|
Post by Ratty on Jan 29, 2017 12:13:34 GMT
GW, Can you supply a few references that might make sense to me on global dimming?
|
|
|
Post by graywolf on Jan 29, 2017 15:30:29 GMT
Well if you are aware of the impacts of volcanic eruptions or nuclear strikes then you'll be aware of 'Nuclear winter' or , for volcanoes, 'year without summer'.
If not then there are plenty of articles on the effects of aerosols on climate or the impacts of particulates on climate. What you need to bare in mind is that , were all global pollution lumped into one spot , like a volcano, you'd have the biggest volcano ever ( the most pwerful eruptions would only represent 1% of man's yearly tally) seen and its eruption has been ongoing since the start of the industrial revolution?
The rapid clean up across China, since the mid noughties, appears to have really made a difference with 2014 showing a resumption in the rapid warming we were seeing as U.S./European 'clean air' measures began to show impact ( esp. after the collapse of the USSR and the shut down of its dirty industries)
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 29, 2017 15:53:04 GMT
Well if you are aware of the impacts of volcanic eruptions or nuclear strikes then you'll be aware of 'Nuclear winter' or , for volcanoes, 'year without summer'. If not then there are plenty of articles on the effects of aerosols on climate or the impacts of particulates on climate. What you need to bare in mind is that , were all global pollution lumped into one spot , like a volcano, you'd have the biggest volcano ever ( the most pwerful eruptions would only represent 1% of man's yearly tally) seen and its eruption has been ongoing since the start of the industrial revolution? The rapid clean up across China, since the mid noughties, appears to have really made a difference with 2014 showing a resumption in the rapid warming we were seeing as U.S./European 'clean air' measures began to show impact ( esp. after the collapse of the USSR and the shut down of its dirty industries) Thats exactly how science is done in this day and age too.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 29, 2017 16:34:08 GMT
Well if you are aware of the impacts of volcanic eruptions or nuclear strikes then you'll be aware of 'Nuclear winter' or , for volcanoes, 'year without summer'. If not then there are plenty of articles on the effects of aerosols on climate or the impacts of particulates on climate. What you need to bare in mind is that , were all global pollution lumped into one spot , like a volcano, you'd have the biggest volcano ever ( the most pwerful eruptions would only represent 1% of man's yearly tally) seen and its eruption has been ongoing since the start of the industrial revolution? The rapid clean up across China, since the mid noughties, appears to have really made a difference with 2014 showing a resumption in the rapid warming we were seeing as U.S./European 'clean air' measures began to show impact ( esp. after the collapse of the USSR and the shut down of its dirty industries) Graywolf: Cite literature please. Your statement, as to brightness, conflicts with the literature I have read.
|
|
|
Post by graywolf on Jan 30, 2017 10:48:01 GMT
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jan 30, 2017 14:36:10 GMT
We are in the middle of atmospheric changes to the way water vapour is transported around the planet. The rapid reduction of Sulphate/particulate pollution ( by Asia) is leading to more upper Trop. water vapour travelling into the far north of the n.Hemisphere ( check the past 2 winters over the Arctic Basin). Water Vapour is a very potent GHG but it had not populated to the upper levels of the troposphere. Due to reduced Dimming it is now running to catch up leading to 'atmospheric rivers' becoming more common place ( not just the pineapple express!!!) around the hemisphere. This will continue to ramp up as China cleans up its act. As a secondary impact the full potential of current GHG forcings will also begin to be felt ( NASA , back in the mid noughties, told us up to 50% the warming potential of ~CO2 was being lost to the flip side of fossil fuel burning, global 'dimming') as we have seen since 2014? It appears that the Southern hemisphere is also seeing impacts ( via cross polar Strat. issues?) with Chili posting new 'record warm' temps smashing the old max by over 3c!!!! GW. Where might these data be found?
|
|
|
Post by graywolf on Jan 30, 2017 17:22:51 GMT
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Jan 30, 2017 18:03:12 GMT
Quarterly update on my long-standing global temperature prediction: It's been 10 years since I predicted that the global temperature average for 2007 through 2037 would be the same as the 2007 "trend" temperature determined from a least-squares trend of the 1977 through 2007 period. The Hadcrut 4 anomalies for December 2016 are now in and we have data taking us one-third of the way through the prediction period. The average global temperatures as measured by satellites (both RSS and UAH) so far have been 0.02C below the prediction. The average global temperatures as estimated from surface thermometers using the Hadcrut4 anomalies so far have been 0.03C above the prediction. Using an average of the satellite and surface measurements the global temperatures are right at the predicted level. In twenty more years, if you are right, where will that leave us? If CO2 continues to go up ... as it likely will ... and if solar output (across all spectrums) is at a lower average ... as it very well may be ... what will we conclude? The warmists will say ... see? I told you so. CO2 is bad. We must stop it or we'll all fry when the sun returns to normal. Tax those btu's. The solar crowd will say ... you idiots. If we'd listened to you we'd all have frozen to death. Shovel more coal! Kind of like where we are today. Are you sure you want to be right? Missouriboy, I would prefer a gentle global warming to a catastrophic warming or a catastrophic cooling (Maunder Minimum). My prediction though isn't based on what I prefer. It's my expectation based on science and logic and is subject to change, as I have said, if there is an (unexpected) dimming of the sun. I agree that whatever happens, there will be differing explanations.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jan 30, 2017 20:09:26 GMT
Thanks GW. I'm going to read it.
