Last Build Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2017 02:57:20 +0000
Sat, 25 Mar 2017 02:57:20 +0000Geoengineering with stratospheric injection of water, alumina, CaCO3 launches now http://geoengineering.environment.harvard.edu/ http://www.pnas.org/content/113/52/14910.abstract mmm. anyone with a balloon and a bag of talc can play. what could go wrong ? idd
Fri, 24 Mar 2017 19:17:06 +0000Russell:
Mal protesteth undermuch.Doubtless that makes perfect sense to you, Russell, but I'm groping for your meaning. Perhaps you'll unpack a little?
Fri, 24 Mar 2017 19:04:54 +0000Gavin, to Thomas:
Your participation here is welcomed, but remember that this is not just a forum for you.Thank you, Gavin, for setting a reasonable standard. One sincerely hopes the signal-to-noise ratio on RC improves henceforth.
Fri, 24 Mar 2017 18:59:04 +0000I've been trying to understand Spencer and Christy (2017) did to produce their TMT v6, etc. For the MSU instruments, they took the on orbit measurements of individual foot print position from each scan and binned them into a 1x1 degree grid. The positioning in the grid depends on the "Earth Angle" of each view, thus the position for the nadir scan is different from those for the end scans. For example, at the equator crossing, a plot of the grid in a vertical direction would show these measurements binned into a V shaped displacement in the longitude direction with the nadir being at the tip of the V, thus there's no vertical alignment between the nadir grid location and the positions assigned to the other scans. A rough calculation along the Equator indicates that the orbits do not return to the same nadir grid location until 81 orbits later and after 81 orbits, there are still 200 other nadir grid locations with no data. Spencer and Christy fill in these empty locations by arbitrarily "smearing" the grid around each location to the 2 adjacent locations as well. They eventually process this gridded data into another 2.5 degree grid, etc., etc. moving toward a longitudinal average. As a consequence of this processing, it seems to me that their calculation using the gridded data with their second order polynomial fit procedure may not be so great. First off, it appears that in most cases, there's no alignment between the upper levels of the grid and nadir, thus they are always mixing different air masses when performing in the calculation. Whether this all works out OK on a monthly average is a question in my mind. Also, at the highest latitude where the MSU/AMSU are scanning in N-S direction, there are no nadir scans corresponding to the scans at the end of the swath, which extend further toward the poles. Does their "smearing" procedure shift from longitudinal along the equator to latitudinal near the poles? They don't say how they handle this situation. What ever they do, at polar latitudes, the scans are rather close together with considerable overlap, thus the grid positions receive several measurements during each day's operation, mixing several air masses in each day's grid binning process. For the AMSU data, they go straight to the 2.5 degree grid binning, missing out on a great opportunity to provide higher resolution data. As previously mentioned, they trick their polynomial fit by adjusting the selection of an "earth angle" to match the theoretical weighting of the MSU. All this processing results in moving the theoretical peak emission weighting to higher in the atmosphere, with the result being stronger impact from the stratosphere, while assuming that the same emission profile is appropriate at all latitudes and seasons. Nothing above gets into the other issues of calibration and merging of the data from each satellite. In sum, I'd say there several reasons to question the usefulness of their work in assessing AGW...
Fri, 24 Mar 2017 18:06:41 +0000Enough for me. Too many posters like Thomas dominating the site and too little actual science news/info. It's been informative 6 years but no more.
Fri, 24 Mar 2017 18:05:53 +0000mar at 293: can you elaborate on your read on the toggle of word "may" between the full article and the abstract? I would like to be certain that I understand what you think about that change because your take on things and posts have been generally high quality imho. HR at 294: the situation is sufficiently scary, right? we don't have to make up stuff. beautiful little round lakes! What's wrong with that development? CON at 297: I think you are correct to suggest that 30% lag in heat production. I like your phrase, "if we ever manage to hold CO2 steady" because that is exactly right. The process and changes required to hold CO2 steady, then we have to keep employing and expanding those processes and changes to start moving the needle in the other direction. Killian says we need to get down under 300 ppm. I don't think that is going to happen in my lifetime, but I would sure be relieved to see the needle stop going up cuz it would give weight to the discussion about what the target number should be. Right now, that discussion is pretty theoretical. Daily CO2 March 23, 2017: 406.66 ppm March 23, 2016: 405.32 ppm This is the ballgame, folks. Read'm and weep. or wear your hat backwards or whatever you think is a game-changer. what a treat to see post upon post about climate science on the site! Warm regards Mike
Fri, 24 Mar 2017 17:10:35 +0000#128 MA Rodger Many thanks for the correction. However, I am still slightly confused; possibly there's something I have not understood here. Is this year's maximum the lowest in the satellite record (for the last 38 years) or not? It was that point that really caught my attention, but are they wrong? Perhaps I should just e-mail them direct and ask ...
Fri, 24 Mar 2017 16:18:41 +0000285 The only winner in Thomas V. All Those Idiots Who Don't Have Lifetime Guardian subscriptions and Mention The Nation In their Wills is none other Eric Hoffer: ISBN 978-0-060-50591-2. Who unfortunately is dead.
Fri, 24 Mar 2017 14:55:21 +0000#287:
He concludes that the ECS is 2.5 (that is the number of degrees of warming for a doubling of CO2). That might be a gross underestimate. It all depends on how long one posits the lag between CO2 increases and temperature increases.Indeed. Maybe one way to approximately avoid the lag is to just use global land areas warming e.g. CRUTEM4. The fact is land areas are warming substantially faster than ocean areas and I guess that will continue. IIRC, Northern Hemisphere land areas are nearly at 1.5 degrees C of warming or at least 30% more than the entire globe. If we ever manage to hold CO2 steady, we could still be in for more than a further 30% increase in global warming eventually.
Fri, 24 Mar 2017 05:16:19 +0000288. Don't believe Chinese PR. The central government orders that coal plants be closed, that construction stop on new plants started, and that plans for new plants be abandoned. Mostly hot air. The political system in China is decentralized, and the local cities and states plan and build the coal plants. In the past they have paid little heed to such orders from the central government (even in spite of overcapacity). If they want to attract companies to build factories, they must have guaranteed abundant electric power, so there is competition throughout China to overbuild power plants. Another thing about China's attempt to limit CO2 - it has built massive solar arrays, and brags about it, but they largely sit there unused.