EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Sat Oct 25, 2014 8:04 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 155 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 11  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2012 10:19 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20562
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:

Given these and other misrepresentations of natural oceanic variability on decadal scales (e.g., Zhang and McPhaden 2006), a role for natural causes of at least some of the recent oceanic warming should not be ruled out.



"At least" meaning at the bare minimum, so it is possible that the contribution of natural causes is higher than 'some' but could be 'most' of the warming observed, indicating a high amount of uncertainty.


It is possible Martians are using a modified death ray as well, but the paper did not state either case. To put words into the mouths or papers of others is unethical and this is what you are doing.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2012 10:22 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20562
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Ion-induced nucleation [cosmic ray action] will manifest itself as a steady production of new particles [molecular clusters] that is difficult to isolate in atmospheric observations because of other sources of variability but is nevertheless taking place and could be quite large when averaged globally over the troposphere [the lower atmosphere].”

Is from the full paper.



The actual experiment evidenced otherwise. The quotes posted in the blogosphere taken out of context do not support much either.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2012 10:28 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:

They increased the numbers of nuclei produced by a significant amount but still not enough to account for the observed levels in nature.


So what are you suggesing then is causing the additional CCNs observed in nature?

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2012 10:32 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:

Given these and other misrepresentations of natural oceanic variability on decadal scales (e.g., Zhang and McPhaden 2006), a role for natural causes of at least some of the recent oceanic warming should not be ruled out.



"At least" meaning at the bare minimum, so it is possible that the contribution of natural causes is higher than 'some' but could be 'most' of the warming observed, indicating a high amount of uncertainty.


It is possible Martians are using a modified death ray as well, but the paper did not state either case. To put words into the mouths or papers of others is unethical and this is what you are doing.


It's not putting words into their mouth... it's elaborarting on what is being meant by "at least."

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2012 10:42 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
"We find that atmospherically relevant ammonia mixing ratios of 100 parts per trillion by volume, or less, increase the nucleation rate of sulphuric acid particles more than 100–1,000-fold. Time-resolved molecular measurements reveal that nucleation proceeds by a base-stabilization mechanism involving the stepwise accretion of ammonia molecules. Ions increase the nucleation rate by an additional factor of between two and more than ten at ground-level galactic-cosmic-ray intensities, provided that the nucleation rate lies below the limiting ion-pair production rate.”

From the abstract.

And BTW the Boundary Layer of the atmosphere with which the paper was refering to is the region just above the surface.

Do any clouds form in the boundary layer?

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 28, 2012 2:15 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20562
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:

They increased the numbers of nuclei produced by a significant amount but still not enough to account for the observed levels in nature.


So what are you suggesing then is causing the additional CCNs observed in nature?


I really do not know. I do know what the evidence gives us so far and that the experts have some differing hypotheses.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 28, 2012 3:16 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20562
Location: Southeastern US
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:

Given these and other misrepresentations of natural oceanic variability on decadal scales (e.g., Zhang and McPhaden 2006), a role for natural causes of at least some of the recent oceanic warming should not be ruled out.



"At least" meaning at the bare minimum, so it is possible that the contribution of natural causes is higher than 'some' but could be 'most' of the warming observed, indicating a high amount of uncertainty.


It is possible Martians are using a modified death ray as well, but the paper did not state either case. To put words into the mouths or papers of others is unethical and this is what you are doing.


Snowy123 wrote:
It's not putting words into their mouth... it's elaborarting on what is being meant by "at least."


It is putting words into their mouths. The paper was not on the subject of natural contribution or not, the statement is clearly a passing caveat on the subject slightly touching on the actual subject, and the "elaboration" is semantical gymnastics worthy of the Olympics which goes so far passed the normal and customary in the inclusion of all that could be considered if the reader really wanted to add it. The author would be the one to make such an elaboration given there is nothing else in the paper from which to draw a conclusion. The statement is clear English which does not need expansion or elaboration because it is not intended to be taken in the context by which you have chosen to add. That is not scientific, not ethical, and not like you at all.

Look at the context. The normal meaning of "At least some ..... should not be ruled out" would be to think all could be ruled out, but a small amount should not. The use of "much" would bolster the consideration of <50% as an upper limit, but "at least some" puts it closer to >0%.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 28, 2012 3:23 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20562
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
"We find that atmospherically relevant ammonia mixing ratios of 100 parts per trillion by volume, or less, increase the nucleation rate of sulphuric acid particles more than 100–1,000-fold. Time-resolved molecular measurements reveal that nucleation proceeds by a base-stabilization mechanism involving the stepwise accretion of ammonia molecules. Ions increase the nucleation rate by an additional factor of between two and more than ten at ground-level galactic-cosmic-ray intensities, provided that the nucleation rate lies below the limiting ion-pair production rate.”

