Two Thousand Years of Chinese Climate

[Fence_Sitter]

allison: eat me chubs!

[j_b]

quote:

---

What kind of organisms?

---

from the IPCC report:

 

"Overall climate change is projected to increase threats to human health, particularly in lower income populations, predominantly within tropical/subtropical countries. Climate change can affect human health directly (e.g, reduced cold stress in temperate countries but increased heat stress, loss of life in floods and storms) and indirectly through changes in the ranges of disease vectors (e.g. mosquitoes), water-borne pathogens, water quality, air quality, and food availability and quality (medium to high confidence). The actual health impacts will be strongly influenced by local environmental conditions and socio-economic circumstances, and by the range of social, institutional, technological and behavioral adaptations taken to reduce the full range of threats to health."

 

http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/SYRspm.pdf

[Uncle_Tricky]

Truth be told, I'm not really worried about global warming.

 

The things that really freak me out are the certainty of asteroid impact at some point in the future, gamma ray bursts from distant galaxies, a collapse of the space-time continuum, rogue black holes (astronomers estimate there are 10 million in the Milky Way alone), giant solar flares (more properly known as coronal mass ejections), the reversal of the earth's magnetic field (The last such reversal was 780,000 years ago, so we may be overdue), flood basalt volcanism, a bio-tech experiment run amok, a particle accelerator mishap that could start a chain reaction that would destroy the world, nanotechnology that could spread and reduce the biosphere to dust in a matter of days, divine intervention and the apocalypse, and grandiose interstellar alien construction project that destroys the earth to create an inter-galaxy expressway.

[Fence_Sitter]

why worry about that stuff when you climb? isn't groundfall death a much more emminent threat?

[Dru]

September 30, 2002

Soot Emissions Could Be Cause of China's Weather Woes

 

 

 

 

 

 

Image: INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF RED CROSS AND RED CRESCENT SOCIETIES

 

 

China's recent weather patterns represent the most severe change in the region's precipitation trends since 950 A.D. Increasingly, the southern parts of the country are experiencing flooding, while northern regions are suffering under drought conditions. Now research published in the current issue of the journal Science suggests that soot, which is generated from industrial activity and incomplete combustion of coal and biomass, may be partly to blame.

Soot particles, also known as black carbon aerosols, affect climate by absorbing sunlight, which warms the surrounding air and limits the amount of solar radiation that reaches the ground. But soot and other aerosol particles are short-lived in the atmosphere, unlike greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, and their climate effects are very difficult to quantify. In the new work, Surabi Menon of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and colleagues used aerosol data collected from 46 ground stations in China to assess four different climate modeling scenarios. Taking factors such as sea surface temperature, greenhouse gases and natural aerosol particles into consideration, the researchers determined that changes in the concentration of black carbon could be the primary driving force behind the observed alterations to the hydrological cycle in the region. "If our interpretation is correct, then reducing the amount of black carbon or soot may help diminish the intensity of floods in the south and droughts in the northern areas of China, in addition to having human health benefits," notes co-author James Hansen of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies.

 

Additional studies are needed to fully appreciate soot's role in global warming and changing rain patterns, both in China and in other regions. But because of the small soot particles' adverse health effects (their size allows them to enter the lungs, where they can cause respiratory distress), limiting black carbon production will have beneficial effects. "This could be 'low-hanging fruit' in trying to deal with the anthropogenic effects on the climate," Michael Bergin of the Georgia Institute of Technology comments. "From a policy standpoint, the payoff for controlling soot could be on the scale of years rather than centuries." --Sarah Graham

[j_b]

darn, you beat me to it!

[MtnGoat]

I'm wondering if each of these "projected" changes in in turn supported by valid peer reviewed studies in detail, or are simply a basket of allegations added by one or two researchers who are on the bandwagon. Remember, wether or not someone feels warming is a given, each and every other assumption relating to these assertions must also be proven separately.

 

As for particulates, that is a separate basket of worms from "proving" CO2 is causing warming.

 

[ 09-30-2002, 10:53 AM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]

[j_b]

quote:

---

or are simply a basket of allegations added by one or two researchers who are on the bandwagon

---

from the IPCC report:

 

"Where appropriate, the authors of the 3rd assessment report assigned confidence levels that represent their collective judgement in the validity of a conclusion based on observational evidence, modeling results, and theory that have been examined. Estimates of confidence relating to WGII findings are: very high; (95% or greater), 'high' (67-95%), 'medium' (33-67%), 'low' (5-33%), and 'very low' (5% or less)."

 

quote:

---

As for particulates, that is a separate basket of worms from "proving" CO2 is causing warming

---

funny how you did not have such qualms embracing the Chang paper.

[Fence_Sitter]

cow farts cause global warming too!

[MtnGoat]

"Estimates of confidence relating to WGII findings are: very high; (95% or greater), 'high' (67-95%), 'medium' (33-67%), 'low' (5-33%), and 'very low' (5% or less).""

