Forward step in forecasting global warming

Aug 10, 2008 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: PhysOrg Weblog

Arizona State University researchers have made a breakthrough in understanding the effect on climate change of a key component of urban pollution.

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 20 of70
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
LessHypeMoreFact

Mississauga, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Aug 11, 2008
 

Judged:

1

I recently saw a show on 'global dimming'. The worldwide reduction is sunlight ( about 4% average) that is due to the effects of nanoparticles (areosols). The effect was not due ONLY to the properties of the particles itself but included a strong component where the increased particles tended to produce smaller water droplets in clouds and thus more reflection.

Certainly this is an area where the current 'useful' models can be refined to more precisely measure local climate changes relative to the 'total sums' since aerosols tend to be effective locally, rather than being 'well mixed' as with GHGs and other elements.

And if global dimming HAS 'hidden' about 1.5 w/m^2 of warming then the IPCC forecasts are truly hopelessly optimistic.. I'm not sure I buy that yet, but certainly the area needs better study and more concern.
truthist

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Aug 11, 2008
 
"Because of the large uncertainty we have in the radiative forcing of aerosols, there is a corresponding large uncertainty in the degree of radiative forcing overall," Crozier says. "This introduces a large uncertainty in the degree of warming predicted by climate change models." This is sloppy language.

First,'large' has to be defined probabilistically in each context. Uncertainty in the aerosol properties does not necessarily mean a corresponding uncertainty in the predictions made by climate models that did not even use those properties.

I know, I know, they attack the competition with wild ill-stated claims. They say:

"When you hear about predictions of future warming or changes in precipitation globally, or in specific regions like the Southwestern United States, the predictions are based on computer model output that is ignoring brown carbon, so they are going to tend to be less accurate." Show us how so.

Blanket statements are fuel to bad arguments. Let there be science!
truthist

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Aug 11, 2008
 
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
I recently saw a show on 'global dimming'. The worldwide reduction is sunlight ( about 4% average) that is due to the effects of nanoparticles (areosols). The effect was not due ONLY to the properties of the particles itself but included a strong component where the increased particles tended to produce smaller water droplets in clouds and thus more reflection.
Certainly this is an area where the current 'useful' models can be refined to more precisely measure local climate changes relative to the 'total sums' since aerosols tend to be effective locally, rather than being 'well mixed' as with GHGs and other elements.
And if global dimming HAS 'hidden' about 1.5 w/m^2 of warming then the IPCC forecasts are truly hopelessly optimistic.. I'm not sure I buy that yet, but certainly the area needs better study and more concern.
Hello. Could you please cite the source of your 1.5 w/m^2? Thanks.
LessHypeMoreFact

Mississauga, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Aug 11, 2008
 
truthist wrote:
<quoted text>Hello. Could you please cite the source of your 1.5 w/m^2? Thanks.
A rather eye opening show on Nova, quoting James Hansen and recent work to incorporate global dimming into GCM modelling.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3310...

"JAMES HANSEN: Our estimate for the particle forcing is minus-one-and-a-half-watts- per-meter-squared. So that would imply a cooling of more than one degree Celsius."
Mr Giblets

India

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Aug 11, 2008
 
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
I recently saw a show on 'global dimming'. The worldwide reduction is sunlight ( about 4% average) that is due to the effects of nanoparticles (areosols). The effect was not due ONLY to the properties of the particles itself but included a strong component where the increased particles tended to produce smaller water droplets in clouds and thus more reflection.
Certainly this is an area where the current 'useful' models can be refined to more precisely measure local climate changes relative to the 'total sums' since aerosols tend to be effective locally, rather than being 'well mixed' as with GHGs and other elements.
And if global dimming HAS 'hidden' about 1.5 w/m^2 of warming then the IPCC forecasts are truly hopelessly optimistic.. I'm not sure I buy that yet, but certainly the area needs better study and more concern.
you bozos really do HOPE for a disaster, don't you? But then you were just as bad over the New Ice Age scam that you now pretend never happened.
LessHypeMoreFact

Mississauga, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Aug 12, 2008
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Mr Giblets wrote:
<quoted text>you bozos really do HOPE for a disaster, don't you? But then you were just as bad over the New Ice Age scam that you now pretend never happened.
I remember the 'aerosol cooling' issue and it was NOT promoted by any science. It was entirely an issue of 'speculative fiction'. I cannot remember a single person standing up and saying that this was a global crisis as anyone investigating the issue would soon find that climate science did not consider it a serious issue. The issue really involved 'killer smogs' more than climate change which was still in the early investigation.

