DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Renewable Revolution
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Catastrophic Climate Change
*****************************************************
#Post#: 358--------------------------------------------------
Re: 🚩 Global Climate Chaos ☠️
By: AGelbert Date: November 16, 2013, 2:12 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[img width=640
height=380]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-161113150709.png[/img]
#Post#: 359--------------------------------------------------
Re: 🚩 Global Climate Chaos ☠️
By: AGelbert Date: November 16, 2013, 4:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[move]Reposted from the Doomstead Diner where I am having a
"debate" with Global Warming denier.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/3ztzsjm.gif
[/move]
I think these scientists from a document written in 1984 don't
have an agenda. How about you, Snowleapard? Can you trust what
these fellows say?
Solar Disinfection of Drinking Water and Oral Rehydration
Solutions
Guidelines for Household Application in Developing Countries
Aftim Acra - Zeina Raffoul - Yester Karahagopian
Department of Environmental Health
Faculty of Health Science - American University of Beirut
Beirut, 1984
1.Foreword
2.Oral Rehydration Therapy (ORT) ◾The Revolution for
Children
◾The Four Simple Technologies
◾Global Diarrhoeal Diseases Control Programs
◾Causes, Transmission, and Control of Childhood Diarrhoea
3.Oral Rehydration Solutions (ORS) ◾The Practical Issues
◾Domestic Formulations
◾Disinfection by Boiling
4.Solar Energy ◾Fundamental Considerations
◾From Sun to
Earth
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/34y5mvr.gif
◾World Distribution
◾A Competitor
◾Some Practical Hints
5.Solar Disinfection Studies ◾Drinking Water
◾Oral Rehydration Solutions
6.Appendix
Originally published by UNICEF
Regional Office for the Middle East and North Africa
P.O.Box 811721 - Amman, Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan
1984
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------
Created by the Documentation Center at AUB in collaboration with
Al Mashriq of Høgskolen i Østfold, Norway.
970730/wa-bl/980215/bl - Email: almashriq@hiof.no
Solar Energy
From Sun to Earth
Outer Space
The enormous amount of energy continuously emitted by the sun is
dispersed into outer space in all directions. Only a small
fraction of this energy is intercepted by the earth and other
solar planets.
The solar energy reaching the periphery of the earth's
atmosphere is considered to be constant for all practical
purposes, and is known as the solar constant. Because of the
difficulty in achieving accurate measurements, the exact value
of the solar constant is not known with certainty but is
believed to be between 1,353 and 1,395 W/m2 (approximately 1.4
kW/m2, or 2.0 cal/cm2/min). The solar constant value is
estimated on the basis of the solar radiation received on a unit
area exposed perpendicularly to the rays of the sun at an
average distance between the sun and the earth.
In passing through outer space, which is characterized by
vacuum, the different types of solar energy remain intact and
are not modified until the radiation reaches the top of the
earth's atmosphere. In outer space, therefore, one would expect
to encounter the types of radiation listed in Table 1, which
are: gamma ray, X-ray, ultraviolet, and infrared radiations.
Atmospheric Effects
Not all of the solar radiation received at the periphery of the
atmosphere reaches the surfaces of the earth. This is because
the earth's atmosphere plays an important role in selectively
controlling the passage towards the earth's surface of the
various components of solar radiation.
A considerable portion of solar radiation is reflected back into
outer space upon striking the uppermost layers of the
atmosphere, and also from the tops of clouds. In the course of
penetration through the atmosphere, some of the incoming
radiation is either absorbed or scattered in all directions by
atmospheric gases, vapours, and dust particles. In fact, there
are two processes known to be involved in atmospheric
scattering of solar radiation. These are termed selective
scattering and non-selective scattering. These two processes are
determined by the different sizes of particles in the
atmosphere.
Selective scattering is so named because radiations with shorter
wavelengths are selectively scattered much more extensively than
those with longer wavelengths. It is caused by atmospheric
gases or particles that are smaller in dimension than the
wavelength of a particular radiation. Such scattering could be
caused by gas molecules, smoke, fumes, and haze. Under clear
atmospheric conditions, therefore, selective scattering would be
much less severe than when the atmosphere is extensively
polluted from anthropogenic sources.
Selective atmospheric scattering is, broadly speaking, inversely
proportional to the wavelength of radiation and, therefore,
decreases in the following order of magnitude: far UV > near UV
> violet > blue > green > yellow > orange > red > infrared.
Accordingly, the most severely scattered radiation is that which
falls in the ultraviolet, violet, and blue bands of the
spectrum. The scattering effect on radiation in these three
bands is roughly ten times as great as on the red rays of
sunlight. 8)
It is interesting to note that the selective scattering of
violet and blue light by the atmosphere causes the blue colour
of the sky. When the sun is directly overhead at around noon
time, little selective scattering occurs and the sun appears
white. This is because sunlight at this time passes through the
minimum thickness of atmosphere. At sunrise and sunset, however,
sunlight passes obliquely through a much thicker layer of
atmosphere. This results in maximum atmospheric scattering of
violet and blue light, with only a little effect on the red rays
of sunlight. Hence, the sun appears to be red in colour at
sunrise and sunset.
Non-selective scattering occurring in the lower atmosphere is
caused by dust, fog, and clouds with particle sizes more than
ten times the wavelength of the components of solar radiation.
Since the amount of scattering is equal for all wavelengths,
clouds and fog appear white although their water particles are
colourless.
Atmospheric gases also absorb solar energy at certain wavelength
intervals called absorption bands, in contrast to the wavelength
regions characterized by high transmittance of solar radiation
called atmospheric transmission bands, or atmospheric windows.
The degree of absorption of solar radiation passing through the
outer atmosphere depends upon the component rays of sunlight and
their wavelengths. The gamma rays, X-rays, and ultraviolet
radiation less than 200 nm in wavelength are absorbed by oxygen
and nitrogen. Most of the radiation with a range of wavelengths
from 200 to 300 nm is absorbed by the ozone (O3) layer in the
upper atmosphere. These absorption phenomena are essential for
living things because prolonged exposure to radiation of
wavelengths shorter than 300 nm destroys living tissue.