 

Please note that estimates are in themselves admissions of uncertainty, thus in no way representing proof, and when reading the latest IPCC report one finds uncertainty estimates accross a large number of areas to be high.

 

It's nice to see that they have numbers to represent uncertainty, something I see a lot in the 2001 Synthesis report I downloaded, which has been my starting point.

 

Which report is your quote taken from, and which of the comments on impact regarding your "organisms" post, have which uncertainties? That list of uncertainties from a table is not showing which specific allegations I am asking about, have which uncertainties.

 

Which kind of approaches another point here, no matter how you cut it we have folks claiming "proof" consists of uncertainties about uncertainties, something not often made clear to the public, but that's for another day.

 

"funny how you did not have such qualms embracing the Chang paper."

 

That is because the chang paper does not make predictive claims concerning the function of a tremendously complex systems even those studying them "prove" by assigning *estimated* error to. They merely report finding of proxies which happen to be verified by other reports of proxies, *none* of which requires predictive behaviour of vast and complex systems.

 

[ 10-01-2002, 10:10 AM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]

[erik]

WERE MORE SCREWED NOW!!!

 

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20020930/ap_wo_en_po/sci_shrinking_ozone_hole_1

[Greg_W]

Isn't a smaller ozone "hole" a good thing?

[j_b]

quote:

---

Please note that estimates are in themselves admissions of uncertainty, thus in no way representing proof, and when reading the latest IPCC report one finds uncertainty estimates accross a large number of areas to be high.

---

you are placing a burden of proof before any action be taken about human greenhouse gas emissions that is unreasonable and 'incidentally' serving your purpose of not wanting anything to be done. If you are looking for proofs you'll be looking for a long time as there are few certainties in science (there are few laws) as in life in general.

 

For example we may not have proven that increased CO2 causes warming (in the sense that it has not been reproduced in the lab) but all data, theoretical and numerical models point to increased CO2 concentrations causing warming. Clearly nobody arguing in good faith would question it seriously on the basis of the evidence gathered.

 

So .... do you buy home fire insurance? do you have any proofs of your house burning tomorrow?

 

the quotes in previous posts are from the Synthesis Report for policy makers but you'll aslo find more specifics in 'Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability'

 

[ 10-01-2002, 10:19 PM: Message edited by: j_b ]

[j_b]

quote:

---

Isn't a smaller ozone "hole" a good thing?

---

yes it is a good thing since ozone protects from harmfull UV radiations. Incidentally this may indicate that the phasing out of CFCs (refrigerants) is bearing fruit. The agents replacing CFCs (HFCs, etc...) may also have a lower global warming potential.

[MtnGoat]

"you are placing a burden of proof before any action be taken about human greenhouse gas emissions that is unreasonable"

 

isn't the burden of proof on those who demand others be subservient to the claimants? Seems to me the burden of proof is right where it belongs, on those who feel their reasons are sufficient to force people to live by these reasons claimed to be so true that it's worth coercion.

 

"and 'incidentally' serving your purpose of not wanting anything to be done."

 

If I thought it was supportable, I'd want it to be done *assuming* the costs were worth the benefits. Since I doubt both, yes I can't say it isn't convenient. Lucky me! Besides, whose "purpose" is served by asking people making predictive claims, to prove them, is really besides the point, it's just plain old science, world saving sweeping claims aside.

 

"For example we may not have proven that increased CO2 causes warming (in the sense that it has not been reproduced in the lab) but all data, theoretical and numerical models point to increased CO2 concentrations causing warming."

 

All? Really? And still, we're talking models, right?

 

"Clearly nobody arguing in good faith would question it seriously on the basis of the evidence gathered."

 

So based on your view of the evidence, you conclude anyone not in agreement is not in good faith? I just want to make sure I have this straight without making assumptions.

 

"So .... do you buy home fire insurance? do you have any proofs of your house burning tomorrow?"

 

yup. nope don't have any proof, but no one needs to force me to buy fire insurance, either. but I know it happens, and it happens a fair amount.

 

Unfortunately, so does warming, and cooling, and unlike a fire, no one can even tell me how those past events happened ,while they strive to convince they know just what will happen. An odd situation.

 

thanks for the info on the synthesis report for policy makers. I'm interested in who wrote that paper and if the resulting translation has been vetted by the scientists contributing to the earlier reports.

 

[ 10-02-2002, 02:31 AM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]

[Fence_Sitter]

actually the hole didn't get smaller as they just found that it split...so now we have two... BBQ without charcoal....now that rules! Sssss!

 

 

[ 10-02-2002, 09:10 AM: Message edited by: Fence Sitter ]

[Greg_W]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fence Sitter:

actually the hole didn't get smaller as they just found that it split...so now we have two...

