GOODBYE air pollution and smoky chimneys, hello brighter days. That's been the trend in Europe for the past three decades - but unfortunately cleaning up the skies has allowed more of the sun's rays to pierce the atmosphere, contributing to at least half the warming that has occurred.
New Scientist Environment: 'Cleaner skies explain surprise rate of warming'
NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. environmental regulators quietly published a draft study on Thursday that linked global warming to higher levels of smog that could harm human health, a report green groups said stood in contrast to the Bush Administration's slow movement on climate change.
The draft report published by the Environmental Protection Agency in the Federal Register said, "Climate change has the potential to produce significant increases in near-surface (ozone) concentrations in many areas of the U.S."
Reuters Environment: 'Study links global warming to more smog'
So nothing to offer eh? Such is the way of sceptics - all fun no responsibility. As I suspected.
Yes, lets hear it:
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm
Assessing past diversity of life and how it changed over time requires assembly of a database of the many individual and diverse studies of fossils. Previous studies on first and last occurrences of marine invertebrates had showed an increase in diversity following the Cambrian explosion and particularly since about 100 million years ago.
Alroy et al. (2008) have now analyzed a new compilation of more than 3 million specimens resolved to the genus and species level. In contrast to older analyses, the data support a Jurassic increase and imply that the increase in diversity in the Cenozoic (65.5 Ma to the present) was not particularly high relative to earlier times.
Phanerozoic Trends in the Global Diversity of Marine Invertebrates
Science 4 July 2008:
Vol. 321. no. 5885, pp. 97 - 100
DOI: 10.1126/science.1156963
Across the Jurassic (approx. 145 - 215 My) the best estimates of average global temperatures are that they started at around 23 V, were sustained at 21 C for most of the era and then declined to to 16 C at the end of the era. The present average global temperature is about 14.6 C.
Across the Jurassic the best estimates of atmospheric CO2 levels are that they started at about 1900 ppmv, declined to 1200 ppmv and then rose through a maximum of 2500 ppmv before declining near the end of the era to approx. 2300 ppmv. It is noted these CO2 levels all lie below the thermodynamic Saturation Indices of aragonite and calcite for the above temperature range.
Think geologically, act calmly, cultivate serenity, meditate frequently...
Yes a very impertinent hanging judge previous post from Stockwell who thinks that CSIRO are there at his beck and call. Which country is he from again? I note he had the decency to suspend judgement pending further consideration.
But lah de dah as they say ... (Annie Hall)
So Steve - what's your science input for policy response on EC then? Got anything practical to add besides side swipes? Let's hear it ! (fair dink question)
Yeah, I saw that. Let's see what Stockwell makes of the significance tests.
CSIRO did reply
http://landshape.org/enm/drought-exceptional-circumstances-reply/#comments
Sorry; that Ken Gregory link is this;
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/The_Saturated_Greenhouse_Effect.htm
Steve; thanks for the link to Spencer; he has been polishing this idea for some time; one of the things I took from Philipona's papers is that water in its various atmospheric forms, can or does act as a -ve feedback to both warming and cooling; I'll have to burrow through Spencer's papers to see if he considers this, or whether he concentrates on the negative feedback to warming only. One thing though, Spencer is often held up as a so-called pro-AGW scientist who believes in anthropogenic warming; if he does he must believe that this sourceof warming is very small.
As to Miskolczi; I have followed the discussion about him on Stockwell's excellent blog, and at Climate Audit, which featured some vigorous critiques, and also at Anthony Watts; I thought Miskolczi stood up pretty well and I especially have regard to how the implication of negative feedbacks is being borne out as your studies show, and especially in respect of atmospheric H2O in its various forms; in this respect this paper is interesting;
http://mls.jpl.nasa.gov/library/Minschwaner_2004.pdf
And Ken Gregory does a good job in summarising this aspect of Miskolczi;
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/The_Saturated_Greenhouse_Efect.htm
1. Not really for that sort of document. And he shot first without seeing if he could garner a response.
2. I don't know what they may or may not have done stats wise. Yet to be determined. AT least give them the benefit of the doubt initially.
3. We're arguing with them about whether all GCMs are considered equal. On what basis do you average the lot and do what sort of test of significance - I say again - I'm uncertain. So does that sound like Dunning-Kruger to you? And are they single runs of each GCM or an ensemble grouping for each GCM? And as you say yes there are specialised stats - so I'm simply reflecting whether ripping in like Stockwell has done, is enough without knowing more details. All of which I told you in Swahili previous.
5. Well let's hear some discussion of how one might approach such as an issue. A "not optional" climate issue. Decisions need to be made - how? on the basis of what Steve ? So for a change I'd be happy to hear your advice as "acting policy officer on watch".
What data sets and approaches can we consider? The policy officer only has to specify the methods - not actually do them !
SO what shits me about all the discussion on blog in the last few months is that decisions on urban water supply, drought, Murray Darling need to be made. On what basis do we make those decisions.
So the reaction from your guys is to put the boot into the CSIRO and BoM science then walk off the field. This is what really pisses me off.
Well sorry. That doesn't help much. The job is still on the table.
Would be good in the history of the blog besides just dropping ad hom crap on each other (which is fun sometimes) to actually have a go at suggesting what ought be done policy wise (given your collective superior opinions, life experience and vast intellect). {barf}
There are stacks of reasons to be critical of CSIRO's approach - but you can play games to kick them out of the stadium on AGW politics or participate. Even getting enough compute time is an issue (although as all good bloggians here know they're just swimming in loot while quaffing feine weine and caviar).
Actually cohenite, there are very much sounder blogs such as Niche Modeling and physicsforums where Miskolczi's theory is deconstructed bit by bit (as it should be)and looked at very closely by people who actually know and enjoy the relevant math. Jam Pompe who blogs here is one of the people who has taken part in that discussion in a creditable way. I am not a physicist (chemothermodynamics is my real non-human love) but my take on these discussions is that Miskolczi's theory has some some apparent conceptual flaws which mean that so far it hasn't really 'got up' as a serious contender to conventional AGW theory. That is not to say that Miskolczi is not a serious researcher with a decent suite of papers behind him - he is. But the nature of physics is that for the theory to be credible the math has to hold up against the body of current physical thinking and Miskolczi's may not. Part of the problem is also Miskolczi's English. However, we should not underestimate his theory because it impressively fits some features of the real world atmosphere.
I am much more interested in Roy Spencers's work, see:
http://climatesci.org/2008/07/10/special-guest-seminar-at-cu-by-roy-spencer-july-17-2008global-warming-recent-evidence-for-reduced-climate-sensitivity/
and the related fact that the global oceanic averages of satellite CERES data during 2000 through 2005 which reveals a net (SW+LW) feedback parameter of around 8 W m-2 K-1.
This may be at least partly a result of effects I have raised regarding the effect of cyanobacterially induced films/monolayers on ocean surface albedo, low level cloud formation, humidity, etc. It is a fact existing GCMs reproduce low level cloud densities over the ocean very poorly indeed. You will recall I have shown that the period 2000 - 2006 has been characterized by a sharp rise in the cyanobacterial productivity of the great Southern Ocean in toto to now match that of the Southeast Pacific Gyre - one of the most oligotrophic and cyanobacterially productive patches of open ocean on the planet. FYI I am slowly preparing a follow-up article for this blog on that right now using further CO2 data through to the end of the 1st quarter 2008 just released to me by NOAA a few days back.