Solar radiation in the red and infrared regions of the spectrum
at wavelengths greater than 700 nm is absorbed to some extent by
carbon dioxide, ozone, and water present in the atmosphere in
the form of vapour and condensed droplets (Table 1). In fact,
the water droplets present in clouds not only absorb rays of
long wavelengths, but also scatter some of the solar radiation
of short wavelengths.
Ground Level
As a result of the atmospheric phenomena involving reflection,
scattering, and absorption of radiation, the quantity of solar
energy that ultimately reaches the earth's surface is much
reduced in intensity as it traverses the atmosphere. The amount
of reduction varies with the radiation wavelength, and depends
on the length of the atmospheric path through which the solar
radiation traverses. The intensity of the direct beams of
sunlight thus depends on the altitude of the sun, and also
varies with such factors as latitude, season, cloud coverage,
and atmospheric pollutants.
The total solar radiation received at ground level includes both
direct radiation and indirect (or diffuse) radiation. Diffuse
radiation is the component of total radiation caused by
atmospheric scattering and reflection of the incident radiation
on the ground. Reflection from the ground is primarily visible
light with a maximum radiation peak at a wavelength of 555 nm
(green light). The relatively small amount of energy radiated
from the earth at an average ambient temperature of 17°C at its
surface consists of infrared radiation with a peak
concentration at 970 nm. This invisible radiation is dominant
at night.
During daylight hours, the amount of diffuse radiation may be as
much as 10% of the total solar radiation at noon time even when
the sky is clear. This value may rise to about 20% in the early
morning and late afternoon.
In conclusion, therefore, it is evident that in cloudy weather
the total radiation received at ground level is greatly reduced,
the amount of reduction being dependent on cloud coverage and
cloud thickness. Under extreme cloud conditions a significant
proportion of the incident radiation would be in the form of
scattered or diffuse light. In addition, lesser solar radiation
is expected during the early and late hours of the day. These
facts are of practical value for the proper utilization of solar
radiation for such purposes as destruction of microorganisms.
HTML http://almashriq.hiof.no/lebanon/600/610/614/solar-water/unesco/21-23.html
HTML http://almashriq.hiof.no/lebanon/600/610/614/solar-water/unesco/21-23.html
Agelbert NOTE: The conclusion " it is evident that in cloudy
weather the total radiation received at ground level is greatly
reduced..." DOES NOT mean, as the Global Warming deniers have
tried to make us believe, that the ATMOSPHERE heats up less. It
means that to disinfect water (kill the microrganisms) the
radiation arriving on the SURFACE needs to have less cloud
cover.
But as you read further up, inside the atmosphere (at cloud
level well below the ozone layer) the absorption frequencies of
gases can scatter the radiation throughout the atmosphere. The
reflected light (visible spectrum) from clouds and surface DOES
exit the planet. HOWEVER, the Earth CONSTATLY radiates in the IR
band which CO2, water and methane trap quite handily because of
their ABSORPTION FREQUENCIES. So all that increased albedo
business that Global Warming deniers want to push on us, while
it will increase VISIBLE light reflection, won't do BEANS to
stop the ONLY HEAT that is radiated by this planet (IR).
BOTTOM LINE: Absorption frequencies are the KEY to understanding
how the atmosphere heats or cools. The particulate scattering
plays a role but the absorption frequencies are the 800 pound
gorilla.
[img width=640
height=400]
HTML http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/Breakdown_of_the_incoming_solar_energy.svg[/img]
HTML http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy
HTML http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy
Now lets get back to sun spots for a bit of humor. Question:
What percentage of the suns TOTAL OUTPUT IN ENERGY reaches top
levels of the atmosphere BEFORE it is further selectively
reduced by the atmosphere? [/I]
I'll save you the math: [img width=30
height=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113185047.png[/img]<br
/>[quote][i]The Earth intercepts only about one-half of
one-billionth of the Sun's total energy output. :o[/quote]
HTML http://cybele.bu.edu/courses/gg312fall02/documents/lab01.pdf
HTML http://cybele.bu.edu/courses/gg312fall02/documents/lab01.pdf
Do you now understand why all that BS about sunspot lessened
activity and a "weakening" sun doesn't mean JACK SHIT to us on
this planet. The "weakening" of the sun has to be hundreds of
thousands of time greater than the piddling amount observed to
amount to a hill of temperature BEANs on Earth.
That's why I have told Snowleapard that what he is pushing is
baseless, but CLEVER, pro-fossil fuel, context free, IRRELEVANT
propaganda. [img width=80
height=80]
HTML http://www.imgion.com/images/01/Angry-animated-smiley.jpg[/img]<br
/>
Snowleapard. I CHALLENGE YOU to doubt the three sources I just
gave as to accuracy and TRUTH. If you do, you are bought or
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/p8.gif.
[url=
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/index.php]Renewable<br
/>Revolution
HTML http://dl3.glitter-graphics.net/pub/465/465823jzy0y15obs.gif
#Post#: 360--------------------------------------------------
Re: 🚩 Global Climate Chaos ☠️
By: AGelbert Date: November 16, 2013, 4:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hey Snowleopard, how about these folks from Oklahoma? Are they
trustworthy? I think so! Does that mean YOU DON'T? (full
explanation for this type of behavior, when it isn't a conscious
decision, here
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/who-can-you-trust/mechanisms-of-prejudice-hidden-and-not-hidden/msg348/#msg348)
Oklahoma Climatological Survey
Earth's Energy Budget
Part 2
Principle
Absorption and re-emission of radiation at the earth's surface
is only one part of an intricate web of heat transfer in the
earth's planetary domain. Equally important are selective
absorption and emission of radiation from molecules in the
atmosphere. If the earth did not have an atmosphere, surface
temperatures would be too cold to sustain life.