From the abstract.

And BTW the Boundary Layer of the atmosphere with which the paper was refering to is the region just above the surface.

Do any clouds form in the boundary layer?


The paper indicates the nucliation occurs. The paper does not cover cloud formation, just nucliation. If it did connect itself to cloud formation the size of the nuclei produced would not be large enough and it would have had a larger negative impact on that theory.

However, even with the large enhancements in rate due to ammonia and ions, atmospheric concentrations of ammonia and sulphuric acid are insufficient to account for observed boundary-layer nucleation.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 28, 2012 3:32 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Okay here we go. Predictions of cooling in the next 30-50 years (largely based off of what the activity of the sun will do in the next 30-50 years- it will be quiet, although the PDO/AMO combo will probably contribute as well.)

Qian et. al 2010 finds that most of the warming can be reasonably ascribed to natural causes, the world should cool by 2035, and we will only warm 0.1-0.2 Degrees C by 2100.

Masnich and Bashkirtsev 2002 predict a drop in temperatures by around 2025-2030 because of variations in the sun.

Ermakov et. al 2009 finds that Global Cooling should persist until 2060 (!)

Large and Yeager 2012

Global satellite observations show the sea surface temperature (SST) increasing since the 1970s in all ocean basins, while the net air-sea heat flux, Q, decreases. Over the period 1984-2006 the global changes are 0.28°C in SST and -9.1 W/m2 in Q, giving an effective air-sea coupling coefficient of -32 W/m2/°C. The global response in Q expected from SST alone is determined to be -12.9 W/m2, and the global distribution of the associated coupling coefficient is shown. Typically, about one-half (6.8 W/m2) of this SST effect on heat flux is compensated by changes in the overlying near surface atmosphere. Slab Ocean Models (SOMs) assume that ocean heating processes do not change from year to year, so that a constant annual heat flux would maintain a linear trend in annual SST. However, the necessary 6.1 W/m2 increase is not found in the downwelling longwave and shortwave fluxes, which combined show a -3 W/m2 decrease. The SOM assumptions are revisited to determine the most likely source of the inconsistency with observations. The indirect inference is that diminished ocean cooling due to vertical ocean processes played an important role in sustaining the observed positive trend in global SST from 1984 through 2006, despite the decrease in global surface heat flux. A similar situation is found in the individual basins, though magnitudes differ. A conclusion is that natural variability, rather than long term climate change, dominates the SST and heat flux changes over this 23 year period. On shorter time scales the relationship between SST and heat flux exhibits a variety of behaviors.

The Yeager paper is relevant to the Compo paper which suggests that degree of anthropogenic and natural contributions to recent ocean warming are unknown. It answers the Compo paper by saying that natural factors (in this case natural variability [probably due to cloud cover]) have dominated the SSTs.

Xian and Shan 2007
A novel multi-timescale analysis method, Empirical Mode Decomposition (EMD), is used to diagnose the variation of the annual mean temperature data of the global, Northern Hemisphere (NH) and China from 1881 to 2002. The results show that: (1) Temperature can be completely decomposed into four timescales quasi-periodic oscillations including an ENSO-like mode, a 6–8-year signal, a 20-year signal and a 60-year signal, as well as a trend. With each contributing ration of the quasi-periodicity discussed, the trend and the 60-year timescale oscillation of temperature variation are the most prominent. (2) It has been noticed that whether on century-scale or 60-year scales, the global temperature tends to descend in the coming 20 years. (3) On quasi 60-year timescale, temperature abrupt changes in China precede those in the global and NH, which provides a denotation for global climate changes. Signs also show a drop in temperature in China on century scale in the next 20 years. (4) The dominant contribution of CO2 concentration to global temperature variation is the trend. However, its influence weight on global temperature variation accounts for no more than 40.19%, smaller than those of the natural climate changes on the rest four timescales. Despite the increasing trend in atmospheric CO2 concentration, the patterns of 20-year and 60-year oscillation of global temperature are all in falling. Therefore, if CO2 concentration remains constant at present, the CO2 greenhouse effect will be deficient in counterchecking the natural cooling of global climate in the following 20 years. Even though the CO2 greenhouse effect on global climate change is unsuspicious, it could have been excessively exaggerated. It is high time to re-consider the trend of global climate changes.

