More noise about climate

[Han]

My Dutch newspaper (electronically at nrc.nl) drew my attention to this American-Swiss scientific report. The abstract/summary is freely available at: . Or through the Digital Object Identifier site:

For the full text I can use my AAAS subscription. If anyone is truly interested in the full report, I could email the pdf file, but I'm not totally sure of the copyright rules.

Science does progress, but the elucidation of complicated interrelationships of atmospheric regulations is not yet complete, it appears. (A somewhat sarcastic statement perhaps, but I do believe that we should quit pouring CO2 into the atmosphere).

Here is the summary:

Contributions of Stratospheric Water Vapor to Decadal Changes in the Rate of Global Warming Susan Solomon,1 Karen Rosenlof,1 Robert Portmann,1 John Daniel,1 Sean Davis,1,2 Todd Sanford,1,2 Gian-Kasper Plattner3

Stratospheric water vapor concentrations decreased by about 10% after the year 2000. Here, we show that this acted to slow the rate of increase in global surface temperature over 2000 to 2009 by about 25% compared to that which would have occurred due only to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. More limited data suggest that stratospheric water vapor probably increased between 1980 and 2000, which would have enhanced the decadal rate of surface warming during the 1990s by about 30% compared to estimates neglecting this change. These findings show that stratospheric water vapor represents an important driver of decadal global surface climate change.

1 NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory, Chemical Sciences Division, Boulder, CO, USA. 2 Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, USA. 3 Climate and Environmental Physics, Physics Institute, University of Bern, Sidlerstrasse 5, 3012 Bern, Switzerland.

Received for publication 25 September 2009. Accepted for publication 12 January 2010.

[J. Clarke]

But who is the "we" and what is to be done about it? The US is not the major producer of CO2 and the US could stop producing CO2 completely without having any effect whatsoever other than slowing the rate of increase a tiny amount. Would you fight a nuclear war with the largest producer if that is what it took to make _them_ stop?

[Larry Jaques]

On 30 Jan 2010 12:18:17 GMT, the infamous Han scrawled the following:

IOW, Mother Nature knows what to do and has been doing it to regulate the climate around her. I, too, feel that Man should tread more lightly on the Earth. For the most part, it is, but coal-fired power is still a ghastly unrepentant part of the process. Spending billions to make "clean coal" is one of the greenies' dumbest concepts.

-- Imagination is the beginning of creation. You imagine what you desire, you will what you imagine and at last you create what you will. -- George Bernard Shaw

[Neil Brooks]

Actually, I think the "greenies" find it an offensive oxymoron.

It's the industry that's pushing it.

[Larry Blanchard]

In 2006, China produced 21.5% of the worlds CO2 emissions. The US produced 20.2%. So our stopping would reduce emissions only a "little bit"? I cite:

you have conflicting evidence, please produce it.

BTW, considering the difference in population, the US is far ahead of China in emissions per capita.

[Robatoy]

What a mouth-full. Clean Coal...WTF??? Has anyone ever looked at coal up close? You have any idea what kinda shit is in that stuff? Sure it's a great gob of carbon, but...

I am not an alarmist about AGW.. but I DO believe we need to be nice to the planet. That whole Rainforest butcher job is a real problem. There is no need to pollute the oceans. Bad stewardship is just that. Stupid management of our one-and-only planet. I have done some travelling and I have seen what stupid people do with their drinking water.... they shit in it. Not smart. But... one does not deserve the 'greenie' label when one is aware of bad habits. I am no Ed Begley and never will be. Eat what you kill, turn into furniture what you chop down or build a house.

[Mark & Juanita]

... snip

and is exacerbated by some of the alarmists. By preventing the sale of timber from the rain forest, the people from those countries now burn down the trees so they can make a living farming and raising livestock on the land. If it weren't for the meddling, more than likely those people would realize that they could make a living with logging and would take care of the forests.

That falls into the "poop in your own bathtub" arena. Taking care of where you live is just plain good sense. Making sure that you, your children and your grandchildren have a nice place to live leads to the idea that maybe controlling where you put your trash, how you handle waste products and how industry around you properly disposes of waste are all good ideas. The idea that such acts "save the planet" or that releases the products of perfect combustion (CO2 and water vapor) into the atmosphere is harmful or will destroy the planet is where it just starts to get silly. Silly vis a vis the common folks parroting this stuff -- diabolical and controlling vis a vis those in power promoting this as a way to garner even more power into those peoples' lives.

[Scott Lurndal]

Hm. I seem to recall Susan Solomon's name from the CRUtapes.

Contrast with:

David C. Frank, Jan Esper, Christoph C. Raible, Ulf Büntgen, Valerie Trouet, Benjamin Stocker, & Fortunat Joos. Ensemble reconstruction constraints on the global carbon cycle sensitivity to climate. Nature, 2010; 463 (7280): 527 DOI: 10.1038/nature08769

In this week's Nature, David Frank and colleagues extend this empirical approach by comparing nine global-scale temperature reconstructions with CO2 data from three Antarctic ice cores over the period ad 1050-1800. The authors derive a likely range for the feedback strength of 1.7-21.4 p.p.m.v. CO2 per degree Celsius, with a median value of 7.7.