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Jan 30, 2017 21:02:13 GMT
Graywolf, you've linked to a couple of interesting articles. I want to comment on one of the articles above later but for now I want to comment on the first link above which says that from 2003 to 2013 due to lower sea ice cover the arctic temperatures are warming at certain times of the year and the moisture in the air is increasing resulting in increased cloud cover. The big concern is not melting of sea ice since that doesn't add to the sea level height but major melting of the Greenland ice sheet could be a real problem. If I look at the following chart I can see that the warmer than average temperatures are during the winter months when the sun isn't shining inside the arctic circle. And during the peak summer months the temperatures are actually lower than average. When I look at previous years using the DMI link below warmer temperatures in the winter and slightly cooler temperatures in the summer is a consistent pattern over the 2003-2013 period mentioned in the article. ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.phpWhat is the explanation? Perhaps the heavier cloud cover helps retain the heat in the winter (less radiative loss). I see this in Arizona. Temperatures are warmer than normal on the few cloudy nights we have. It gets quite cold on clear winter nights. And in the summer in the arctic when the sun shines all the time, the increased cloud cover impedes the warming because the clouds reduce the insolation reaching the surface. So that explains the chart above. But how would that effect the melting of the Greenland sheet? In the winter when the temperatures are far below melting temperatures the fact that it is a little warmer doesn't matter. In the summer during the melt season, the fact that it is a little cooler means less melting. So the higher temperatures, because of when they occur, wouldn't seem to have much impact on melting and the overall result might even be less melting. But an even more important factor is that more clouds and more water vapor in the air means more precipitation which mostly comes as snow. More snowfall, of course, adds to the ice sheet. So from all of this it would seem logical that the size of the ice sheet might actually increase because of the increased snow and fairly constant melting. Let's look at the data. Sure enough the arctic ice sheet is growing at a healthy rate for very logical reasons. Graywolf, hopefully this will allow you to sleep better at night. And if I can get a $100,000 grant, maybe I'll write a paper.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Jan 31, 2017 1:11:16 GMT
Only $100,000? Duwayne, you are a cheapskate! TIP: Make sure your conclusion/discussion includes the words "more research is needed."
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 31, 2017 2:10:44 GMT
Thank you Duwayne. Excellent synopsis.
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Feb 2, 2017 21:14:24 GMT
Graywolf, I looked at the first link above to the paper which you provided in support of your views on dimming and brightening of the earth’s atmosphere. fallmeeting.agu.org/2015/files/2015/12/Wild-slides.pdfWild concludes that global temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere decline somewhat during the dimming periods and they climb during the brightness periods. This is shown on the chart from his paper. Wild also says that the Southern Hemisphere is not affected by the atmospheric dimming and brightening. So logically the Southern Hemisphere would be indicative of the real global warming which can be attributed, at least in part, to CO2. The chart shows a warming in the Southern Hemisphere over the dimming and brightening period of 0.08C per decade. Over a 60 year period the warming would be expected to be about 0.5C. A few years ago I posted the chart below showing my global warming prediction through the end of the century. Temperatures were projected to be flat for 30 years and then increase by 0.5C over the next 30 years for a total of 0.5C over 60 years which is the same as Wild’s calculation for the Southern Hemisphere rate. If you combine Wild’s Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere you will see a flat period followed by a rising period much like my chart. So my conclusion, Graywolf, is that having put forth the Wild paper you believe that much of the warming during the 1977 to 2007 period was due to something other than CO2, And like most of the rest of us on this site you are skeptical about the much higher warming rates caused by CO2 as projected by the IPCC.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 7, 2017 3:10:39 GMT
patriotpost.us/opinion/42741Earth is warmer now than in the late 1970s, the start of the satellite era. This can be explained largely to the turn of the Pacific and the Atlantic to their warm cycles. This is the “Bathroom Shower Theory” that I have used many times. Turn on a hot shower, and the bathroom will heat up until an equilibrium is reached. When the Pacific warmed, and the Atlantic followed, we came off a period in which they were cold in tandem. It is perfectly logical that with the oceans and especially the tropics — the thermostat for the globe — warming, the air has to warm until it reaches an equilibrium, which it appears to have done overall until the last 20 years when it has not warm
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Jul 5, 2017 23:31:23 GMT
As all the regulars on this site know, I predicted that the Global Temperatures would be flat during the 2007 to 2037 period. The rationale and calculation methods are covered in previous posts on this thread.
As of the end of June, 10 and a half years of the 30 year projected flat period are behind us. The average global temperatures of both RSS and UAH are now 0.01C below my prediction. The Hadcrut4 average global temperature for the 10 years and 5 months since 2007 is 0.03C above my prediction.
Averaging the error of the satellite measurements (-.01C) with the surface error (+0.03C) we get an average error of +0.01C. To put this in perspective, I think it's safe to say that this average error is significantly lower than the actual accuracy of the global temperature measurements themselves.
|
|