If too many gases which absorb and emit infrared radiation were
present in the atmosphere, surface temperatures would be too hot
to sustain life.
HTML http://okfirst.mesonet.org/train/meteorology/EnergyBudget2.html
#Post#: 372--------------------------------------------------
Re: 🚩 Global Climate Chaos ☠️
By: AGelbert Date: November 17, 2013, 3:13 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Global Warming Since 1997 Underestimated by Half
Filed under: Climate Science
Instrumental Record
— stefan @ 13 November 2013
A new study by British and Canadian researchers shows that the
global temperature rise of the past 15 years has been greatly
underestimated. The reason is the data gaps in the weather
station network, especially in the Arctic. If you fill these
data gaps using satellite measurements, the warming trend is
more than doubled in the widely used HadCRUT4 data, and the
much-discussed “warming pause” has virtually disappeared.
Obtaining the globally averaged temperature from weather station
data has a well-known problem: there are some gaps in the data,
especially in the polar regions and in parts of Africa. As long
as the regions not covered warm up like the rest of the world,
that does not change the global temperature curve.
But errors in global temperature trends arise if these areas
evolve differently from the global mean. That’s been the case
over the last 15 years in the Arctic, which has warmed
exceptionally fast, as shown by satellite and reanalysis data
and by the massive sea ice loss there. This problem was analysed
for the first time by Rasmus in 2008 at RealClimate, and it was
later confirmed by other authors in the scientific literature.
The “Arctic hole” is the main reason for the difference between
the NASA GISS data and the other two data sets of near-surface
temperature, HadCRUT and NOAA. I have always preferred the GISS
data because NASA fills the data gaps by interpolation from the
edges, which is certainly better than not filling them at all.
A new gap filler
Now Kevin Cowtan (University of York) and Robert Way (University
of Ottawa) have developed a new method to fill the data gaps
using satellite data.
It sounds obvious and simple, but it’s not. Firstly, the
satellites cannot measure the near-surface temperatures but only
those overhead at a certain altitude range in the troposphere.
And secondly, there are a few question marks about the long-term
stability of these measurements (temporal drift).
Cowtan and Way circumvent both problems by using an established
geostatistical interpolation method called kriging – but they do
not apply it to the temperature data itself (which would be
similar to what GISS does), but to the difference between
satellite and ground data. So they produce a hybrid temperature
field. This consists of the surface data where they exist. But
in the data gaps, it consists of satellite data that have been
converted to near-surface temperatures, where the difference
between the two is determined by a kriging interpolation from
the edges. As this is redone for each new month, a possible
drift of the satellite data is no longer an issue.
Prerequisite for success is, of course, that this difference is
sufficiently smooth, i.e. has no strong small-scale structure.
This can be tested on artificially generated data gaps, in
places where one knows the actual surface temperature values but
holds them back ​​in the calculation. Cowtan and Way
perform extensive validation tests, which demonstrate that their
hybrid method provides significantly better results than a
normal interpolation on the surface data as done by GISS.
The surprising result
Cowtan and Way apply their method to the HadCRUT4 data, which
are state-of-the-art except for their treatment of data gaps.
For 1997-2012 these data show a relatively small warming trend
of only 0.05 °C per decade – which has often been misleadingly
called a “warming pause”. The new IPCC report writes:
Due to natural variability, trends based on short records are
very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in
general reflect long-term climate trends. As one example, the
rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05
to +0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is
smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12
[0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade).
But after filling the data gaps this trend is 0.12 °C per decade
and thus exactly equal to the long-term trend mentioned by the
IPCC.
[img width=640
height=470]
HTML http://www.realclimate.org/images//Cowtan.png[/img]
Cowtan
The corrected data (bold lines) are shown in the graph compared
to the uncorrected ones (thin lines). The temperatures of the
last three years have become a little warmer, the year 1998 a
little cooler.
The trend of 0.12 °C is at first surprising, because one would
have perhaps expected that the trend after gap filling has a
value close to the GISS data, i.e. 0.08 °C per decade. Cowtan
and Way also investigated that difference. It is due to the fact
that NASA has not yet implemented an improvement of sea surface
temperature data which was introduced last year in the HadCRUT
data (that was the transition from the HadSST2 the HadSST3 data
– the details can be found e.g. here and here). The authors
explain this in more detail in their extensive background
material. Applying the correction of ocean temperatures to the
NASA data, their trend becomes 0.10 °C per decade, very close to
the new optimal reconstruction.
Conclusion
The authors write in their introduction:
While short term trends are generally treated with a suitable
level of caution by specialists in the field, they feature
significantly in the public discourse on climate change.
This is all too true. A media analysis has shown that at least
in the U.S., about half of all reports about the new IPCC report
mention the issue of a “warming pause”, even though it plays a
very minor role in the conclusions of the IPCC. Often the tenor
was that the alleged “pause” raises some doubts about global
warming and the warnings of the IPCC. We knew about the study of
Cowtan & Way for a long time, and in the face of such media
reporting it is sometimes not easy for researchers to keep such
information to themselves. But I respect the attitude of the
authors to only go public with their results once they’ve been
published in the scientific literature. This is a good principle
that I have followed with my own work as well.
The public debate about the alleged “warming pause” was
misguided from the outset, because far too much was read into a
cherry-picked short-term trend. Now this debate has become
completely baseless, because the trend of the last 15 or 16
years is nothing unusual – even despite the record El Niño year
at the beginning of the period. It is still a quarter less than
the warming trend since 1980, which is 0.16 °C per decade. But
that’s not surprising when one starts with an extreme El Niño
and ends with persistent La Niña conditions, and is also running
through a particularly deep and prolonged solar minimum in the
second half. As we often said, all this is within the usual
variability around the long-term global warming trend and no
cause for excited over-interpretation.