My next post will highlight peer reviewed papers that show there is no 'smoking gun' or fingerprint that most of the climate change observed is anthropogenic.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Last edited by Snowy123 on Wed May 30, 2012 3:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 28, 2012 3:34 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne I will reply to your posts later.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 28, 2012 4:11 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:

They increased the numbers of nuclei produced by a significant amount but still not enough to account for the observed levels in nature.


So what are you suggesing then is causing the additional CCNs observed in nature?


I really do not know. I do know what the evidence gives us so far and that the experts have some differing hypotheses.


So the science isn't settled then on what causes CCNs?

That's a pretty fundamental aspect of climate.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 28, 2012 4:15 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:

It is putting words into their mouths. The paper was not on the subject of natural contribution or not, the statement is clearly a passing caveat on the subject slightly touching on the actual subject, and the "elaboration" is semantical gymnastics worthy of the Olympics which goes so far passed the normal and customary in the inclusion of all that could be considered if the reader really wanted to add it. The author would be the one to make such an elaboration given there is nothing else in the paper from which to draw a conclusion. The statement is clear English which does not need expansion or elaboration because it is not intended to be taken in the context by which you have chosen to add. That is not scientific, not ethical, and not like you at all.


Their study was the oceans can account for the land warming, and GHGs are not required, debunking a fingerprint that GHGs should cause landmasses to warm faster than the oceans. This was their research goal in this paper, and they stated that the oceans could have been warmed by a combination of anthropogenic and natural factors (though it was not the subject they were researching).

It is implied that there is still uncertainty with how much of the oceanic warming is anthropogenic and natural as stated here:

"Although not a focus of this study, the degree to which the oceans themselves have recently warmed due to increased GHG, other anthropogenic, natural solar and volcanic forcings, or internal multi-decadal climate variations is a matter of active investigation"

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Last edited by Snowy123 on Mon May 28, 2012 4:19 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 28, 2012 4:17 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:
The paper indicates the nucliation occurs. The paper does not cover cloud formation, just nucliation. If it did connect itself to cloud formation the size of the nuclei produced would not be large enough and it would have had a larger negative impact on that theory.

However, even with the large enhancements in rate due to ammonia and ions, atmospheric concentrations of ammonia and sulphuric acid are insufficient to account for observed boundary-layer nucleation.


If no cloud-formation occurs in the atmospheric boundary layer, then this finding would not have much impacct on the role GCRs have on Cloud Cover.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 28, 2012 4:57 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
This is interesting.

The amount of NOx (an ozone depleting chemical) is highly correlated to solar magnetic activity, suggesting that increased solar activity may play a role in the stratospheric cooling and ozone depletion.

It could also partially explain why stratospheric temperatures have started to increase slightly over the last 16 years, since the sun's activity has decreased over the last decade.

Image

Source

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Last edited by Snowy123 on Mon May 28, 2012 5:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 28, 2012 4:58 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20562
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:

It is putting words into their mouths. The paper was not on the subject of natural contribution or not, the statement is clearly a passing caveat on the subject slightly touching on the actual subject, and the "elaboration" is semantical gymnastics worthy of the Olympics which goes so far passed the normal and customary in the inclusion of all that could be considered if the reader really wanted to add it. The author would be the one to make such an elaboration given there is nothing else in the paper from which to draw a conclusion. The statement is clear English which does not need expansion or elaboration because it is not intended to be taken in the context by which you have chosen to add. That is not scientific, not ethical, and not like you at all.


Their study was the oceans can account for the land warming, and GHGs are not required,


That is false. The LOCALIZED warming of the land masses is related to ocean heat, which is far different from the global warming to which you have tried to connect it.

Quote:
debunking a fingerprint that GHGs should cause landmasses to warm faster than the oceans.


Where is this "fingerprint" proclaimed? Other than the blog source from which you probably got the connection to this paper being some proof against warming.

Quote:
This was their research goal in this paper, and they stated that the oceans could have been warmed by a combination of anthropogenic and natural factors (though it was not the subject they were researching).


Yes, and you then tried to claim a stated uncertainty the paper did not make in relation to the split.

Quote:
It is implied that there is still uncertainty with how much of the oceanic warming is anthropogenic and natural as stated here:

"Although not a focus of this study, the degree to which the oceans themselves have recently warmed due to increased GHG, other anthropogenic, natural solar and volcanic forcings, or internal multi-decadal climate variations is a matter of active investigation"


There is always a level of uncertainty in every measurment. They state the facts of ongoing investigation, which you seem to try to twist into some statement of huge uncertainty. The first two causes listed are anthropogenic, which would, if anything, indicate those are the primary causes in their opinion.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 155 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 11  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group