---

Read the Yahoo article which Erik posted (link). It specifically states that the aggregate area has reduced from 9 million square miles to 6 million square miles. Nine is smaller than six, even if you're using the funky Canadian math they must teach in that Bible school you go to up there.

 

Greg W

[Fence_Sitter]

anyone knwo how 03 is made? like how can ozone replenish? just curious...

[iain]

In the troposphere it is by ultraviolet radiation UV breaks up O2 into two separate atoms (free radicals), which combine with other O2 molecules to form ozone

 

This is the same processe that destroys ozone, and subsequently protects us from UV radiation through this absorbtion of energy.

[Fence_Sitter]

gotcha makes sense...gracias

[iain]

The depletion of the ozone layer by CFCs is caused by free Cl combining with O3 to form ClO and 1 O2. The big problem is, ClO, chlorine monoxide, will then react with free O radicals to form Cl and O2, and then you have atomic Chlorine free to start the cycle all over again. You can see the potential for exponential destruction of O3.

[Fence_Sitter]

for sure...but if let alone...enough o2 can be turned into free radicals and then fuse with other 02 and replenish though right? (hence what we have seen with the lack of use in CFC's in teh last 10 years making a "smaller" ozone "hole")? but the other chemicals created from CFC's are still in teh ozone for ever correct? or can they be turned into free radicals by UV radiation? sorry jsut curious..

 

well i guess if tehy were broken up, they woudl still be CFC's and then screw the O3 so once there they are pretty much THERE correct?

 

[ 10-02-2002, 09:53 AM: Message edited by: Fence Sitter ]

[sayjay]

quote:

---

for sure...but if let alone...enough o2 can be turned into free radicals and then fuse with other 02 and replenish though right? (hence what we have seen with the lack of use in CFC's in teh last 10 years making a "smaller" ozone "hole")?

---

yes, this is correct. as the amount of chlorine (and other ozone-depleteing compounds) in the stratosphere decrease the ozone hole will heal itself.

 

quote:

---

but the other chemicals created from CFC's are still in teh ozone for ever correct? or can they be turned into free radicals by UV radiation? sorry jsut curious..

well i guess if tehy were broken up, they woudl still be CFC's and then screw the O3 so once there they are pretty much THERE correct?

---

CFCs and their "by-products" (what they break down into) do eventually go away as the stratopsheric air slowly mixes with tropospheric air and the chemicals are eventually cleansed from the atmosphere.

 

Also, the process of ozone breakdown and regeneration described in an earlier post happens in the stratosphere, which is the layer of the atmosphere above the troposphere. UV radiation is absorbed in this process so that it does not reach the troposphere, where we and other life that would be harmed by UV radiation live.

 

And one more thing...

The article said that the ozone hole is smaller this year because of warmer temps. This would be because there were warmer temps were in the *stratosphere*, not the troposphere. (Warmer temps=less ozone destruction because the chemical reactions need to break down ozone occur on solid surfaces -- i.e. ice crystal cloud particles -- which only form in the stratosphere if it gets very very cold. Hence why you only usually get major ozone destruction in the Antarctic). Warmer temps in the Antarctic stratosphere would not be the result of higher levels of greenhouse gases. The addition of greenhouse gases to the troposphere actually leads to *colder* temps in the stratosphere while leading to warmer temps in the troposphere. Warmer temps in the Antarctic stratosphere I am guessing are the result of a change in atmospheric dynamics. Normally a very strong polar jet stream is established that isolates the Antarctic stratosphere from the rest of the atmosphere, allowing it to grow very cold because no sun shines on it all winter. If the polar jet is weaker than usual, warmer air from lower latitudes can mix in and make the stratosphere warmer. Hence less ice clouds form in the stratosphere and there is less ozone destruction. The fact that the ozone hole has split in two is consistent with a "disturbed" polar jet.

[iain]

Yeah, the ozone layer is supposedly self-regulating and as atomic chlorine, the limiting factor in the above, disappears, there should be an improvement. The problem is, CFC compounds are incredibly durable. They are not water-soluable, one of the reasons they were used in the first place to replace the extremely toxic refrigerants used before. I think the lifetime of CFC's in the troposphere can be around 40 years before they migrate into the stratosphere, where intense UV activity starts the production of free atomic chlorine (shifting the balance to O3 destruction). There are a bunch of factors that determine O3 saturation out there, such as sunspot activity, prevailing winds, seasonal changes, etc. so it's difficult to know if there is an overall improvement until you take a many-year sample. Which is apparently what they are now doing.

 

Please correct me if I am wrong about the chem anyone, my last chem was a few semesters of Organic panic in college so it has been awhile.

[iain]

whoops, someone got in there first, hope I didn't repeat too much. sorry, I meant stratosphere in the above UV breakdown. CFC's migrate through the troposphere before they are subjected to UV bombardment.

 

[ 10-02-2002, 10:19 AM: Message edited by: iain ]