HTML http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/global-warming-since-1997-underestimated-by-half/#more-16173
[move][i]A couple CHOICE comments from the
bought-and-paid-for-Denier-Squad [img width=80
height=055]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-241013183046.jpeg[/img]<br
/>and the informed, erudite and clear smack down
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/cowboypistol.gif
of the Real
Climate Blog Scientists [img width=40
height=40]
HTML http://www.clker.com/cliparts/c/8/f/8/11949865511933397169thumbs_up_nathan_eady_01.svg.hi.png[/img]<br
/>:[/I][/move]
[quote]
Blair Dowden says:
13 Nov 2013 at 4:40 PM
Dr. Kevin Cowtan
(
HTML http://www.york.ac.uk/chemistry/staff/academic/a-c/kcowtan/
HTML http://www.york.ac.uk/chemistry/staff/academic/a-c/kcowtan/)
is
a chemist at the University of York specializing in X-ray
crystallography. I do not see any hint of a connection with his
work to climate change. Robert Way
(
HTML http://uottawa.academia.edu/RobertWay
HTML http://uottawa.academia.edu/RobertWay)
is a graduate student in
geography at the University of Ottawa, but at least one of his
few papers is somewhat relevant. These are not the
qualifications I would expect for the authors of such a ground
breaking paper. (This comment seemed to get lost, so I am
posting it again.)
[Response: With the amount of open data available for anyone to
analyse, this is not such a stretch. There are many good papers
from 'outsiders' in the literature and in general this kind of
constructive input should be welcomed (as with work done by Zeke
Hausfather, Troy Masters etc.). - gavin]
[Response: p.s. It is well worth looking at his impressive
citation record. I think it is excellent if top scientists from
other fields make methodological contributions to climate
science. -stefan]
12
Peter Lilley says:
13 Nov 2013 at 4:47 PM
Why do nearly all data reanalyses on this site show the warming
is greater than the raw data?
[Response: Not true.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/2rzukw3.gif
The raw SST data show much larger trends that turned out to be
spurious due to changes in measuring techniques. The GISTEMP
analyses correct for an urban heating effect that would
otherwise lead to a (slightly) stronger trend globally.
Homogeneity corrections at GHCN go both ways. The analysis in
this instance is correcting for an obvious hole in the HadCRUT4
data (mainly the Arctic) which even you know has been warming
faster.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/gen152.gifYour
question
therefore smacks of a desire to have lower trends for reasons
that are not clear. [img width=40
height=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png[/img]<br
/>
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/snapoutofit.gif
I prefer to take
the info as it comes rather than wishing it were otherwise. -
gavin] [img width=50
height=50]
HTML http://www.imgion.com/images/01/Angry-animated-smiley.jpg[/img]<br
/>
[/quote]
#Post#: 394--------------------------------------------------
Re: 🚩 Global Climate Chaos ☠️
By: AGelbert Date: November 19, 2013, 12:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
October 2013 Antarctic ice largest extent since records began in
1979! Is Snowleopard vindicated? Does Agelbert have to eat a
snowball with his crow? :P
HTML http://www.smileyvault.com/albums/stock/thumb_smiley-sign0105.gif
October was a RECORD HOT MONTH GLOBALLY!
[move][b]Nevertheless, expect the Global Warming Deniers to do
some world class mendacious "Antarctic ice is growing at a
record pace!
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/acigar.gif
Global
Warming is a hoax!"[/I]
HTML http://www.u.arizona.edu/~patricia/cute-collection/smileys/lying-smiley.gif<br
/>cherry picking. [img width=40
height=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png[/img]<br
/>[/move]
[move][i]Read the EVIDENCE that Global WARMING hasn't "paused"
but is, in fact, worsening![/move]
[img width=640
height=320]
HTML http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/extremes/201310.gif[/img]
During October 2013, most of the world land areas experienced
warmer-than-average temperatures, with the most notable
departures from the 1981–2010 average across Alaska,
northwestern Canada, northwestern Africa, and parts of north
central and southern Asia.
The departure from the 1981–2010 average in these locations
varied between +2°C to +5°C or greater. When comparing the
October 2013 departure from average with the location's period
of record (minimum of 80 years), parts of Alaska, northwestern
Canada, northwestern Africa, and southern Australia experienced
their warmest October temperature on record.
[img width=640
height=480]
HTML http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/map-percentile-mntp/201310.gif[/img]
As shown in the anomalies map, some areas that had departures
that were above the 1981–2010 average, but lower in
magnitude—such as Australia, Mexico, most of Africa, western and
central Europe, northern and southern Argentina, and parts of
the Caribbean—fell in the much-warmer-than-average category, as
shown in the percentiles map, with some locations in the
Caribbean having their warmest October on record.
Some locations across the globe experienced departures that were
below the 1981–2010 average. These areas include most of the
western half of the United States, northern parts of the Middle
East, and parts of central South America, western Russia and the
Russian Far East. When comparing each location's October 2013
temperature with their respective period of record, the northern
Middle East experienced much-cooler-than-average temperatures,
while the rest had near-average to cooler-than-average
temperatures. There were no land areas that experienced record
coldest temperatures.
Averaged as a whole, the temperature across the land surfaces
was 0.98°C (1.76°F) higher than the 20th century average of
9.3°C (48.7°F)—tying with 2012 as the eighth warmest October
since records began in 1880.
This was also the 21st consecutive October with a
warmer-than-average temperature. The last October with
below-average temperatures occurred in 1992, when the global
land temperature was 0.04°C (0.07°F) below the 20th century
average.
The last below-average global land temperature for any month was
February 1994. When averaging the temperature across the land
surfaces across each hemisphere, the Northern Hemisphere
experienced its seventh warmest October on record, with a
departure from the 20th century average of +1.01°C (+1.82°F),
while the Southern Hemisphere's October 2013 land surface
temperature was +0.90°C (+1.62°F) higher than the 20th century
average—the eighth warmest October on record.
