Comments on: Unthreaded #9

By: Filippo Turturici

Filippo Turturici — Sat, 05 May 2007 16:52:31 +0000

Olson (#270) I think that different temperature profiles between NH and SH are more simply due to different land/ocean concentration.
We know that land is warming (as was cooling during ’50-’60ies) faster than ocean. So, on the entire globe, seas are 70% of the surface and lands 30%. But, in the NH lands are almost 50% of the surface, while in the SH just about 20% (and Antarctic has even a cooling trend belonging to satellite measurements, but this does not affect too much emisphere trend). Moreover, warming trends (due to alterated heat flux, natural or artificial) are led from the equatorial belt, not by temperate regions.

By: S. Hales

S. Hales — Sat, 05 May 2007 16:19:13 +0000

For those interested in aerosols and the state of our knowledge of various aspects of their radiative properties, global concentrations, historical concentrations, and future monitoring see this

By: woodentop

woodentop — Sat, 05 May 2007 13:49:45 +0000

Steve – Durkin gives you and Ross a name check here over the hockey stick debunking and the Wegman report in my local (Scottish) paper today:

‘What is causing our climate to change?’
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=697372007

Unfortunately it’s on their subscription only site, but in brief it’s Durkin and Bob Ward exchanging over TGGWS. Durkin doesn’t do a bad job of defending the usual criticisms and explains the corrections to be made to the DVD.

Sadly, it’s laid out in the format Ward/Durkin’s response/Ward’s (wholly inadequate) summary…

By: Andrey Levin

Andrey Levin — Sat, 05 May 2007 06:59:18 +0000

Re:269, methane.

There are some reduction of antropogenic methane emissions too, due to:

1) severe downturn of Russian economy in late 1990;
2) currently reduced venting from Russian NG wells and pipelines ‘€” just because of routine replacement
for new and better compressors, valves, etc.;
3) better practice and equipment in ME oil fields;
4) no-till crop farming in US and Europe;
5) conversion of flooded rainforest and wetlands in S. America and S.-E. Asia to drained plantations.

Any way, reduction of methane emissions from industry and agriculture is the most effective way to reduce GHG emissions, if desired, and is environmentally and economically beneficial by itself. Take a look, for example, at US government “Methane to market” initiative:

http://www.epa.gov/methanetomarkets/index.htm

By: DeWitt Payne

DeWitt Payne — Sat, 05 May 2007 06:11:20 +0000

Re: #270

While methane is considered as having an effect 23 times larger than CO2, its concentration is much lower, less than 1.8 ppmv compared to 380 ppmv for CO2. So methane is currently equivalent to about an additional 40 ppmv CO2.

By: T J Olson

T J Olson — Sat, 05 May 2007 00:32:22 +0000

Thanks for the input from Andrey (#260) and Filippo (#262) regarding methane levels and ACW (#237).

I’ve wondered if the satellite measured NH/SH temperature divergences might support flatening methane levels. The locig is this: 80% of humanity lives in the NH; as population growth increases, and cultivation and cities grow, natural sources of methane like wet-lands dimminish, replaced by man-made sources. But since most of this goes on the NH – not the SH – the last 15 or so years of temperature divergence is the consequence of the pattern of this changing production.

If so, one implication is that natural sources will continue to decline; another, that as population growth levels off around 2050, man-made production should too.

A final implication is that aggregate satellite temps may be a better reflection of the far more potent GHG methane than CO2. IF so, how can this theory be tested? The need to involve economic geographers address this this question appears obvious.

By: jae

jae — Fri, 04 May 2007 23:02:35 +0000

260, methane. But on the other hand, there has been a great decrease in areas covered by wetlands, which are a HUGE source of methane (76% of all “natural” methane). This would partially balance out some of the human-caused increases.

By: DeWitt Payne

DeWitt Payne — Fri, 04 May 2007 22:44:59 +0000

While I was doing the North Pole EWMA for the Bill Gray thread, I also did one for the lower troposphere global temperature anomaly. After looking at it I find I have less confidence that there isn't an underlying upward trend. The trend of the data prior to the 1998 El Nino seems to be flat, but there are three major cooling events, the eruptions of El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1992 and a major La Nina in 1988-1989. Even the El Nino in 1998 was immediately followed by a significant La Nina, bring the temperature anomaly back to the baseline. I don't know where the heat goes in a La Nina or where it comes from in an El Nino, but the volcanic eruptions unquestionably result in less solar energy being absorbed by the Earth than would have been the case in their absence. There is a substantial increase in the lower stratosphere temperature anomaly after each eruption. Much of that energy is lost to space rather than being absorbed at the surface or lower in the atmosphere. Here is the chart (lambda = 0.3):

By: Steve Sadlov

Steve Sadlov — Fri, 04 May 2007 21:45:30 +0000

RE: #266 – We’re getting smacked by natural gas bills. Here in NoCal the “summer” rate structure kicked in April 1. April and perhaps even May bills may exceed Feb and March ones.

By: David Smith

David Smith — Fri, 04 May 2007 20:17:18 +0000

April, 2007 in the US was the 47′th coolest in the 113-year record.

So, US anomalies for the year (where 1 is coldest and 113 is warmest):

January – 64
February – 34
March – 112
April – 47