posted 12-13-2003 09:13 PM               

Not one !!

And don't you just think he'd love to shove that down my throat if he could.

We note that on providing this non-biased "peer reviewed" evidence he is completely impotent....yet smiling.

Assuming that most would miss his lame deflection of this challenge, he issues one of his own:

"He must provide examples of consensus on controversial theories and hypothesis."

Excuse me if I state the obvious...

"controversial" and "consensus" are mutually exclusive.

Perhaps SEÑOR Eduardo Ferreyra is having trouble with a non-native language.

Be that it may, I for one am still waiting for a single published article that states that 65% of the world's glaciers are advancing.

I call your hand SEÑOR Ferreyra !

If you got 'em... lay them on the table...

posted 12-13-2003 09:37 PM               

" The Kyoto Treaty is DEAD. Gone, Kaput. Bye Kyoto, bye warmers! "

-------------------------------------------
http://www.americans-world.org/digest/global_issues/global_warming/gw2.cfm

Global Warming

Kyoto Treaty

A strong and growing majority of Americans favors the US abiding by and ratifying the Kyoto Treaty. In earlier polls respondents told that that President Bush has decided to not abide by the Treaty approximately half oppose the decision while a fairly small minority supports it; a strong majority opposes his decision to not pursue reductions of carbon dioxide emissions and thinks he should propose develop some plan for reducing emissions. When the Kyoto Treaty was being negotiated in 1998 a strong majority supported the level of emissions cuts proposed, even when informed that the US had originally sought less-deep cuts, and a plurality leaned toward deeper cuts.

A strong majority of Americans have indicated their support for the Kyoto Treaty. In an April 2001 ABC News poll that presented both sides of the argument 61% expressed support (see graph). In June 2002, The Chicago Council on Foreign Relations reasked the same question and found support had increased to 70% for the Kyoto Treaty. (Graph below should be manipulated to add-in the Harris/GMF/CCFR data. Additional columns should show 70% for 'Should Join', 25% 'Should Not Join' and 5% for Not Sure/Decline.) An April 2001 Los Angeles Times poll that also presented both sides of the argument found 59% support. [1]

Apparently the level of information about global warming has little effect on attitudes about the Kyoto agreement. A September 2002 Harris poll asked those who had read, seen, or heard about the international agreements that would require countries to limit their emissions of carbon monoxide and their greenhouse gases (52% of the sample), whether they approved of "the international agreements in Kyoto and Bonn which would require countries to limit their emissions of carbon monoxide and other greenhouse gases." Responses were essentially the same as for the most recent ABC poll mentioned above--73% approved while 20% disapproved. [1a]

These recent results are consistent with those of earlier research by PIPA. In October 1998, respondents were given a few details about the Kyoto Treaty and asked whether they favored the US Senate ratifying it. A majority of 59% said they would favor it, with just 21% opposed. [2]

A September 1998 Mellman poll found 79% support for the Kyoto Treaty, with just 7% opposed.[3] Their percentage may be higher than what PIPA found at that time for a number of reasons. The Mellman question said "the US agreed to reduce its emissions by 7% by the year 2010," while the PIPA question clarified that this reduction was below 1990 levels, not current levels. The Mellman poll mentioned that such reductions would not need to occur until 2010, while the PIPA question did not give a time frame. Also, the Mellman poll included only registered voters, which tends to produce a sample with higher levels of education. Those with higher levels of education tended to be more supportive of ratification in the PIPA poll....more
--------------------------------------------

http://www.americans-world.org/digest/global_issues/global_warming/gw1.cfm

Global Warming

The Reality and Urgency of Global Warming

A very strong majority of the US public embraces the idea that global warming is a real and serious problem and a majority (though a declining one) rejects the argument that taking action is too economically onerous. This majority divides on whether the problem is pressing and should include steps with significant costs or whether the problem can be dealt with more gradually through low-cost steps. Politicians who favor taking steps on global warming are viewed favorably. Awareness is high for global warming, but not for the process surrounding the Kyoto Treaty.

Strong Majority Affirms Reality of Global Warming

Virtually all polls taken have found a very strong majority believes that global warming is a real problem. Only a very small minority -- less than a quarter of the public -- doubts the reality of global warming. However, since the beginning of the Bush administration, the percentage showing doubts may have increased.

-- In September 2002, 74% said they "believe the theory that increased carbon dioxide and other gases released into the atmosphere will, if unchecked, lead to global warming and an increase in average temperatures"; 19% said they did not believe this (Harris Interactive). [1]

--In March 2001, 64% said they "believe that emissions of gases like carbon dioxide are causing global temperature increases"; 23% did not (Time/CNN). [1a]

--In an August 2000 Harris poll, 72% said they "believe[d] the theory" of global warming, while 20% said they did not--up from December 1997 when in response to the same question 67% said they believed it and 21% said they did not. [2]

--In a July 1999 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, only 11% took the position that "concern about global climate change is unwarranted." [3]

--In a September 1998 Wirthlin poll, 74% embraced the belief that "global warming is real" even when the belief was defined in terms of global warming having "catastrophic consequences," while just 22% said they did not believe in it.[4]

--An October 1997 Ohio State University survey asked about "the idea that the world's temperature may have been going up slowly over the last 100 years" and found that 77% thought "this has probably been happening," while 20% thought "it probably hasn't been happening." Likewise, 74% thought the world's average temperature would go up in the future, while 22% thought it would not. [5]

When PIPA in 1998 and 2000 offered respondents three possible positions on global warming, with one of the options being that global warming is real but does not require high cost steps, more than 80% chose an option that endorsed the reality of global warming (see below). This suggests that some respondents in other polls who did not endorse the reality of global warming may have been expressing their opposition to taking high-cost steps rather than a real rejection of the belief in global warming.

A strong majority also agrees that the causes of global warming are related to human activities. In March 2001, Gallup asked a question that took a global temperature increase as given and then asked about its causes. Sixty-one percent said they believed "increases in the earth's temperature over the last century are due more to the effects of pollution from human activities," while a third (33%) believed the increases were due more to "natural changes in the environment that are not due to human activities." Similarly, the next month the Los Angeles Times asked the 86% of the sample who had heard or read about global warming, "What do you think is causing it?" Sixty percent thought it was "caused more by human activities, such as driving cars and burning fuel," while only 20% thought it was "caused more by natural changes in the climate" (15% volunteered "both"). [6]

The percentage saying that global warming is a serious problem is high; it seems to have grown in the late '90s and to have stabilized now at about three-quarters of Americans. Most recently (March 2001), Time/CNN found that 76% thought global warming a very serious (43%) or fairly serious (32%) problem; 21% thought it a not very serious (14%) or not at all serious (7%) problem. The Los Angeles Times asked the same question of the sample's 86% who had heard or read of global warming: 79% of this group called it a serious problem (April 2001). [7] In August 2000 Harris found that 85% thought global warming was a "very serious" (46%) or "somewhat serious" (39%) threat; only 13% said it was "not serious at all." This was up from September 1998, when a Mellman Group poll of voters found 70% thought it a "very serious" (31%) or "somewhat serious" (39%) threat. When global warming was defined for respondents in the September 1998 poll, the percentage saying that the problem is serious went up another 4-10%. [8]

Perhaps more revealing, the majority does not believe that the media is exaggerating the seriousness of global warming. When Gallup (March 2001) asked respondents to think "about what is said in the news," only 30% thought "the seriousness of global warming" is "generally exaggerated." Two-thirds thought the media's picture of the seriousness of global warming was either "generally correct" (34%) or "generally underestimated" (32%). [9]

A strong majority believes that there is consensus among scientists as to the reality of global warming, though this belief has only recently consolidated. Today, 61% think that "most scientists believe that global warming is occurring" (30% think most scientists are unsure; Gallup, March 2001). Back in November 1997 (CNN/USA Today), a 48% plurality thought that "most scientists believe that global warming is occurring," while 39% thought "most scientists are unsure about whether global warming is occurring or not." [10] In 1994, a poll by Cambridge Reports showed that just 28% thought that "there is a consensus among the great majority of scientists that global warming exists and could do "significant damage," while 58% said that scientists are divided on the existence of global warming and its impact. The number who believed most scientists think global warming does not exist was 8% in 1994, 7% in 1997, and 4% in March 2001. [11]