Nor did my post 'hope for a disaster'. As I said, the global dimming hypothesis is still being resovled and I am not sure I buy the level of the effect suggested. A 1.5 w/m^m forcing is a MAJOR amount and ten times what was 'expected'. That said, I certainly think it is sufficienty important to resolve. A bear that may be at your door is important even if it isn't there. The issue is FINDING OUT as the consequence of ignoring the possibility is too dire if you find it IS.
truthist

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Aug 13, 2008
 
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
A rather eye opening show on Nova, quoting James Hansen and recent work to incorporate global dimming into GCM modelling.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3310...
"JAMES HANSEN: Our estimate for the particle forcing is minus-one-and-a-half-watts- per-meter-squared. So that would imply a cooling of more than one degree Celsius."
Thanks for the information.

Science marches on while some people try to muzzle it. Same old, same old.

Have a nice day.

P.S. I was wondering if there were evaporation data with the Salt Lake in Utah.

“dening those who deny nature. ”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Aug 15, 2008
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Gee, I have been saying that the models for global warming were not taking into account all high impact variables which was resulting in poor predictions. Now if they can only factor the sun in correctly then they may be able to get a prediction that is more accurate than a monkey thowing darts.
Cousin Jethro

Lady Lake, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Aug 15, 2008
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Seems like a plausible step forward -- has Exxon HQ been notified? Oh, I see they're already here -- sorry, tina anne, just kidding
Cousin Jethro

Lady Lake, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Aug 15, 2008
 

Judged:

1

1

1

EXXON Supremacy wrote:
<quoted text>
Your days are numbered, turd-face.
trollin, trollin, trollin, keep those comments trollin, Raw Dung! All our days are numbered; thanks for reminding me, 1589 days till 12 21 12 should you live so long, otherwise, so long, troll!
Cousin Jethro

Lady Lake, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Aug 15, 2008
 
EXXON Supremacy wrote:
Per Jovem!
You know how to count!
Who would have guessed?
Nonetheless, you're still an ugly turd-face all right.
Ugliness is in the eye of the beholder -- now, why don't you go to a site that might appreciate you:
http://thetrollreport.blogspot.com/

“dening those who deny nature. ”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Aug 16, 2008
 

Judged:

1

1

Cousin Jethro wrote:
Seems like a plausible step forward -- has Exxon HQ been notified? Oh, I see they're already here -- sorry, tina anne, just kidding
I let you tell them, I on the other hand notified Greenpeace, Sierra Club, and the ELF as soon as I found out. I thought they all needed a reason to get drunk this weekend. Then again now they actually do have something to moan and cry about now.
Cousin Jethro

Longwood, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Aug 16, 2008
 
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
I let you tell them, I on the other hand notified Greenpeace, Sierra Club, and the ELF as soon as I found out. I thought they all needed a reason to get drunk this weekend. Then again now they actually do have something to moan and cry about now.
Yeah, sure, they're so emotionally attached they just love to see hurricanes get stronger so they can jump up and down and say, "see I told you so!" Not. With info from the source article:
"Studies of the greenhouse effect that contribute directly to climate change have focused on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. But there are other components in the atmosphere that can contribute to warming or cooling including carbonaceous and sulfate particles from combustion of fossil fuels and biomass, salts from oceans and dust from deserts. Brown carbons from combustion processes are the least understood of these aerosol components."
Guess you better ease up on the hairspray and Pam for your frypans, tina (just kidding)

“dening those who deny nature. ”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Aug 16, 2008
 
Cousin Jethro wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, sure, they're so emotionally attached they just love to see hurricanes get stronger so they can jump up and down and say, "see I told you so!" Not. With info from the source article:
"Studies of the greenhouse effect that contribute directly to climate change have focused on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. But there are other components in the atmosphere that can contribute to warming or cooling including carbonaceous and sulfate particles from combustion of fossil fuels and biomass, salts from oceans and dust from deserts. Brown carbons from combustion processes are the least understood of these aerosol components."
Guess you better ease up on the hairspray and Pam for your frypans, tina (just kidding)
Then keep dreaming. The big reason that hurricanes are less of a problem with warming is wind shear. It prevents some storms from forming and weakens the ones that do form.