The researchers conclude that the recent estimates of 40 p.p.m.v. CO2 per degree Celsius can be excluded with 95% confidence, suggesting significantly less amplification of current warming.

scott

[Jon Slaughter]

Yes, it's called negative feedback and if the earth was so unstable as to come crashing down from what man could do then most likely we wouldn't be here in the first place. It's very arrogant or just plain ignorant to believe than mankind can compete with the power of mother nature.

[Larry Blanchard]

Let's see. The world's population doubles on average every 60-65 years. That probably only holds true since the Black Death, but you get the idea. Not too mention the fact that the Industrial Revolution is a recent thing as history goes.

But you seem to equate the damage we can do today with the minor affect of a few million or less primitive h*mo saps and claim that since they didn't die out anything we can do today isn't going to hurt.

Your argument is ridiculous.

[Dave Balderstone]

Well, the earth has survived more than one comet impact, and life continued, despite REPEATED mass extinctions that occurred before our ancestors were small shrew-like creatures nibbling on grubs.

Whether or not humans are here has SFA to do with the long term "health" of the planet, whatever the f*ck that means...

Is Venus "healthy"? Mercury? Neptune?

The "damage" that h.Saps can do to the planet is inconsequential in the scheme of things. And given that the stated goal of many of the "Greens" is the death of most of the human race, well... Pardon me if I don't give a rat's ass what they think. They could improve things simply by opening one of their own veins.

If we're gone, who cares whether the spotted owl exists? The universe sure as hell doesn't.

Cleaning up the worst pollution on the planet? I'm for it. Let's start with China, India and Africa.

[HeyBub]

You'll note the richest countries generate the least pollution. In the main, that takes energy to do so. Cutting back on energy production will worsen pollution.

We can eliminate, for example, electric stoves - thereby cutting down on the amount of coal necessary to produce power - and all cook our meals over charcoal braziers. There goes the neighborhood.

[Larry Jaques]

On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 16:25:44 -0600, the infamous "Jon Slaughter" scrawled the following:

Give the man a kewpie doll! He got it in one.

-- Imagination is the beginning of creation. You imagine what you desire, you will what you imagine and at last you create what you will. -- George Bernard Shaw

[Larry Jaques]

On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 18:52:02 -0600, the infamous Dave Balderstone scrawled the following:

Uh, are we gone yet? Were we gone when it went from 500,000,000 to

1B, or 1B to 2B, 2-4, or 4-6B? Um, no.

And your Malthusian rants aren't, Larry? ;)

All my Venusian friends are.

A Freakin' Men!

A friend knew a guy with lots of land in WA state. He had no spotted owls. When the guys next to him clearcut their land, he suddenly got owls. Even though their original habitat was completely gone, they just moved and built up a larger population. Too bad the guys at the top of the regulatory system don't realize that. (That's another little bit of Mother Nature, too.)

Why stop there? Clean it up everywhere, starting today. But tell folks like the EPA (who micromanage the shit out of it, making it too expensive to even START cleanup) to STFU and GTFO, so it can happen!

-- Imagination is the beginning of creation. You imagine what you desire, you will what you imagine and at last you create what you will. -- George Bernard Shaw

[Han]

[e-mail] (Scott Lurndal) wrote in news:Nr19n.219757$ [e-mail]:

The CO2 seems to be the component that has changed most since the start of the industrial revolution, and as far as I can judge does have an undesirable effect. It is also probably the component that is easiest to limit. Methane has a far greater effect than CO2, but seems quantitatively less important. Not sure whether a tax on meat would help keep the cattle farting down. (sarcasm!!).

Also, I think that changing black asphalt to white concrete in roads could have an effect, but I am not an engineer. Many other simple examples could be given to reduce energy consumption. Not the least of which is to stick it to the oil and gas producers in some countries ...

[Doug Winterburn]

Yup, why don't we limit breathing during the dark hours - that'll cut it WAY down. How in the hell did the consequences of living become a pollutant?

Methane has a far greater effect than CO2, but seems

[Han]

Doug Winterburn wrote in news:Fl69n.14463$aU4.9190 @newsfe13.iad:

CO2 is a chemical that is produced both by burning coal and fat or glucose. It is also a greenhouse gas. If you want to stop breathing, please make sure your remains do not keep on producing CO2. (Humor intended).

[Morris Dovey]

Our own is easier to get at; but let's consider helping China, India, Africa, Bangladesh,...

Perhaps we can expand our vision of the possible and perhaps, just perhaps, we can come up with some practical technologies to improve _everyone's_ situation.

Or were you thinking that perhaps Exxon, Chevron, BP et al will jump to the fore and wave their corporate magic wands? :-/

[Dave Balderstone]

There is increasing evidence that CO2 is NOT, in fact, a greenhouse gas of any import.

Do try to keep up.

Water vapour, on the other hand...

[Dave Balderstone]

They're all there in the cap and trade market push, Morris. Every single one of them.