When asked to estimate when the effects of global warming will be felt, a majority says that they are beginning to be felt now, but only a minority of Americans anticipates that global warming will have dramatic effect in their own lifetimes. In March 2001, Gallup asked about the effects of global warming and found 58% thought "they have already begun to happen" (54%) or "will start happening within a few years" (4%; Gallup). while 18% thought "they will not happen within my lifetime, but they will affect future generations" (only 7% thought that the effects of global warming "will never happen"). However, when asked "Do you think that global warming will pose a serious threat to you or your way of life in your lifetime?", only a third (31%) said yes, while two-thirds (66%) said no. In a September 1998 Mellman Group poll of voters, 57% thought "global warming is an environmental problem that is happening now," while 26% thought that global warming would happen in the future (only 8% thought "global warming will not happen"). [12]

A substantial number say that they worry about global warming. In an April 2001 Gallup poll 63% said that they worried "a great deal" (33%) or "a fair amount" (30%) while (35%) said they worried "only a little" (22%) or not at all (13%). In a Pew poll taken the same month in response to the same question respondents said they worried a great deal (30%),a fair amount (29%), only a little (24%), and not at all (14%). [13]

--------------------------------------------

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2003/12/12/in ternational1531EST0632.DTL

Despite frustrations over Russia, Kyoto climate-pact backers report progress at U.N. meeting in Milan

FRANCES D'EMILIO, Associated Press Writer

Many countries plan to go ahead with their Kyoto Protocol commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions even if the treaty doesn't come into force, officials said Friday at the close of a U.N. climate change conference.

Several participants expressed confidence that it was only a matter of time before Russia, whose support is crucial to the treaty, comes on board.

Because its emission levels have plunged along with its economy, Russia stands to earn billions of dollars by selling emission credits under a key feature of the treaty that allows countries over their targets to buy emission credits.

"The result from these discussions is that the Kyoto Protocol is the only game in town," German Environment Minister Juergin Trittin told reporters on the final day of the 12-day gathering.

Russia's participation in Kyoto became vital after the United States ruled out joining two years ago out of concern the pact could cost millions of American jobs.

Russian energy officials met with Italian delegates on the sidelines of the conference. Russia's delegation chief, Alexander I. Bedritsky, indicated Moscow was seeking better terms.

Regardless, countries are going ahead with energy policies in the spirit of Kyoto, without waiting for Russia's ratification, said the conference president, Miklos Persanyi of Hungary.

Those include the 15-member European Union, which is politically committed to its emission targets even though it is behind on them.

And Australia, which along with Russia and the United States is one of the biggest industrialized countries to reject the accord, will still strive to meet Kyoto requirements, Persanyi said.

In a major step at the conference, delegates agreed on how industrialized countries can earn credit toward emission targets by preserving or establishing forests, which absorb the heat-trapping carbon dioxide that is a byproduct of manufacturing, driving and heating.

In the meeting's final hours, negotiators worked on details of two funds for helping developing countries gain know-how about cleaner energy and cope with effects of global warming, such as coastal flooding.

While the United States has rejected Kyoto, it is a party to a 1992 U.N. convention on climate change, under which the Milan conference was organized.

As a result, it is committed to stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations at a level that will prevent "dangerous human interference with the Earth's climate," the top U.S. delegate, Undersecretary for Global Affairs, Paula Dobriansky, said in comments this week.

The Energy Department reported in October that from 1990 to 2002, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions increased at an annual rate of 0.9 percent. Had the United States joined Kyoto, it would have been required to reduce emissions 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2012.

Washington's lead negotiator at the conference, Harlan Watson, noted the conference's attention to developing new technologies and employing more efficient technology -- main planks in the Bush administration's energy policy.

Speaking with The Associated Press, he also praised attention being paid to gathering scientific data.

"We are very strong believers that if we are going to understand what is going on, we need better science, and underlying the better science is observations," Watson said. "We have huge gaps in our global observations, particularly in the southern hemisphere and in many of the developing countries."

posted 12-13-2003 09:58 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sore Throat:
We note that [b]SEÑOR Eduardo Ferreyra is unable to provide a single peer reviewed scientific article to document his preposterous claim that 65% of the world's glaciers are "advancing".

Not one !!

---

quote:

---

"He must provide examples of consensus on controversial theories and hypothesis."
Excuse me if I state the obvious...
"controversial" and "consensus" are mutually exclusive.
Perhaps SEÑOR Eduardo Ferreyra is having trouble with a non-native language.

---

I don't think he would show such gentlemanship has to continue this discussion in Spanish, so I would not be at disadvantage because I "have trouble with a non-native language". Or perhaps Mighty Guru Sore Throat would like to go on discussing these matters in French, German, Italian, Portuguese, or amazonian Guarayo dialect, languages I read, speak and write. So be it. It is not important.

When there are two (or more) theories or hypothesis at stake - as is the case of "catastrophic, man induced" global warming and similar hoaxes - one of the sides claim "ample consensus" to dismiss the other party arguments, and call the discussion off. Normally, consensus is invoked when the science behind the claims is feeble - or flawed.

posted 12-13-2003 10:24 PM               

quote:

---

Ratification by Russia "is likely to happen sometime after the presidential elections in March 2004," predicted Alexey Kokorin, head of WWF-Russia's climate change programme.
Kyoto is "alive, not very well, but still moving forward," said Greenpeace International's political director, Steve Sawyer.

---

Kyoto is DEAD, GONE, KAPUT!

And better have not any doubts about it.

quote:

---

The UN's top scientific body on global warming, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), projects a rise in Earth's atmospheric temperature of between 1.4 and 5.8 C (2.5-10.4 F) from 1990-2100.

At the top end of the IPCC's estimates, sea levels could rise by 88 centimetres (55 inches), drowning many small island states and delta regions.

---

posted 12-13-2003 11:02 PM               

Here is the reality:

Figure 1. Grinnell Glacier in Glacier National Park, Montana; photograph by Carl H. Key, USGS, in 1981. The glacier has been retreating rapidly since the early 1900's. The arrows point to the former extent of the glacier in 1850, 1937, and 1968. Mountain glaciers are excellent monitors of climate change; the worldwide shrinkage of mountain glaciers is thought to be caused by a combination of a temperature increase from the Little Ice Age, which ended in the latter half of the 19th century, and increased greenhouse-gas emissions.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/

An "innocent" error on the part of SEÑOR Eduardo Ferreyra, or an emerging pattern that when challenged for proof of his statements he retreats?

I suppose we should now expect that either I or the USGS doctored the above photo for our own nefarious purposes.

Remember, it was SEÑOR Ferreyra who choose Glacier National Park as an example of an "advancing" glacier.

At least he has finally admitted that he cannot provide a single publication support his claim that 65% of the world's glaciers are advancing.

As far a his statement regarding consensus and controversial scientific theories,

Here are a couple from past history:

The earth is flat. Everyone knows this. On that there is consensus.

The sun revolves around the earth. This is obvious. There is no disagreement on this. Total consensus...even supported by the church.

But then grew "controversy" ... some would say heresy, regarding what was at the time regarded as "scientific" fact.

And what was true then is also true today...

posted 12-13-2003 11:23 PM               

An area in which SEÑOR Eduardo Ferreyra has shown to have tremendous expertise.

Regarding his past post citing a single location of proported sea level stability, please consider the following:

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/426.htm

11.3.2.3 Mean sea level change from satellite altimeter observations

In contrast to the sparse network of coastal and mid-ocean island tide gauges, measurements of sea level from space by satellite radar altimetry provide near global and homogenous coverage of the world’s oceans, thereby allowing the determination of regional sea level change. Satellite altimeters also measure sea level with respect to the centre of the earth. While the results must be corrected for isostatic adjustment (Peltier, 1998), satellite altimetry avoids other vertical land movements (tectonic motions, subsidence) that affect local determinations of sea level trends measured by tide gauges. However, achieving the required sub-millimetre accuracy is demanding and requires satellite orbit information, geophysical and environmental corrections and altimeter range measurements of the highest accuracy. It also requires continuous satellite operations over many years and careful control of biases.

To date, the TOPEX/POSEIDON satellite-altimeter mission, with its (near) global coverage from 66°N to 66°S (almost all of the ice-free oceans) from late 1992 to the present, has proved to be of most value to direct estimates of sea level change. The current accuracy of TOPEX/POSEIDON data allows global average sea level to be estimated to a precision of several millimetres every 10 days, with the absolute accuracy limited by systematic errors.