As far as global warming. Step outside about noon and look straight up. Your going to notice something that looks like a very bright light bulb. That is the sun. Right now the whole thing about brown carbos is being like to not global warming but global cooling. The reduction of which has been considered as the reason for the warming period that went from the eighties to two thousand.

Also I use teflon pans and make sure I take proper care of them. Also the hair spray has been CFC free for decades now.
Fat Albert

Longwood, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Aug 16, 2008
 
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Then keep dreaming. The big reason that hurricanes are less of a problem with warming is wind shear. It prevents some storms from forming and weakens the ones that do form.
As far as global warming. Step outside about noon and look straight up. Your going to notice something that looks like a very bright light bulb. That is the sun. Right now the whole thing about brown carbos is being like to not global warming but global cooling. The reduction of which has been considered as the reason for the warming period that went from the eighties to two thousand.
Also I use teflon pans and make sure I take proper care of them. Also the hair spray has been CFC free for decades now.
I guess someone forgot to tell your wonderful theory to Katrina. If the warming period ended at 2000, how come the record recent high was in 2007? Good, thing about your hairspray, how about your breath spray? If your breath stinks as much as your posts, I don't know what your significant other might say...all in good fun, tina anne, keep working with us and we'll have you like one of Jackson's men, "with bark on," no offense to your trees or any dogs, hopefully
LessHypeMoreFact

Mississauga, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Aug 18, 2008
 

Judged:

1

tina anne wrote:
Gee, I have been saying that the models for global warming were not taking into account all high impact variables which was resulting in poor predictions. Now if they can only factor the sun in correctly then they may be able to get a prediction that is more accurate than a monkey thowing darts.
Unfortunately for your rant, climate models HAVE showns utility better than 'throwing darts' and are continually being improved as this article shows.
LessHypeMoreFact

Mississauga, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Aug 18, 2008
 
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Then keep dreaming. The big reason that hurricanes are less of a problem with warming is wind shear. It prevents some storms from forming and weakens the ones that do form.
I don't see any evidence that the question is answered either way. If the study on hurricane frequnecy is correct, it would indicate that shear does NOT chagne the frequency and if warmer waters can feed more energy into a storm, GW will result in stronger storms.

I think that there is a 'missing variable' here. The SIZE of the storm. I note that recent storms have be VERY wide scale. It is possilbe that rather than being more intense, some storms just become bigger?
Fat Albert

Altamonte Springs, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Aug 18, 2008
 
Katrina was both wide and intense

“dening those who deny nature. ”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Aug 18, 2008
 

Judged:

1

Fat Albert wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess someone forgot to tell your wonderful theory to Katrina. If the warming period ended at 2000, how come the record recent high was in 2007? Good, thing about your hairspray, how about your breath spray? If your breath stinks as much as your posts, I don't know what your significant other might say...all in good fun, tina anne, keep working with us and we'll have you like one of Jackson's men, "with bark on," no offense to your trees or any dogs, hopefully
The big deal with katrinia was that it hit New Orleans which was a city located below sea level and less prepared than any other place in the US. The same storm hit Florida and was handled in a few weeks. It also hit Missippi and Texas then Texas was hit by another a short time later and still managed to get itself sorted out.

In a nut shell if Katrinia had hit only florida or any place else it would be like Hurricane Andrew, occasionally mentioned but pretty much forgotten. The fact that it is still having such a impact says more about the local goverment than the storm.

At least you and Katrinina have something in common, full of nothing but air and trying to blow everyone away with nothing.

“dening those who deny nature. ”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22
Aug 18, 2008
 

Judged:

1

1

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Unfortunately for your rant, climate models HAVE showns utility better than 'throwing darts' and are continually being improved as this article shows.
Only to five days out then they are are as accurate as the money was.
The orginal monkey thowing darts was a control for a experiment involving stock market experts. While the experts invested the money based on thier expertise the money did it by throwing darts at a board covered with various chioces. At the end of the experiment the monkey had made the most money. Which describes alot of these models and experts predictions.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1 - 20 of70
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••