Select national information is highlighted below. (Please note
that different countries report anomalies with respect to
different base periods. The information provided here is based
directly upon these data):
•For the 15th consecutive month (since August 2012), Australia
experienced above-average temperatures. The nationally averaged
October maximum temperature was the third warmest on record with
a departure from the 1961–1990 average of +2.1°C. Minimum
temperatures were also above average, but did not rank among the
top ten warmest on record. The mean national temperature was
1.43°C above average—the seventh warmest since national
temperature records began in 1910, according to Australia's
Bureau of Meteorology. Also, the 12-month (November 2012 to
October 2013) mean temperature for the nation was 1.3°C above
the 1961–1990 average—the highest 12-month period average for
the nation. This value surpasses the previous record set the two
previous months, +1.25°C (October 2012 to September 2013) and
+1.11°C (September 2012 to August 2013). This is also 0.22°C
higher than any 12-month period prior to 2013.
•Spain experienced warm temperatures during October, with an
average monthly temperature of 17.5°C or 2.1°C above the
1971–2000 average. This resulted in the sixth warmest October
since national records began in 1961.
•In Austria, the October 2013 temperature was 1.1°C warmer than
the 1981–2010 average—the warmest October since 2006 and the
25th warmest October since national records began in 1767.
•The national temperature in Germany was 10.6°C or 1.4°C warmer
than the 1981–2010 average, resulting in the 11th warmest
October since national records began in 1881.
Across the oceans, temperature departures from 1981–2010 tend to
be smaller than across the land surfaces. According to the
percentiles map, much-warmer-than-average conditions were
present across the tropical Atlantic Ocean, and along the
European and the northeastern United States coasts, the tropical
Western Pacific Ocean, the south-central Pacific Ocean, and
across parts of the Indian Ocean. Some ocean areas in the
Caribbean, western and south-central Pacific Ocean, and Indian
Ocean experienced their warmest October temperature on record.
ENSO-neutral (neither El Niño nor La Niña) conditions persisted
across much of the tropical Pacific Ocean during October.
According to NOAA's Climate Prediction Center, neutral
conditions are favored through the Northern Hemisphere spring
2014. Averaged globally, the global ocean temperature was 0.50°C
(0.90°F) above the 20th century average, ranking as the eighth
warmest October on record.
[img width=640
height=480]
HTML http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/map-percentile-mntp/201310.gif[/img]
Averaging the globe as a whole, the temperature across land and
ocean surfaces combined during October 2013 was 0.63°C (1.13°F)
above the 1901–2000 average of 14.0°C (57.1°F)—the seventh
warmest October since records began in 1880. It also marked the
37th consecutive October and 344th consecutive month (more than
28 years) with a global temperature above the 20th century
average. The last below-average October global temperature was
October 1976 and the last below-average global temperature for
any month was February 1985. The warmest October on record
occurred in 2003 when global land and ocean surface temperatures
were 0.74°C (1.33°F) above the 20th century average, while the
coldest October occurred in 1912 [-0.57°C (-1.03°F)].
HTML http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/
#Post#: 400--------------------------------------------------
Re: 🚩 Global Climate Chaos ☠️
By: AGelbert Date: November 19, 2013, 5:34 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Simple physics and climate
Filed under: Climate modelling
Climate Science
Greenhouse gases
Sun-earth connections
— rasmus @ 12 November 2013
No doubt, our climate system is complex and messy. Still, we can
sometimes make some inferences about it based on well-known
physical principles. Indeed, the beauty of physics is that a
complex systems can be reduced into simple terms that can be
quantified, and the essential aspects understood.
A recent paper by Sloan and Wolfendale (2013) provides an
example where they derive a simple conceptual model of how the
greenhouse effect works from first principles. They show the
story behind the expression saying that a doubling in CO2 should
increase the forcing by a factor of 1+log|2|/log|CO2|. I have a
fondness for such simple conceptual models (e.g. I’ve made my
own attempt posted at arXiv) because they provide a general
picture of the essence – of course their precision is limited by
their simplicity.
However, the main issue discussed in the paper by Sloan and
Wolfendale was not the greenhouse effect, but rather the
question about galactic cosmic rays and climate. The discussion
of the greenhouse effect was provided as a reference to the
cosmic rays.
Even though we have discussed this question several times here
at RC, Sloan and Wolfendale introduce some new information in
connection with radiation, ionization, and cloud formation. Even
after having dug into all these other aspects, they do not find
much evidence for the cosmic rays playing an important role.
Their conclusions fit nicely with my own findings that also
recently were published in the journal Environmental Research
Letters.
The cosmic ray hypothesis is weakened further by observational
evidence from satellites, as shown in another recent paper by
Krissansen-Totton and Davies (2013) in Geophysical Research
Letters, which also concludes that the there is no statistically
significant correlations between cosmic rays and global albedo
or globally averaged cloud height. Neither did they find any
evidence for any regional or lagged correlations.
It’s nice to see that the Guardian has picked up these findings.
Agelbert NOTE: IT will ALSO be nice as well as EDUCATIONAL and
significant [img width=40
height=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png[/img]<br
/>to observe who DIDN'T pick up on these findings (e.g.
Globalresearch.org - Et tu Brute? [img width=50
height=50]
HTML http://www.imgion.com/images/01/Angry-animated-smiley.jpg[/img]<br
/> ).
Earlier in October, Almeida et al., 2013 had a paper published
in Nature on results from the CLOUD experiment at CERN. They
found that galactic cosmic rays exert only a small influence on
the formation of sulphuric acid–dimethylamine clusters (the
embryonic stage before aerosols may act as cloud condensation
nuclei). The authors also reported that the experimental results
were reproduced by a dynamical model, based on quantum chemical
calculations.
Some may ask why we keep revisiting the question about cosmic
rays and climate, after presenting all the evidence to the
contrary. ???