Careful comparison of TOPEX/POSEIDON data with tide gauge data reveals a difference in the rate of change of local sea level of -2.3 ± 1.2 mm/yr (Mitchum, 1998) or -2 ± 1.5 mm/yr (Cazenave et al., 1999). This discrepancy is caused by a combination of instrumental drift, especially in the TOPEX Microwave Radiometer (TMR) (Haines and Bar-Sever, 1998), and vertical land motions which have not been allowed for in the tide gauge data. The most recent estimates of global average sea level rise from the six years of TOPEX/POSEIDON data (using corrections from tide gauge comparisons) are 2.1 ± 1.2 mm/yr (Nerem et al., 1997), 1.4 ± 0.2 mm/yr (Cazenave et al., 1998; Figure 11.8), 3.1 ± 1.3 mm/yr (Nerem, 1999) and 2.5 ± 1.3 mm/yr (Nerem, 1999), of which the last assumes that all instrumental drift can be attributed to the TMR. When Cazenave et al. allow for the TMR drift, they compute a sea level rise of 2.6 mm/yr. Their uncertainty of ± 0.2 mm/yr does not include allowance for uncertainty in instrumental drift, but only reflects the variations in measured global sea level. Such variations correlate with global average sea surface temperature, perhaps indicating the importance of steric effects through ocean heat storage. Cazenave et al. (1998) and Nerem et al. (1999) argue that ENSO events cause a rise and a subsequent fall in global averaged sea level of about 20 mm (Figure 11.8). These findings indicate that the major 1997/98 El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) event could bias the above estimates of sea level rise and also indicate the difficulty of separating long-term trends from climatic variability.

Figure 11.10: Estimated sea level rise from 1910 to 1990. (a) The thermal expansion, glacier and ice cap, Greenland and Antarctic contributions resulting from climate change in the 20th century calculated from a range of AOGCMs. Note that uncertainties in land ice calculations have not been included. (b) The mid-range and upper and lower bounds for the computed response of sea level to climate change (the sum of the terms in (a) plus the contribution from permafrost). These curves represent our estimate of the impact of anthropogenic climate change on sea level during the 20th century. (c) The mid-range and upper and lower bounds for the computed sea level change (the sum of all terms in (a) with the addition of changes in permafrost, the effect of sediment deposition, the long-term adjustment of the ice-sheets to past climate change and the terrestrial storage terms).

After upgrading many of the geophysical corrections on the original European Remote Sensing (ERS) data stream, Cazenave et al. (1998) find little evidence of sea level rise over the period April 1992 to May 1996. However, over the time span of overlap between the ERS-1 and TOPEX/POSEIDON data, similar rates of sea level change (about 0.5 mm/yr) are calculated. For the period April 1992 to April 1995, Anzenhofer and Gruber (1998) find a sea level rise of 2.2 ± 1.6 mm/yr.

In summary, analysis of TOPEX/POSEIDON data suggest a rate of sea level rise during the 1990s greater than the mean rate of rise for much of the 20th century. It is not yet clear whether this is the result of a recent acceleration, of systematic differences between the two measurement techniques, or of the shortness of the record (6 years).

For those interested, additional information can be found at:

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm

posted 12-14-2003 09:09 AM               

quote:

---

The earth is flat. Everyone knows this. On that there is consensus.
The sun revolves around the earth. This is obvious. There is no disagreement on this. Total consensus...even supported by the church.
But then grew "controversy" ... some would say heresy, regarding what was at the time regarded as "scientific" fact.

---

This is a small part of a lecture given by Michael Crichton back in January 2003, speaking at CalTech about global warming and the fate of future science, if this trend of “science by press release” continues. The kind of science that Throatie adheres:

posted 12-14-2003 12:43 PM               

quote:

---

Shoddy science ? !
An area in which SEÑOR Eduardo Ferreyra has shown to have tremendous expertise.
Regarding his past post citing a single location of proported sea level stability, please consider the following: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/426.htm
11.3.2.3 Mean sea level change from satellite altimeter observations
To date, the TOPEX/POSEIDON satellite-altimeter mission, with its (near) global coverage from 66°N to 66°S (almost all of the ice-free oceans) from late 1992 to the present, has proved to be of most value to direct estimates of sea level change. The current accuracy of TOPEX/POSEIDON data allows global average sea level to be estimated to a precision of several millimetres every 10 days, with the absolute accuracy limited by systematic errors.

---

This is the conclusion of an excellent analysis of the severe limitations of TOPEX/POSEIDON satellite for determining sea levels. It is called Averaging the Averages, because the results of TOPEX on sea levels are just that = satistical averages of averages of averages. A simple trick. Shoddy science.

People of this board: Do you think Throatie would like me to post the analysis for you to read – and he to provide his “copy and paste” knowledgeable answers?

I don't think so. Must I remind you that he has never provided an answer on specifi topics I have posed him? He has shown to have not an analytical mind, but a simple "copy & paste" parrot-like one. He has shown to be unable to provide any scientific comments or opinions of his own - even on simple elementary school matters. I will prove it to you once more: Poor Old Throatie cannot give an answer to simple "true or false" questions as these:

posted 12-14-2003 01:46 PM               

But let's be clear on this point, +/- 4.7 cm is an accuracy derived from statistical processing, not from the individual time measurements of the pulses and their echoes.  Consequently, there are limits as to how far statistical averaging can be taken before we end up with illusory numbers, seemingly authoritative, but quite divorced from reality.  In the introduction, it was shown that a thousand or a million people measuring the New York-London distance off a map would achieve no better a  resolution of the distance than if merely ten people did it.  A number would be obtained, expressed to many decimal places - to a matter of yards even, but it would be meaningless if the inherent resolution of the measurement system did not allow such a close estimate.  Exactly the same limitation applies to T/P.

[Edited 2 times, lastly by Edufer on 12-14-2003]

posted 12-14-2003 02:03 PM               

Problems, Problems...

There are numerous problems which threaten to compromise the basic accuracy of the T/P system.

1) Height of the Satellite

Firstly, if we are to measure the range of a target such as the sea surface, it is essential that we know the height of the satellite itself.  If it is higher or lower than we think it is, even by a few metres, the measurement of sea level becomes meaningless.  So, the satellite must be continuously tracked so that its height, speed, and angle are precisely known at all times.  An airport radar, for example, sits on a fixed point, and so the ranging error of distant aircraft is limited only to the return time of the echo.  But suppose the airport radar were itself moving about all over the airport?  Chaos would result as the targeting of the aircraft would now be the product of both the aircraft's position and the radar's position.

The T/P satellite travels 6 kilometres in a single second, so tracking its position, height, and course is critical in making any sense of the returned echoes.

Three independent systems are used to track T/P, one of which is based on laser transmissions from the ground, another being based on positioning from up to six GPS navigation satellites (which are themselves moving at high speed too).  The upshot is that the T/P satellite's position is calculated to a claimed accuracy of +/- 3 centimetres.  So, even after the thousand pulses are averaged to give an echo ranging accuracy of +/- 4.7 cm, we still have the +/- 3 cm error margin of the satellite position itself to contend with.  Combining these two fundamental error factors suggests that the claimed resolution of the system has been heavily overstated.

Since T/P began, there have been two TOPEX altimeters on the same satellite, TOPEX-A and TOPEX-B,  'A' being used during the earlier period, and supplemented by 'B' a few years ago, one following the other, with a period of overlap for calibration.  This further complicates the issue since the results from the earlier instrument does not dovetail exactly with the second.  Even slight differences in electronic component characteristics (no two similar components are ever identical) can lead to a mismatch between the two.  Even differences at the molecular level between components can create significant mismatches when attempting a resolution of mere centimetres over a distance of 1,335 kilometres.

