additional molecule absorbs less than the preceding molecule]. The smaller areas I didn't include do have quite a bit of room for growth, but it takes so much more CO2 to see much difference there [due to the fact that those areas are barely detectable as sensible (measurable) heat].


Why does the planet warm and cool? The Sun giveth and the Sun taketh away. Warmed by the Sun that is filtered by particles and space objects (est 70 tons a day) which disintegrate in the top layers, notably the mesosphere, ozone and oxygen in the meso-  strato- and tropospheres, aerosols and cloud, oceans at ~70% of the planet surface dominate climate. Variations in ocean surface temperature are tweaked by variations in UV whose main influence is less than a metre depth, and visible light that penetrates tens of metres and is the source of underlying climate temperature, IR penetrates less than a mm. In the absence of sunlight, air temperatures can decline to minus 70 deg C and more as measured in Antarctica during its 6 months of night. The rapid decline of temperature in arid conditions such as desert and the poles show that the few hours of warmth experienced in non arid conditions after sunset is due to water vapour enhancing the delay by the atmosphere of the escape  of measurable heat. The air can delay heat escape only for a few hours at most.

Land can delay heat escape by a few weeks as demonstrated by the warmest day of inland continents being several weeks after the Sun has passed its peak warming. That coastal areas cool less quickly than inland areas demonstrates that oceans release heat more slowly. The term of oceans' capacity to delay heat escape is demonstrated by the period it takes to respond to solar input decline. Solar radiation at the top of the atmosphere stopped rising approx 1980, at the end of the 3 decades of cooling. The oceans responded to the cessation of increasing input around 2001 demonstrated by the cessation in sea level increase.

Cooling and warming of the oceans is cyclic, the variable input moderated by especially clouds. The surface waters release water vapour (and CO2) in response to sunlight. Water vapour creates cloud. The volume of water vapour and hence cloud extent is controlled by the filters mentioned at the beginning of this section. During a cool period, cloud extent declines and increasing levels of sunlight reach the oceans. The oceans warm and warm the air.

Warmed air holds more water vapour and hence cloudiness increases, however the rate of vertical air movement also accelerates and that causes clouds to be moved away by resulting faster horizontal air currents. There is a point reached where production of cloud happens at a rate where solar input is compromised and the surface water temperature stops increasing, evaporation slows and air currents respond, cloud is transported away less quickly, and then the surface waters cool. This has been determined as cyclic and the two main factors influencing the atmospheric temperature appear to be the Pacific and the Atlantic (multi) decadal oscillations.
With the Sun in a quiet phase, we could enter a period of cooling that could be similar to the Little Ice Age. A number of scientists have predicted such. However as the base output of the Sun witnessed at the end of each sunspot cycle seems to have increased each decade, its output is unlikely to decline as much as seen in the LIA. But anything can happen, our Sun is unstable and influenced by the gravity of the sum of all the planets relative to their distance and alignment.
There are a myriad of factors that tweak the air temperature, forests produce cloud and they increase in extent (moderated by human influence) and produce more cloud  in a warming, CO2 enhanced environment. Ice albedo reduces and increases amplifying the solar influence in whatever direction. Aır and ocean currents vary in strength and direction influenced not least by the stratospheric mix of molecules, solar input, cloudiness, ocean surface temperature and air temperature. None except the Sun add to heat input, they merely interfere with its escape.
For once I hope the idiotic AGW by CO2 advocates such as Brit Met are right and warming resumes. It won't be your fault or mine, the climate does its own thing regardless of how corrupt scientists, the UN, the media, politicians (successful and failed) misinform you. We have nothing to fear from a warmer climate yet much from a cooling. (See this - It's going to be a cold 2010 by Andrew Neil from the BBC)
I wish everyone, especially those with the resolve to have read this far, a warm, healthy and prosperous new year however alarmists of every shade, the UN, eulab and the EU are determined to avoid it.

Click the pics.
Further reading:
UW-Milwaukee Study Could Realign Climate Change Theory
Is the Sun Brighter or Not?
Another Little Ice Age? Solar activity and climate change
Why The Sun Is The Cause of Global Warming
Signals for a Coming Ice Age
Centalised source for solar news
Make more carbon dioxide (you know it makes sense)

Some good news for us to end with. Hopefully a trend setter. Seems not all the legal systems are bent.
French constitutional body rules against carbon tax
AP PARIS, Dec 29 (Reuters) - France's planned carbon tax cannot be applied because it includes too many exemptions, a French government body ensuring laws are constitutional ruled on Tuesday, in an embarrassing setback for the government.

No extra reward for those that have supported the scam and no punishment for those that have denounced it. So sad.

See here for comments -
Tags: alarmist guilt, co2 innocence, himalayan glacier melt, nasa airs

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic
    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.