One reason is that science is never settled, and there are still
some lingering academic communities nourishing the idea that
changes in the sun or cosmic rays play a role. ;) For this
reason, a European project was estaqblished in 2011, COST-action
TOSCA (Towards a more complete assessment of the impact of solar
variability on the Earth’s climate), whose objective is to
provide a better understanding of the “hotly debated role of the
Sun in climate change” (not really in the scientific fora,
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/34y5mvr.gif
but more in the
general public discourse
HTML http://www.u.arizona.edu/~patricia/cute-collection/smileys/lying-smiley.gifhttp://www.pic4ever.com/images/2rzukw3.gif).<br
/>
ps [img width=30
height=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113185047.png[/img]<br
/>
Oldenborgh et al. (2013) also questioned the hypothesised link
between extremely cold winter conditions in Europe and weak
solar activity, but their analysis did not reproduce such
claims.
References
1. T. Sloan, and A.W. Wolfendale, "Cosmic rays, solar activity
and the climate", Environmental Research Letters, vol. 8, pp.
045022, 2013.
HTML http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/4/045022
2. J. Krissansen-Totton, and R. Davies, "Investigation of cosmic
ray-cloud connections using MISR", Geophysical Research Letters,
vol. 40, pp. 5240-5245, 2013.
HTML http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/grl.50996
3. J. Almeida, S. Schobesberger, A. Kürten, I.K. Ortega, O.
Kupiainen-Määttä, A.P. Praplan, A. Adamov, A. Amorim, F.
Bianchi, M. Breitenlechner, A. David, J. Dommen, N.M. Donahue,
A. Downard, E. Dunne, J. Duplissy, S. Ehrhart, R.C. Flagan, A.
Franchin, R. Guida, J. Hakala, A. Hansel, M. Heinritzi, H.
Henschel, T. Jokinen, H. Junninen, M. Kajos, J. Kangasluoma, H.
Keskinen, A. Kupc, T. Kurtén, A.N. Kvashin, A. Laaksonen, K.
Lehtipalo, M. Leiminger, J. Leppä, V. Loukonen, V. Makhmutov, S.
Mathot, M.J. McGrath, T. Nieminen, T. Olenius, A. Onnela, T.
Petäjä, F. Riccobono, I. Riipinen, M. Rissanen, L. Rondo, T.
Ruuskanen, F.D. Santos, N. Sarnela, S. Schallhart, R.
Schnitzhofer, J.H. Seinfeld, M. Simon, M. Sipilä, Y. Stozhkov,
F. Stratmann, A. Tomé, J. Tröstl, G. Tsagkogeorgas, P.
Vaattovaara, Y. Viisanen, A. Virtanen, A. Vrtala, P.E. Wagner,
E. Weingartner, H. Wex, C. Williamson, D. Wimmer, P. Ye, T.
Yli-Juuti, K.S. Carslaw, M. Kulmala, J. Curtius, U.
Baltensperger, D.R. Worsnop, H. Vehkamäki, and J. Kirkby,
"Molecular understanding of sulphuric acid–amine particle
nucleation in the atmosphere", Nature, vol. 502, pp. 359-363,
2013.
HTML http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature12663
4. G.J. van Oldenborgh, A.T.J. de Laat, J. Luterbacher, W.J.
Ingram, and T.J. Osborn, "Claim of solar influence is on thin
ice: are 11-year cycle solar minima associated with severe
winters in Europe?", Environmental Research Letters, vol. 8, pp.
024014, 2013.
HTML http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024014
HTML http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/simple-physics-and-climate/
#Post#: 447--------------------------------------------------
Re: 🚩 Global Climate Chaos ☠️
By: AGelbert Date: November 25, 2013, 1:58 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[img width=640
height=410]
HTML http://www.motherjones.com/files/images/methane1_h1.preview.jpg[/img]
Arctic releasing twice as much methane as previously thought
[move]
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/emoticon-object-106.gif<br
/>Twice as Much Methane Escaping Arctic Seafloor[/move]
LiveScience.com, Nov. 24, 2013
The Arctic methane time bomb is bigger than scientists once
thought and primed to blow, according to a study published today
(Nov. 24) in the journal Nature Geoscience.
About 17 teragrams of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, escapes
each year from a broad, shallow underwater platform called the
East Siberian Arctic Shelf, said Natalia Shakova, lead study
author and a biogeochemist at the University of Alaska,
Fairbanks. A teragram is equal to about 1.1 million tons; the
world emits about 500 million tons of methane every year from
manmade and natural sources. The new measurement more than
doubles the team's earlier estimate of Siberian methane release,
published in 2010 in the journal Science.
"We believe that release of methane from the Arctic, in
particular, from the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, could impact
the entire globe, not just the Arctic alone," Shakova told
LiveScience. "The picture that we are trying to understand is
what is the actual contribution of the [shelf] to the global
methane budget and how it will change over time."
[move]
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/emoticon-object-106.gif<br
/>Waiting to escape[/move]
Arctic permafrost is an area of intense research focus because
of its climate threat. The frozen ground holds enormous stores
of methane because the ice traps methane rising from inside the
Earth, as well as gas made by microbes living in the soil.
Scientists worry that the warming Arctic could lead to rapidly
melting permafrost, releasing all that stored methane and
creating a global warming feedback loop as the methane in the
atmosphere traps heat and melts even more permafrost.
Researchers are trying to gauge this risk by accurately
measuring stores of methane in permafrost on land and in the
ocean, and predicting how fast it will thaw as the planet warms.
Though methane gas quickly decays once it escapes into the
atmosphere, lasting only about 10 years, it is 30 times more
efficient than carbon dioxide at trapping heat (the greenhouse
effect).
Shakova and colleague Igor Semiletov of the Russian Academy of
Sciences first discovered methane bubbling up from the shallow
seafloor a decade ago in Russia's Laptev Sea. Methane is trapped
there in ground frozen during past ice ages, when sea level was
much lower.