2) Footprint Size

A radar pulse is not narrow and pencil-like such as with a laser, rather it leaves the radar as a widening beam, getting wider the further it travels.  In its 1,335 km journey down from space, the beam 'illuminates' a circle of ocean 3 to 5 km wide, depending on the sea state and the height of the waves. A calm sea affords a narrower footprint (typically 2 km) than if the sea is very rough (typically 10 km).  The radar cannot resolve anything closer than that, so all it can do is average out all the thousands of echoes returning from each pulse. The returning echoes are thus a blend of thousands of little echoes from within the footprint, some coming from the troughs of waves, some coming up from wave peaks.  With waves up to many metres in height, this creates a mish-mash of echoes from varying heights.  Anything within the footprint which is of a different height to the sea will render the echoes harder to decipher which is why T/P does not process echoes when there is any land or islands intruding into the footprint.

This also raises the problem of what might happen if there are ships within the footprint - excellent reflectors with large flat horizontal decks beaming echoes directly back to the radar.  In other words, a ship echo makes a more powerful echo than the nearby disturbed sea and has the potential to skew the overall echo pattern of the footprint out of all proportion to the size of the ship itself.  In busy shipping regions such as the North Atlantic, there may be numerous ships within the footprint, each one sending back an echo from a higher level than the sea surface, while the T/P system itself will be quite ignorant of the presence of those ships.  In normal ship-borne radar the greater reflectivity of steel compared with water means that sea waves might only be detectable at 1 to 2 miles from the radar (commonly called 'sea clutter' by ship officers), while the much stronger echoes from ships can be detected tens of miles away.  The same phenomenon - a disproportionately stronger echo from steel ships as compared with echoes from the sea surface, must inevitably introduce unknown and uncorrectable errors into the T/P system.

One of the claims of the T/P system is that its accuracy is calibrated using data from tide gauges mounted on a selected number of oil rigs.  Being far out to sea, they are free of the land effects which would prevent sea level readings when land intrudes into the footprint.  Yet the rig itself is a perfect reflector, just like ships, making calibration somewhat questionable by this method.  Where there is one rig, there is usually several, even within the same footprint, thus compounding the effect.

3) Sea State

Trying to measure sea level on a Hawaiian surfing beach would be difficult enough.  Doing it from a satellite 1,335 km in space travelling at 6 km per second is 'challenging' to put it mildly.  Out in the open ocean, a smooth flat sea is very rare.  The norm is for waves, some of them several metres in height.  Even when there is no wind and the sea surface might be smooth as glass, there is still likely to be a 'swell' causing the glassy sea to gently heave up and down as long loping waves progress across the ocean surface, remnants of a storm system perhaps thousands of miles away.

The problem of sea state is that both the wave crests and the wave troughs are both returning echoes to the satellite.  With wave heights of several metres being typical, the T/P system has to somehow resolve this mish-mash of thousands of echoes from within the footprint, some from wave tops, some from wave troughs, into some sensible average.  The statistical correction is further complicated by the fact that wave troughs give better focusing to the beam than do the wave tops which tend to scatter the signal.  This would give an impression of lower sea level if there is a strong swell in the sea. That problem is addressed via a statistical model.

Because there are so many permutations of sea state (e.g. high steep waves close together, or a low shallow swell, heavy breaking waves, confused wave trains etc.), no one model can represent them all as far as a correction scheme is concerned, and so it is acknowledged that sea state correction is highly uncertain and little understood.  In spite of this gap in understanding, the claimed processed resolution of +/- 4.7 cm is still promoted.

4) Atmosphere Errors

The speed of light is a universal constant - except when it passes through a denser medium such as the atmosphere.  There are two errors that T/P has to cope with, the ionosphere (a highly ionised layer near the top of the atmosphere) and the moist troposphere (from the surface to about 15 km in altitude).  Both atmospheric layers slow down the pulse and echo every slightly, and have to be corrected for.  T/P uses a second radar on a different wavelength to determine the strength of ionisation in the ionosphere, and uses a passive microwave sounding unit (MSU) to determine the amount of water vapour in the troposphere (which can cause variation in the velocity of the pulse and echoes).  These two subsidiary instruments are used to provide a correction factor to adjust the echo data for these two atmospheric effects.

5) Wavelength of the Pulses

The T/P pulses are themselves made up 'microwaves' which have a peak-to-peak wavelength of 2.3 cm and 3 cm for the two radars used.  This imposes an absolute lower limit on range resolution since such a wave cannot discriminate distances shorter than its own wavelength.  In other words, +/- 3 cm is the very best resolution theoretically possible even when making the impossible assumption that all other variables are perfectly known and accounted for.

6) Ocean Area Coverage

T/P cannot measure sea level when there is any land within the footprint because T/P cannot tell the land echoes from the sea echoes and gives a false result.   This means that all sea areas within 3 to 5 kilometres of continental coasts, islands, even atolls, are not covered.   Also not covered is all oceanic area north of 66°N or south of 66°S, due to the angled track of the satellite.  This results in the Arctic Ocean and the high-latitude part of the North Atlantic being excluded.  Also excluded is much of the  oceanic area surrounding Antarctica.  In areas with a large density of islands such as the Indonesian archipelago or the West Indies, the 'no-go' area several kilometres around each island will result in a substantial area of ocean being excluded from sea level measurement altogether. This is shown by the broad white area around Indonesia and the South China Sea in the map of sea surface height in 1999 as shown in Fig.1 below.

posted 12-14-2003 02:21 PM               

The Bigger Picture

As stated earlier, T/P collects raw radar data on sea surface height to a claimed basic observation accuracy of +/- 1.2 metres.

But the compounded effect of so many error factors must seriously compromise the claimed processed resolution of +/- 4.7 cm. In effect, this claimed resolution is achieved on the basis of taking an average of an average of an average of an average of an average of echo and positioning data. With so many errors and uncertainties needing correction and adjustment, the final T/P sea level output is many stages of statistical processing removed from the initial raw echo data.

Some comparison is made between T/P readings and readings from tide gauges, but since most such gauges are on coasts, the height of the coast behind the tide gauge will muddy the echoes from the footprint in which the tide gauge sits. Using oil rigs is little better as they too return echoes from a different height to that of the sea.

And where we find tide gauges, we also find boats and ships - lots of them - to further confuse the echoes. While land can be incorporated into a computer model of no-go areas, ships are impossible to correct for as they are moving about all over the oceans, seemingly at random. Because of the impossibility of correcting for ships, their effect is largely ignored and their significance as an error generator played down or even denied.

Even if we wish to accept at face value the claim that T/P really is accurate to +/- 4.7 cm, it is taking statistical averaging to a higher level of absurdity to imagine that we could apply yet more averaging to arrive at sea level changes in millimetres per year. That would be demanding a resolution level that the T/P technology simply does not have. Yet this is precisely what the T/P institutions have done.

Recent T/P sea level change charts like this one (Fig.2 below) show not only a rising sea level, but they even quote it to an accuracy of +/- a tenth of a millimetre per year, a quite absurd proposition given the limitations of the technology outlined above.

Fig.2 - Latest Chart of Sea Level Change. Note the 'Global Drift' statement The sharp calculated rise in sea level at around cycle 175 was attributed by them to the warming effect of El Niño during 1998, and yet only 3 years on, with mostly cooling La Niña conditions worldwide, the T/P is continuing to calculate a sea level rise over and above that achieved by the 1998 El Niño. It is notable especially that the red dots representing the second altimeter, TOPEX-B, are frequently out of step with the earlier one, especially around cycle 278, suggesting calibration problems between the two instruments. Another sharp rise is shown around cycle 299, yet there was no global warming to account for it. The total sea level rise as represented by the trend line in the above graph is around 2 centimetres covering a period of 9 years, not even enough time for the 18.5-year tidal cycle to work itself through. When we consider that the basic measurement of sea level by means of radar only has a claimed accuracy of +/- 1.2 metres, or 1,200 millimetres, to now claim that the accuracy of the sea level trend is accurate to within a tenth of a millimetre, (i.e. 24,000 times greater than the basic resolution) can only be the result of relentless statistical processing and averaging, giving an illusory result rather than a real one, similar to the kind of result one would get if an average were taken of tens of thousands of people measuring the distance between New York and London on a map. Merely expressing a final averaged number to many decimal places does not mean the number itself is accurate to that many decimal places. It is still limited by the measurement system itself, which in the case of a large map would be perhaps 10 miles, not 10 inches. Yet the T/P program is presenting similar such 'decimal place' numbers which will always result from extensive averaging, as if they represented real improvements in resolution thousands of times greater than the natural resolution of the technology itself. The institutions controlling T/P have gone far beyond what is possible or appropriate with statistics. It is worth noting that many scientists prefer the T/P system to be used for what it does best - to give a broad global picture of approximate sea level heights and sea states (the 'texture' of the echoes can tell us about sea state), and how they vary with ocean currents and events like El Niño. It is not suited to fine detection of global sea level change where accuracies of millimetres or better are needed. Only a network of tide gauges on tectonically stable coasts can do that. This doesn't stop the greenhouse industry trying to talk up T/P, the very people who so readily talk down the data from the much simpler passive temperature-sensing satellites. It is ironic that one of the instruments on T/P for correcting atmospheric error is itself a passive microwave sounding unit (MSU), the very same technology used for the satellite temperature record. In rejecting the validity of the MSU as a temperature record, they should also reject the use of an MSU to correct T/P. Instead, they have applied double standards, rejecting its use in one context, but readily accepting it another. Conclusion As an example of the best technology available in space monitoring, TOPEX-Poseidon has proved to be a boon to ocean research, not so much because of its sea level averaging, but because of numerous other uses to which this technology has been applied, from detection of El Niño to the tracking of ocean currents and space monitoring of wind speeds through sea state analysis. But while T/P has proved successful in these other areas, its use as a global sea level monitor is highly restrained by the limitations on its accuracy once millimetric scales are sought. To suggest that changes in the global level of the heaving oceans can be determined to a resolution of tenths of a millimetre, or even a centimetre, is to make unsustainable claims about the inherent capabilities of the technology itself. Statistics cannot compensate for the limitations imposed by the electronics and by radiation physics and claims to the contrary are simply not credible. Literature Consulted CNES TOPEX-Poseidon: Ocean and Climate www.cnes.fr/web_uk/activities/programmes/Topex/Top_posd.html Satellite Remote Sensing of the Oceans http://ocean.stanford.edu/GP235/notes_0213.html AVISO Altimetry. How Altimetry Works http://jason.oceanobs.com/html/alti/principe_uk.html Altimetry: Life Cycle of a Radar Pulse http://www.satobsys.co.uk/Altimetry/lentil.html Ocean Surface Topography from Space - Technology http://topex-www.jpl.nasa.gov/technology/technology.html TOPEX/Poseidon Frequently Asked Questions http://www.tsgc.utexas.edu/topex/topexfaq.html AVISO TOPEX-Poseidon, Mean Sea Level Monitoring http://www-aviso.cnes.fr:8090/HTML/information/frames/applications/actu/niveau_m oyen_uk.html Radar Altimetry (PDF) http://topex.ucsd.edu/rs/altimetry.pdf Side-B TOPEX Altimeter Evaluation http://www-aviso.cnes.fr:8090/HTML/information/missions/topex/topex_b_uk.html Long Term Sea Level Change - Univ. of Texas at Austin http://www.csr.utexas.edu/gmsl/ ( Thanks to Hiram Jacobs for his helpful comments in preparation of this report ) Appendix - TOPEX-Poseidon Specifications

posted 12-14-2003 03:30 PM               

Global Mean Sea Level (MSL, blue line) and Sea Surface Temperature (SST, red dotted line) from early 1993 to mid-1998. In 1997 there was a rise of 15 mm.(Credits CNRS/Legos

Is the mean sea level rising? This question is focusing the attention of climatologists, as it could be a sign of global warming of the atmosphere, which would in turn lead to a warming of the oceans. Thermal expansion of water and melting of the polar ice caps and glaciers would then cause sea level to rise. It certainly did rise in 1997, but this was a direct consequence of El Niño rather than the indication of a clear trend towards global warming.

The meteorological effects of El Niño 1997-1998 were felt worldwide, but it also contributed to variations in mean sea level. Indeed, sea level anomalies measured by Topex/Poseidon were over 20 centimeters in the equatorial Pacific when the phenomenon was at its height (and as much as 30 centimeters off the coast of Peru). These anomalies obviously had an effect on the global mean of sea levels.

posted 12-14-2003 04:56 PM               

No surprise.

SEÑOR Eduardo Ferreyra has previously posted:

"Even against satellite readings that show a cooling trend, and measurements made by the Australian Tide Service showing Pacific Ocean's levels at Tuvalu have been stable for centuries and are now decreasing!"

and then goes on to provide an extensive "cut and paste" crtique of TOPEX/POSEIDON data collected via satellite written by John Daly.

Perhaps SEÑOR Ferreyra will grace us with his own profound insight as to why the techniques used by the Australian Tide Service meet his critical requirements for the collection of scientific data, which he implies demonstrate sea level stability.

We must assume that he has analyzed their procedures and techniques exhaustively, and since they have passed muster with him, he feels comfortable in drawing conclusions on that status of sea level changes on a global basis.

Lay it out there big guy...let's see what you've got. Let's see a data collection technique that isn't open to criticism.

Footnote:

Amazing how much of Michael Crichton's speech SEÑOR Ferreyra lifted verbatim without attribution previously in this thread.

Perhaps he has assuaged a troubled conscience by finally crediting the true author.

posted 12-14-2003 06:17 PM               

This is air we all must breathe:

posted 12-14-2003 08:25 PM               

quote:

---

Lay it out there big guy...let's see what you've got. Let's see a data collection technique that isn't open to criticism.

---

posted 12-14-2003 09:08 PM               

quote:

---

and then goes on to provide an extensive "cut and paste" crtique of TOPEX/POSEIDON data collected via satellite written by John Daly.

---

quote:

---

Amazing how much of Michael Crichton's speech SEÑOR Ferreyra lifted verbatim without attribution previously in this thread.

Perhaps he has assuaged a troubled conscience by finally crediting the true author.

---

quote:

---

Just a reminder as to why many are concerned about what appears to be a deliberate modification of our atmosphere.
This is air we all must breathe:
Perfectly "normal" eh SEÑOR Ferreyra ?

---

posted 12-14-2003 10:47 PM               

I've never expressed a criticism for providing information via "cut and paste". All readers of this thread know that it was you who initiated this criticism, and have used it repeatedly. I'm simply pointing out your hypocrisy.

And yes, I do realize that I am showing you the way, on many fronts.
___________________________________________

Not wanting to give you an excuse to retreat from this board, I will play your game.

SEÑOR Eduardo Ferreyra writes (exactly):

"Claim 1: The reason clouds form when the air cools, is because air cannot hold as much water as warm air. = True or False?"

Is because air (sic) cannot hold as much water as warm air. ? ! ? !

A trick question, or simply poorly worded?

Here is the reality:

Clouds are formed when air containing water vapor is cooled below a critical temperature called the dew point and the resulting moisture condenses into droplets on microscopic dust particles (condensation nuclei) in the atmosphere. The air is normally cooled by expansion during its upward movement. Upward flow of air in the atmosphere may be caused by convection resulting from intense solar heating of the ground; by a cold wedge of air (cold front) near the ground causing a mass of warm air to be forced aloft; or by a mountain range at an angle to the wind. Clouds are occasionally produced by a reduction of pressure aloft or by the mixing of warmer and cooler air currents.

-------------------------------------------

"Claim 2: The Greenhosue (sic)Effect is caused when gases in the atmosphere behave as a blanket and trap radiation that is later irradiated back to Earth. = True or False?"

Once again, a "trick" question on the part of SEÑOR Ferreyra since his question does not specify what type of radiation he is referring to...i.e., visible, UV, or IR.

Here is the reality:

Many chemical compounds found in the Earth’s atmosphere act as “greenhouse gases.” These gases allow sunlight, which is radiated in the visible and ultraviolet spectra, to enter the atmosphere unimpeded. When it strikes the Earth’s surface, some of the sunlight is reflected as infrared radiation (heat). Greenhouse gases tend to absorb this infrared radiation as it is reflected back towards space, trapping the heat in the atmosphere.

GAS Pre-1750 concentration of CO2 = 280 PPM

Current Tropospheric Concentration = 372.37 PPM

Increased Radiative Forcing = 1.46 W/sq. meter

posted 12-16-2003 01:01 AM               

The importance of Condensation Nuclei

Heat, Pollution Changing Precipitation

ANDREW BRIDGES

SAN FRANCISCO - The massive amounts of heat and pollution that rise from the world's cities both delay and stimulate the fall of precipitation, cheating some areas of much-needed rain and snow while dousing others, scientists said.