[move]
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/emoticon-object-106.gif<br
/>Shallow waters [/move]
In their latest study, Shakova and her colleagues reported
thousands of measurements of methane bubbles taken in summer and
winter, between 2003 and 2012.
But the team also sampled seawater temperature and drilled into
the ocean bottom, to see if the sediments are still frozen. Most
of the survey was in water less than 100 feet (30 meters deep).
The shallow water is one reason so much methane escapes the
Siberian shelf — in the deeper ocean, as methane-eating microbes
digest the gas before it reaches the surface, Shakova said. But
in the Laptev Sea, "it takes the bubbles only seconds, or at
least a couple of minutes, to escape from the water column,"
Shakova said.
Arctic storms that churn the sea also speed up the release of
methane from ocean water, like stirring a soft-drink releases
gas bubbles, Shakova said. During the surveys, the amount of
methane in the ocean and atmosphere dropped after two big Arctic
storms passed through in 2009 and 2010, the researchers
reported.
The temperature measurements revealed the water just above the
ocean bottom warms by more than 12 degrees Fahrenheit (7 degrees
Celsius) in some spots during the summer, the researchers found.
And the drill core revealed that the surface sediment layers
were unfrozen at the drill site, near the Lena River delta.
"We have now proved that the current state of subsea permafrost
is incomparably closer to the thaw point than that of
terrestrial permafrost," Shakova said.
Shakova and her colleagues attribute the warming of the
permafrost to long-term changes initiated when sea levels rose
starting at the end of the last glacial period. The seawater is
several degrees warmer than the frozen ground, and is slowly
melting the ice over thousands of years, they think.
[move]
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/emoticon-object-034.gif<br
/>Massive burst [/move]
But other researchers think the permafrost warming started only
recently. "This is the first time in 12,000 years the Arctic
Ocean has warmed up 7 degrees in the summer, and that's entirely
new because the sea ice hasn't been there to hold the
temperatures down," said Peter Wadhams, head of the Polar Ocean
Physics Group at the University of Cambridge in the U.K., who
was not involved in the study. The summer ice melt season has
lasted longer since 2005, giving the sun more time to warm the
ocean.
"If we do have a methane burst it's going to be catastrophic,"
Wadhams said. Earlier this year, Wadhams and colleagues in
Britain calculated that a mega-methane release from the Siberian
shelf could push global temperatures up by 1 degree Fahrenheit
(0.6 degrees Celsius). The suggestion, published in the journal
Nature, was widely debated by climate researchers. Climate
change experts and international negotiators have said that
keeping the rise in Earth's average temperature below 2 degrees
Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) is necessary to avoid
catastrophic climate change.
Shakova said much more research is needed to understand the
factors that control how much methane is released from the
entire East Siberian Arctic Shelf, which covers 772,000 square
miles (2 million square kilometers), or nearly one-fifth the
size of the United States.
"Ten years ago we started from zero knowledge in this area,"
Shakova said. "This is the largest shelf in the world's oceans.
That's why it's very challenging to understand the natural
processes behind the methane emissions in this area."
HTML http://news.yahoo.com/twice-much-methane-escaping-arctic-seafloor-041738506.html<br
/>
#Post#: 465--------------------------------------------------
Re: 🚩 Global Climate Chaos ☠️
By: AGelbert Date: November 27, 2013, 10:40 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Snowleopard said about the following image:[img width=640
height=380]
HTML http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.antarctic.png[/img]
[quote]Do YOU see a significant trend here, hot or cold? I
don't. IF there is a GLOBAL trend currently, the Antarctic ice
seems immune.
[/quote]
[move]Agelbert Responds:[/move]
Globe BELOW:
Antarctic region
HERE---->
HTML http://dl2.glitter-graphics.net/pub/1087/1087832pmq26zqtt4.gif
NOTE: When discussing GLOBAL TRENDS, it is customary to include
the ENTIRE GLOBAL surface area. [img width=50
height=50]
HTML http://www.imgion.com/images/01/Angry-animated-smiley.jpg[/img]<br
/>That means, like, adding up the hotter than baseline normal
areas and subtracting, in appropriate percentile segments ;),
the cooler than baseline normal areas.
IOW Antarctica is not the globe, as in [I]"Global Trend"[/i],
get it? ;)
But since you fine fellows are all fired up about all that ice
in the OCEAN around Antarctica, let's talk about ALL of
Antarctica. [img width=30
height=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113185047.png[/img]<br
/>
[quote]All the sea ice talk aside, it is quite clear that really
when it comes to Antarctic ice and sea levels, sea ice is not
the most important thing to measure. In Antarctica, the largest
and most important ice mass is the land ice of the West
Antarctic and East Antarctic ice sheets.
Therefore, how is Antarctic land ice doing?
Shepherd et al. 2012
Figure 2: Estimates of total Antarctic land ice changes and
approximate sea level contributions using a combination of
different measurement techniques (Shepherd, 2012). Shaded areas
represent the estimate uncertainty (1-sigma).
Estimates of recent changes in Antarctic land ice (Figure 2,
bottom panel) show an increasing contribution to sea level with
time, although not as fast a rate or acceleration as Greenland.
Between 1992 and 2011, the Antarctic Ice Sheets overall lost
1350 giga-tonnes (Gt) or 1,350,000,000,000 tonnes into the
oceans, at an average rate of 70 Gt per year (Gt/yr). Because a
reduction in mass of 360 Gt/year represents an annual
global-average sea level rise of 1 mm, these estimates equate to
an increase in global-average sea levels by 0.19 mm/yr.
There is variation between regions within Antarctica (Figure 2,
top panel), with the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and the Antarctic
Peninsula Ice Sheet losing ice mass, and with an increasing
rate.[I] The East Antarctic Ice Sheet is growing slightly over
this period but not enough to offset the other losses.[/I]
There are of course uncertainties in the estimation methods but
independent data from multiple measurement techniques (explained
here) all show the same thing, Antarctica is losing land ice as
a whole, and these losses are accelerating quickly.
Last updated on 10 July 2013 by mattking. View Archives[/quote]
See images referenced in the quote at the link below along with
the full and well referenced article. :emthup:
HTML http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm
The image below shows dovetails with images in the article
quantifying the rapidly depleting Antarctic LAND ICE. As the
article above claims, the CAUSE of the rapidly expanding
Antarctic SEA ICE is the rapidly depleting LAND ICE.
Are you going to tell me these scientific facts and observations
are "not considered 'CFS' to the lay person"? It doesn't pass
the sniff test? Do you smell a global warming agenda rat here?
I don't. Check the reference!
[img width=640
height=540]
HTML http://grist.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/antarctica2.jpg[/img]
[img width=640
height=380]
HTML http://lucidating.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/eatcrow.gif[/img]
[move]Gentlemen Snowleopard and MKing, the specialty of the
house, Hot Antarctic Crow, is served. Bon appetit!
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/5yjbztv.gif
[/I][/move]
Note: if you don't like crow, the meal may be substituted for
standing at the door of the Doomstead Diner and [i]repeating the
word, "UNCLE" for several days.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/290.gif
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/245.gif
#Post#: 469--------------------------------------------------
Re: 🚩 Global Climate Chaos ☠️
By: AGelbert Date: November 28, 2013, 5:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Snowleopard changes the subject of GLOBAL WARMING TRENDS with a
question:[quote]How many more of these volcanoes remain
undiscovered????[/quote]
You don't like crow? You refuse to say, "UNCLE"?
Such a proud, persistent prevaricator.
For the viewing audience, Snowleopard's "question" CARRIES AN
UNDERLYING STATEMENT.
AND THAT "STATEMENT" is a, nauseatingly consistent,
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/www_MyEmoticons_com__burp.gif<br
/>propaganda point that Global Warming Deniers in the service of
DIRTY ENERGY cling tenaciously and mendaciously to:
Snowleopard continues to claim day and night, 24/7 that "WE JUST
DON'T
KNOW".
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013200859.png
How convenient. [img width=40
height=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png[/img]<br
/>
[move]I guess it's true that A LEOPARD WILL NEVER CHANGE ITS
SPOTS! [/move]
HTML http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usDzh7l5HZw&feature=player_embedded
Video on Antarctic Land Ice measuring science
HTML http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/06/de-ice-antarctica/
Snowleopard, please look up "order of magnitude". It will help
you establish a proper perspective on total planetary volcanic
heat versus Anthropogenic CO2 emissions caused HEAT.
[quote] Annual anthropogenic CO2 emissions exceed annual
volcanic CO2 by two orders of magnitude, and probably exceed the
CO2 output of one or more super-eruptions***. Thus there is no
scientific basis for using volcanic CO2 emissions as an excuse
for failing to manage humanity’s carbon footprint.[/quote]
HTML http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/08/volcanic-vs-anthropogenic-co2/
#Post#: 473--------------------------------------------------
Re: 🚩 Global Climate Chaos ☠️
By: AGelbert Date: November 29, 2013, 10:22 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Two Subglacial Lakes Discovered in Greenland
Nov 28, 2013 by Sci-News.com
A team of researchers from the University of Cambridge’s Scott
Polar Research Institute has discovered two lakes about 800 m
below the ice sheet near the town of Qaanaaq in northwestern
Greenland.
[img width=640
height=680]
HTML http://cdn4.sci-news.com/images/2013/11/image_1581_1-Greenland-lakes.jpg[/img]
This map shows the location of two subglacial lakes near the
town of Qaanaaq in northwestern Greenland.
Subglacial lakes are likely to influence the flow of the ice
sheet, impacting global sea level change. The discovery of the
lakes in Greenland will help researchers to understand how the
ice will respond to changing environmental conditions.
The Cambridge scientists used airborne radar measurements to
reveal the lakes underneath the ice sheet.
The two lakes are roughly 8-10 km2, and at one point may have
been up to 3 times larger than their current size.
They are found in the northwest sector of the Greenland Ice
Sheet, about 40 km from the ice margin, and below 757 and 809 m
of ice, respectively.
“Our results show that subglacial lakes exist in Greenland, and
that they form an important part of the ice sheet’s plumbing
system. Because the way in which water moves beneath ice sheets
strongly affects ice flow speeds, improved understanding of
these lakes will allow us to predict more accurately how the ice
sheet will respond to anticipated future warming,” said Dr
Steven Palmer, the lead author of the study published online in
the journal Geophysical Research Letters.
The lakes are unusual compared with those detected beneath
Antarctic ice sheets, suggesting that they formed in a different
manner.
[img width=640
height=880]
HTML http://cdn4.sci-news.com/images/2013/11/image_1581_2-Greenland-lakes.jpg[/img]
This radar map shows subglacial bed elevations near the town of
Qaanaaq; lines show contours of the newly discovered subglacial
lakes; dashed lines show possible previous larger contours.
Image credit: Palmer SJ et al.
The scientists propose that, unlike in Antarctica where surface
temperatures remain below freezing all year round, the newly
discovered lakes are most likely fed by melting surface water
draining through cracks in the ice. A surface lake situated
nearby may also replenish the subglacial lakes during warm
summers. This means that the lakes are part of an open system
and are connected to the surface, which is different from
Antarctic lakes that are most often isolated ecosystems.
While nearly 400 lakes have been detected beneath the Antarctic
ice sheets, the two newly discovered lakes are the first to be
identified in Greenland.
______
Bibliographic information: Palmer SJ et al. 2013. Greenland
subglacial lakes detected by radar. Geophysical Research
Letters, published online; doi: 10.1002/2013GL058383
HTML http://www.phenomenica.com/pin/e97ee2054defb209c35fe4dc94599061
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page