The findings support growing evidence that urbanization has a sharp and alarming effect on the climate, and those changes can wreak havoc with precipitation patterns that supply life's most precious resource: water.

"These are going to become big issues," said Steve Burian of the University of Utah.

Details were presented Thursday and Friday at the fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union.

In California, eastward-blowing pollution induces a precipitation deficit across the Sierra Nevada mountain range equal to about 1 trillion gallons of water a year, said Daniel Rosenfeld of Hebrew University in Jerusalem.

The Sierra Nevada is a major source of water for much of California, which relies on it to supply its cities and farms.

"It amounts to significantly less amounts of water," said Rosenfeld, who has noted similar pollution-linked deficits in Israel.

The warmth and grit generated in urban areas can have the opposite effect on local precipitation and actually boost rainfall levels in large cities like Atlanta and Houston.

During the past 60 years, while Houston has grown to become the nation's fourth-largest city, scientists have measured increased amounts of rain in areas downwind of the urban core during hot, humid summer months, Burian said.

"The majority of evidence is pointing to some sort of urban modification," he said, adding that more research is needed.

Cities produce large amounts of a class of pollutants called aerosols, which include tiny particles of dust and the byproducts of the combustion of diesel and other fossil fuels.

Atmospheric levels of the pollutant are closely tied to levels of human activity. In New York City, measurements made between June and September 2001 showed that aerosol levels regularly grew during the work week, with a noticeable spike on Wednesdays, then decreased on the weekend, said Menglin Jin of the University of Maryland at College Park. She attributes the midweek spike to a sharp increase in diesel truck traffic.

When hoisted skyward, the microscopic pollutants act as multiple surfaces on which the moisture in clouds can condense to form tiny droplets. That can prevent or delay the formation of larger raindrops that more readily fall from the sky as rain.

In Southern California, a 24 percent decrease in the amount of rainfall measured since 1890 in the town of Cuyamaca appears linked to aerosol pollution wafting from San Diego, roughly 40 miles to the southwest, Rosenfeld said.

Cities also generate and trap tremendous amounts of heat and are on average one to 10 degrees warmer than surrounding undeveloped areas. That heat also changes the dynamics of clouds.

In more humid cities, urbanization appears to invigorate summer storm activity by allowing clouds to build higher and larger before unleashing torrential rains, Burian said. That appears to be the case in Houston.

The relative contributions that urban heat and pollution make to altering the climate remains unclear, scientists said. It's also unclear what, if any, effect smaller cities might have.

"How big does a city need to be? We don't know. The answer is still out there," said Marshall Shepherd, a NASA research meteorologist.

*********************************************** http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4816420-103681,00.html

Extreme weather of climate change gives insurers a costly headache

Paul Brown

Economic losses in Europe because of the summer drought exceeded £7bn in the agriculture sector alone because of loss of crops and livestock, the insurance industry announced at the climate talks in Milan.

Premiums are having to be increased across Europe to cope with the number and frequency of extreme weather events, and some parts were becoming uninsurable because of repeated flooding.

Thomas Loster, of Munich Re, one of the world's largest reinsurance companies, said householders in lower risk areas might soon be faced with having to pay a €500 (£350) excess to get insurance for extreme weather events.

"We used to talk in terms of floods and heatwaves being one in 100 year events, but in the south of France this year we have had a one in 100 year heatwave, and last month one in 100 year floods - all in the same year. This is climate change happening now and a big headache for the insurance industry."

Mr Loster, a geographer and expert in weather-related losses, said this year's German heatwave, where record temperatures were reached over several days, was a one in 450 year event, according to modern measuring methods. Climate scientists had told him that it had probably not happened in the past 10,000 years, since the last ice age.

"Everywhere records are being broken. In Dresden the highest rainfall recorded in one day had been 47mm (just under 2in), and then in one day - August 12 2002 - there was 158mm (6in), more than three times as much. Naturally, the drains could not cope. This is unprecedented." He said it was shocking that 20,000 people had died as a result of the heatwave, most of them in France, though there were also deaths in Germany, Italy and England.

In most countries agricultural losses were not insured but repeated flooding was becoming a major problem for the industry. For example, parts of the old city of Cologne on the Rhine and Passau on the Danube were no longer insurable - and these areas represented about 5% of all properties in the country.

"As an example, a restaurant by the river in a nice location is flooded in 1983, 1993, and 1995, and each time makes a €10,000 claim. The premium has to go up to a level which will be unacceptable to the restaurant. The business has to take the risk of another flood by itself or abandon the premises and move."

He said that only intense competition in the European insurance sector for new business was preventing much larger areas becoming uninsurable or premiums carrying large excesses of several hundred euros.

"The time will soon come when insurance companies realise they cannot take the risk of insuring property that is prone to flooding just to grab new business."

Mr Loster said that between the 1960s and the 1990s insurance losses because of weather-related disasters worldwide had increased tenfold, and that was adjusted for inflation.

There were now three times as many "big weather events" recorded in each year which led to large losses.

He added: "The basic fact is, the ocean is heating up everywhere, there is more humidity in the atmosphere, there are many more heavy rain events. The risk is increasing dramatically from the insurance point of view.

"Scientists keep stressing the uncertainties, but we are businessmen, and we cannot go on taking these losses."

------------------------------------------------------------------

posted 12-16-2003 01:06 AM               

Let's hope that SEÑOR Eduardo Ferreyra will still be available to "intelligently" discuss these data with something other than "NASA lies".

--------------------------------------------
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3314453.stm

Ice mission delights scientists

By Molly Bentley
BBC Science, in San Francisco

A US space agency (NASA) satellite launched early this year and designed to measure the world's ice sheets is showing novel maps of Antarctica and Greenland in remarkable detail - down to the last ice crevasse.

Despite the early loss of one of its lasers; the Ice, Cloud and Land Elevation Satellite, (IceSat) is beaming home high-resolution measurements of polar ice and sea ice elevation as well as the stratification of clouds and aerosols.

The instrument sends out pulses in two "colours" - green for the atmospheric properties and infrared for the ice altimetry.

The eventual result is a 3D map of the Earth's surface.

Up to now climate scientists have had only spotty measurements of the height of the remote ice sheets.

"It's the difference between looking down at the tops of buildings and seeing them flat, and then discovering how high the buildings are," said Jay Zwally, IceSat project scientist from Nasa Goddard at the fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco.

Into a third dimension

The satellite data will help scientists determine just how the Earth's ice sheets are changing and what this may mean for global sea level.

The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets cover 10% of Earth's land area.

Even a small variation in their average thickness affects sea level, but glaciologists do not even know whether these massive blocks of ice are expanding or shrinking.

Their vast size makes accurate ground measurements impossible.

Knowing their height - the Antarctic ice sheet is more than 4,000 metres high at its tallest - allows scientists to calculate total ice mass and how it changes with time.

"We know a lot about the Earth in two-dimensions," said Nasa programme scientist Waleed Abdalati. "But the major challenge is the vertical dimension."

This comes from the craft's single scientific instrument, the Geoscience Laser Altimeter System (Glas) which sweeps over the Earth in a near pole-to-pole orbit, measuring the brief period it takes a light pulse to travel to Earth and bounce back.

Nasa's 'shooting star'

As the Earth rotates beneath the spacecraft, the resulting crisscross pattern is a bit like winding a ball of string, with the greatest coverage at the high latitudes.

Stargazers may catch the green pulse of the laser - the infrared is invisible - as the spacecraft arcs through the sky. The laser is safe on the eyes, but you have to be in just the right place and know just when to look to catch it.

"People think it's a shooting star," said Dr Abdalati.

Ice cover plays a crucial role in the Earth's climate system
While the space shuttle also used laser altimetry to measure topography it was lower in resolution, not as accurate and did not cover the poles.

Glas is the first satellite laser altimeter to be used to measure ice mass balance and its 15-centimetre accuracy is unprecedented.

This will help scientists determine exactly how much melting has occurred in areas where previous surveys reveal significant ice loss.

Aircraft measurements show increased melting at the edges of the Greenland ice sheet and satellite radar has revealed a thinning in the West Antarctic Ice Sheet that scientists believe is contributing to sea level rise.

Part-time mission

The first few months of IceSat operation have provided measurements and surface details that were never before visible from space.

"When you saw them you knew right away you were seeing something that would revolutionise the way we study ice sheets," said Bob Schutz, the leader of the Glas Science team.

This is good news from a mission that suffered a disappointment early this year.

A little more than a month after the spacecraft's launch from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California in January, one its three lasers failed.

Scientists found a fault in the photo-diode, which pumps the light into the lasing rod.

While the two remaining lasers are working fine, scientists are running them in intervals rather than continuously to maximize their lifetime.

This will reduce the mission somewhat, said Dr Zwally, but still provide scientists with unprecedented ice measurements.

Which include a close-up of polar ice dynamics. Who knew the ice sheet was so busy...

"We're seeing megadunes on the surface of Antarctica that ripple... ice falls where the ice dips sharply down... and the shear margins of ice streams where fast streams and slow-moving ice lie adjacent to each other," said Dr Abdalati.

He said the 3D images would help scientists understand the mechanics of ice flow and how flow patterns change.

Climate uncertainty

IceSat is also providing a new look into activity above the ice with 3D maps of cloud and aerosol layering.

"We can see the atmosphere in a way we haven't before," said Jim Spinhirne, senior scientist at Nasa Goddard, who showed the first 3D images of the "brown cloud" of pollution over India and dust over Iran.

Unprecedented detail on the elevation of ice sheets
He said that the effect of aerosols on radiation and clouds is the largest current uncertainly in global warming.

Clouds are important in climate change because they trap sunlight. Aerosols are highly variable - carbon soot absorbs heat and warms the Earth while the natural aerosols such as sulphates reflect heat and cool it.

It is not clear what their overall contribution is to climate change.

The IceSat mission is scheduled to continue for another 2-4 years. Scientists hope new laser-altimeter missions will follow.

Europe will launch its own version of IceSat next year called CryoSat.

CryoSat is a radar altimetry mission. Its aim is to study possible climate variability and trends by determining the variations in thickness of the Earth's continental ice sheets and marine sea ice cover.

posted 12-16-2003 05:17 PM               

quote:

---

SEÑOR Eduardo Ferreyra writes (exactly):
"Claim 1: The reason clouds form when the air cools, is because air cannot hold as much water as warm air. = True or False?"

Is because air (sic) cannot hold as much water as warm air. ? ! ? !

A trick question, or simply poorly worded?

---

It was worded to suit your intellectual level. Air and atmosphere are synonyms for common people.

quote:

---

Here is the reality:
“Clouds are formed when air containing water vapor is cooled below a critical temperature called the dew point and the resulting moisture condenses into droplets on microscopic dust particles (condensation nuclei) in the atmosphere.”

---

posted 12-16-2003 05:34 PM               

quote:

---

"Claim 2: The Greenhosue (sic)Effect is caused when gases in the atmosphere behave as a blanket and trap radiation that is later irradiated back to Earth. = True or False?"

Once again, a "trick" question on the part of SEÑOR Ferreyra since his question does not specify what type of radiation he is referring to...i.e., visible, UV, or IR.

---

quote:

---

Here is the reality:
Many chemical compounds found in the Earth's atmosphere act as “greenhouse gases.” These gases allow sunlight, which is radiated in the visible and ultraviolet spectra, to enter the atmosphere unimpeded. When it strikes the Earth's surface, some of the sunlight is reflected as infrared radiation (heat). Greenhouse gases tend to absorb this infrared radiation as it is reflected back towards space, trapping the heat in the atmosphere.

---

What about incoming infrared radiation? And what about the atmosphere trapping the heat? The myth persists. Let us Alistair B. Fraser explain the matter to us:

posted 12-16-2003 05:57 PM               

quote:

---

My question in return...what would the temperature of the earth be without CO2 in the atmosphere? Would it be inhabitable by man?

---

quote:

---

GAS Pre-1750 concentration of CO2 = 280 PPM
Current Tropospheric Concentration = 372.37 PPM
Increased Radiative Forcing = 1.46 W/sq. meter

---

According to Idso, the doubling of CO2 concentrations would cause an increase of not more than 0.2ºC. Idso made the presentation of his thesis in a meeting at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, in 1981, presenting the papers peer-reviewed by Science magazine. Instead of modeling the atmosphere, he investigated the form temperature varies over the Earth's surface, in the real world, when atmospheric conditions vary and, from those real world observations, he calculated a “response function” that will tell us how temperature will respond to the CO2 greenhouse effect.

Through measurements covering 50 years, Idso discovered that an increase in water vapor in the atmosphere, enough to increase to water vapor pressure from 4 to 20 hectopascal, corresponds to an atmospheric surface temperature increase of 11.4º C at dawn. This great increase in minimum temperature in the daily cycle, shows in a noteworthy manner the protective effect of water vapor. From conjunct studies on dust and monsoons, Idso calculated that for every extra watt of radiant energy passing through a layer of air close to the surface, an area of one square meter, air surface temperature responds with an increase of 0.196º C. This is the “forcing function” or what Sore's post call “radiative forcing” and gives a value of 1.46 W/sq. meter, almost times 10 higher.

He compared this value with 105 observation stations along the US and compared the seasonal fluctuations. He found that inland places showed the same “forcing function” of 0.19º C w/m2, but for seaside regions, the response function was reduced to half. Assuming this represents the maximum possible response from the oceans, and considering oceans cover 70% of our planet, Idso estimated that the mean global “forcing response” cannot be higher than 0.113º C w/m2.

What is the relation this has to the greenhouse effect? It is easy to calculate the increase in radiant energy in the surface that would be produced if the amount of CO2 went from 300 ppm to 600 ppm. So, 2,28 w/m2 by the forcing function 0.112 equates to an increase of global mean temperature of 0.25ºC.

Similar results were obtained by Reginald Newll (MIT) and Thomas Dopplick (USAF Scott Base). However, Stepehen Schenider, Will Kellog and V. Ramanathan (National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Co.) disagreed, arguing Idso had not taken into account the feedback effect of increased water evaporation, that would increase the greenhouse effect. It was a simple argument that showed little research and a haste to dismiss the work of real world, on the spot measurements, that could prove how faulty were the toy models other scientists were playing with.

So Idso demonstrated that for an air temperature of 15º C, the increase on water vapor pressure caused by a 0.25º C increase in temperature, is exactly 0.2 hectopascal. This, in turn, produces an additional greenhouse effect of only 0.01º C in global temperatures. We have reached very fast to the point where feedback effects are each times smaller, and even taking into account such extra feedback effect, the figure is still below 0.3º C, for a doubling of CO2 concentrations.

Idso mentions something worse for climate modelers: According to studies made by Manabe and Wetherald, in 1967, a world without atmosphere (and no greenhouse effect) would have a global mean temperature of -23º C. But later studies that everybody now accepts (consensus?) say that the right figure is -19º C. As present mean temperature is 15º C, we can conclude that Earth's “greenhouse effect” is equivalent to 34º C. This includes all feedback processes we can imagine. The responsible for this is the partial absorption of energy radiating back from Earth to the atmosphere. The total flux of this radiant energy is 348 w/m2. Thus, the appropriate “response function” along geological time scales is 0.1º C w/m2. This is obtained by simply dividing those 34º C of greenhouse effect by the measured energy flux.

Again, the value is close to those found in local studies. And the last argument Sherwood Idso presented, is quite simple: he has studied what's called “emissivity” of the atmosphere, that is, a measure of how close its properties as absorber and emitter of energy are to the most effective radiator known (at least in our imaginations): the black body.

We know that a black body is an abstraction, but some celestial bodies, as the Sun, act as black bodies in many ways. A perfect black body absorbs all energy received, and regarding the energy emitted by the Earth's surface, when it comes to the energy absorbed, its atmosphere has about 90% of the capacity of a black body. In any case, Earth's atmosphere could never be as effective as a black body, and acting now with 90% of the black body in the infrared spectrum, has produced a greenhouse effect of about 35º C. that 10% remaining, says Idso, cannot produce another 10% in greenhouse effect, that is, not more than a final increase of global temperature of 3.5º C – if Earth became a perfect black body.

According to John Gribbin, one proponent of the global warming theory, when reviewing Sherwood Idso's theory, said. “Geological evidences support Idso's arguments. For millions of years, and probably for a much longer time, Earth has never had a mean global temperature 2º C above the present ones, even CO2 and other greenhouse gases concentrations have been vastly superior, and varied considerably.”

Gribbins is right there. CO2 concentrations during the Cretaceous were between 2600 and 6000 ppm, more than 20 times higher than now – and global mean temperature was merely 1.5 – 2.0º C higher than now.

So, “Increased Radiative Forcing = 1.46 W/sq. meter” claimed by Sore Throate's friends should read : 0.113º C w/m2.

The graphs shown by Throatie are meaningless because they start from a wrong scientific base. But that's the way science is mishandled these days.

posted 12-16-2003 09:41 PM               

Some more erroneous, misleading stories from the world's press:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20031216/sc_afp/un_climate_year_031216181251

2003 third warmest year yet as global warming continues

GENEVA (AFP) - Global warming (news - web sites) continued through 2003 as Europe's hottest summer on record helped fuel the third warmest year on record worldwide, international weather experts at the UN said.

The UN's World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) said in its annual statement on the global climate that the rising average temperatures helped generate exceptional drought, floods, hurricanes and typhoons.

Meanwhile, global insurers counted the cost of the impact of extreme weather, as storm damage accounted for eight billion dollars in damage claims in 2003, according to one of the world's largest re-insurance companies, SwissRe.

"This year was very warm but it was not the warmest ever, very probably it will be in third place among the warmest years," said Michel Jarraud, deputy secretary general of the WMO.

"Temperatures since 1976 have progressed three times more than during the 20th century, so the rate of increase in temperatures is accelerating," he added.

The global average temperature this year was expected to have risen by 0.45 degrees Celsius by the end of December, WMO said.

The warmest year so far was recorded in 1998, with a rise of 0.55 degrees Celsius in global temperatures, capping the warmest century in the millennium, according to the agency, which groups the world's national weather forecasters.

The second warmest was 2002.

Average temperatures rose more sharply in the northern hemisphere in 2003 than in the southern hemisphere, with unprecedented highs in western Europe over the summer, WMO found.

"In France, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Britain and Spain, there were an estimated 21,000 deaths linked to this heatwave, so it was really something exceptional," Jarraud told journalists.

The heat also melted glaciers in Europe's mountain ranges twice as fast as the record set in 1998, while the Arctic ice pack shrank in September, approaching the record low of 5.3 million square kilometres (2.2 square miles) set in 2002, WNMO said.

But Europe's weather was matched by heatwaves in parts of the United States including Alaska, Canada, parts of China, Russia, and Africa as well as unusually intense heat in the Indian subcontinent before the monsoon season.

There were more typhoons, cyclones and hurricanes than average in the Pacific and Atlantic regions, although the pattern matched an increase recorded since the 1990s, WMO said.

SwissRe reported in preliminary estimates released Tuesday that storms accounted for the bulk of the 15 billion dollars in damages caused by natural catastorphes.

The five most costly disasters during 2003 happened in the United States and Canada, and they were all weather-related, it added in a statement. Each led to claims of more than one billion dollars.

They included a record series of 400 tornadoes that ravaged the US Mid-West in May and Hurricane Isabel which swept into the northeastern US and Canadian province of Ontario in September, while wildfires raged in California a month later.

"Global warming is likely to lead to more frequent extreme events and... to more intense extreme events, but that doesn't mean climate change is an explanation of any particular extreme," Jarraud commented.

The exceptional weather conditions also triggered unusually cold weather in the Gulf state of Oman, parts of Asia around Japan, and Russia where temperatures plunged to minus 45 degrees Celsius during the winter.

The extreme temperatures helped generate floods and drought in several parts of the world, including the United States and China.

The WMO also blamed the heat for triggering massive bushfires in Australia which burnt for 59 days in January and February.

Yet the shifting weather patterns also brought welcome respite from long standing drought for some.

Rain and snowfall ended four years of drought in Afghanistan (news - web sites), filling water reservoirs that had been dry for years, while the Sahel region of the Sahara desert, once the scene of famine, experienced record rainfall.

The WMO's data on annual temperature change is based on an average of temperatures between 1961 and 1990, which is used as a reference.

posted 12-17-2003 12:42 PM               

quote:

---

by Throatie: “Some more erroneous, misleading stories from the world's press:”

---

quote:

---

GENEVA (AFP) - Global warming (news - web sites) continued through 2003 as Europe's hottest summer on record helped fuel the third warmest year on record worldwide, international weather experts at the UN said.

---

quote:

---

The UN's World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) said in its annual statement on the global climate that the rising average temperatures helped generate exceptional drought, floods, hurricanes and typhoons.

---

Direct temperature measurements on Greenland ice cores show a cooling trend between 1940 and 1995 [Dahl-Jensen et al., 1998]. It is likely therefore that the surface data are contaminated by the warming effects of "urban heat islands." Some data support this hypothesis [Goodridge, 1996], others do not [Peterson et al., 1999].

While it is certainly true that human life is affected by temperatures at the surface, the GCMs are best validated by observations in the troposphere. It should be noted also that GCMs predict a warming trend that increases with altitude up to about 250 millibars (~12 km), rising to about 0.5°C per decade [Tett et al., 1996] -- in clear disagreement with all observations, whether from the surface, balloons, or satellites.

Even though the models are not yet validated as far as temperature trends are concerned, some human influences on climate are already noticeable. Observations indicate that the diurnal temperature range has been decreasing in the Northern Hemisphere and perhaps in the Southern Hemisphere as well [Karl et al., 1991]. These could be traced to possible increases in aerosols or cloudiness. There is evidence also for winter warming, but not yet for the expected warming at high latitudes predicted by the climate models. On the other hand, observed
stratospheric cooling appears in line with what one might expect from the increase in CO2, as well as from the ongoing depletion of ozone [Ramaswamy et al., 1996]. Yet until General Circulation Model climate sensitivity is validated, one cannot accept the predictions of large future temperature increases.

Impacts of Climate Change

If the climate were to change according to model predictions, one would expect to see fewer severe storms, in view of the reduced temperature gradient between the tropics and high latitudes. Model calculations do not indicate an increase of hurricanes, El Nino events, or other kinds of climate oscillations. The empirical evidence displayed in the IPCC Report shows a decline in hurricanes over the last fifty years in both frequency and intensity [IPCC, 1996, p. 170]; a future warming is not expected to affect frequency or intensity appreciably [Henderson-Sellers et al. 1998]. Observations on El Nino events are not conclusive as yet.

With respect to sea-level rise, it has been assumed, conventionally, that a warming will increase the rate of rise, because of the thermal expansion of ocean water and the melting of mountain glaciers. Certainly, when viewed on a millennial scale, sea level has been rising steadily. But when examined on a decadal scale, which is more appropriate to human intervention, sea-level rise is found to slow during periods of temperature increases, for example, during the temperature rise from 1900 to 1940 [Singer, 1997]. Evidently, increased evaporation, linked to warming, results in increased accumulation of ice in the polar regions, thereby lowering sea level. This conclusion seems to be backed by direct observation of ice accumulation, as well as by some modeling studies. A future modest warming should therefore slow down, not accelerate the ongoing rise of sea levels.

Following the publication of the IPCC report in 1996, an increasing number of researchers have adopted the view that much or most of the pre-1940 warming is due to natural causes and represents a recovery from the Little Ice Age. Some would assign a substantial portion to greenhouses gases [Wigley, Jones, and Raper, 1997]. Others claim that most of the temperature increase is caused by solar variability [Soon et al., 1996]. If one applies the "fingerprint" criterion used by the IPCC, then it can be seen from their Figure 8.10 [IPCC, 1996, p.433] that the pattern correlation has a negative trend during the major warming between 1900 and 1940, thereby denying the existence of an appreciable human contribution.

posted 12-17-2003 01:37 PM               

quote:

---

The exceptional weather conditions also triggered unusually cold weather in the Gulf state of Oman, parts of Asia around Japan, and Russia where temperatures plunged to minus 45 degrees Celsius during the winter.
The extreme temperatures helped generate floods and drought in several parts of the world, including the United States and China.

---

quote:

---

The WMO also blamed the heat for triggering massive bushfires in Australia which burnt for 59 days in January and February…
The WMO's data on annual temperature change is based on an average of temperatures between 1961 and 1990, which is used as a reference.

---

Do we see an upward trend here?

About Australia fires. Here is a contribution to this board on such subject, by John Daly, our correspondent in Australia: