Sunday, 28 October 2018

Plants help in controlling the weather and climate ...

Plants help in controlling the weather and climate ...

Forests Emerge as a Major Overlooked Climate Factor

New work at the intersection of atmospheric science and ecology is finding that forests can influence rainfall and climate from across a continent.
hen Abigail Swann started her career in the mid-2000s, she was one of just a handful of scientists exploring a potentially radical notion: that the green plants living on Earth’s surface could have a major influence on the planet’s climate. For decades, most atmospheric scientists had focused their weather and climate models on wind, rain and other physical phenomena.
But with powerful computer models that can simulate how plants move water, carbon dioxide and other chemicals between ground and air, Swann has found that vegetation can control weather patterns across huge distances. The destruction or expansion of forests on one continent might boost rainfall or cause a drought halfway around the world.
Atoll Islands OK

25th October 2018

Over the past decades, atoll islands exhibited no widespread sign of physical destabilization in the face of sea‐level rise. A reanalysis of available data, which cover 30 Pacific and Indian Ocean atolls including 709 islands, reveals that no atoll lost land area and that 88.6% of islands were either stable or increased in area, while only 11.4% contracted. Atoll islands affected by rapid sea‐level rise did not show a distinct behavior compared to islands on other atolls. Island behavior correlated with island size, and no island smaller than 10 ha decreased in size. This threshold could be used to define the minimum island size required for human occupancy and to assess atoll countries and territories' vulnerability to climate change. Beyond emphasizing the major role of climate drivers in causing substantial changes in the configuration of islands, this reanalysis of available data indicates that these drivers explain subregional variations in atoll behavior and within‐atoll variations in island and shoreline (lagoon vs. ocean) behavior, following atoll‐specific patterns. Increasing human disturbances, especially land reclamation and human structure construction, operated on atoll‐to‐shoreline spatial scales, explaining marked within‐atoll variations in island and shoreline behavior. Collectively, these findings highlight the heterogeneity of atoll situations. Further research needs include addressing geographical gaps (Indian Ocean, Caribbean, north‐western Pacific atolls), using standardized protocols to allow comparative analyses of island and shoreline behavior across ocean regions, investigating the role of ecological drivers, and promoting interdisciplinary approaches. Such efforts would assist in anticipating potential future changes in the contributions and interactions of key drivers.

Wednesday, 8 August 2018

Just because we are living through a year as hot as 1976 we have more lurid headlines of catastrophe.   So I will re-iterate that:-
  • That the Earth will, over 100 years or so, become catastrophically warm, is unproven; and cannot be proven.
  • Climate scientists do not understand the naturally occurring cycles sufficiently well, and cannot calculate the earth's global average temperature sufficiently well, to have any certainty.
  • The advocates of the policy to reduce carbon-dioxide use are using the Precautionary Principle, but without considering suficiently whether alternative policies wouldn't be more effective, and do less harm.

I recommend that whenever current conditions are used to blow up scare stories, you consult
Yesterday's post addresses the current headlines ...

Wednesday, 25 April 2018

Very good depiction of why climate change isn't settled science at

"The scientific uncertainties associated with climate prediction are the basis of most of the arguments about the significance of climate change(25), and as well are the basis of much of the polarized public opinion on the political aspects of the matter. Perhaps the most fundamental of the uncertainties can be illustrated by reference to a simple ‘thought experiment’ as follows.
Imagine a plume of smoke rising from a cigarette into some sort of flue. The stream of smoke is smooth enough for a start, but suddenly breaks into random turbulent eddies whose behaviour is inherently unpredictable."
A detailed description follows of building climate models and attempting to match model-results to actuals.

Below I've picked out some interesting quotes:-

" Even within the climate establishment, there are undoubtedly many researchers who worry that their scientific endeavours are guided more by political requirements than by scientific necessity."

"What has happened to the scepticism that is supposedly the lifeblood of scientific enquiry?
The answer probably gets back to the uncertainty of it all. The chances of proving — ‘proving’ in the hard scientific sense of requiring both observational support and replication — that the projected change of climate over the next century will be large enough to be disastrous are virtually nil. The same uncertainty ensures that the chances of a climate sceptic, or anyone else for that matter, proving the disaster theory to be oversold are also virtually nil. To that extent there is a level playing field for the two sides of the argument. "
"Climate science is an example of what Canadian educator Sue McGregor calls ‘post-normal science’ in which “the facts are uncertain, values are in dispute, stakes are high and decisions are urgent”. In such circumstances it is virtually impossible to avoid sub-conscious cherry picking of data to suit the popular theory of the time. Even Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein were not immune from the problem(17). In their case they were of sufficient genius (and were sufficiently lucky!) for their theories ultimately to trump the inaccuracy of the observations they had selected. Other scientists are rarely so prescient or so lucky."
"ome of the sceptics are extremely productive as far as critical analysis of climate science is concerned. Names like Judith Curry (Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology), Steve McIntyre (a Canadian geologist-statistician) and blogger Willis Eschenbach come to mind. These three in particular provide a balance and maturity in public discussion that puts many players in the global warming movement to shame, and as a consequence their out-reach to the scientifically-inclined general public is highly effective. Their output, together with that of other sceptics on the web, is well on the way to becoming a practical and stringent substitute for peer review.

Before his retirement Professor Lennart Bengtsson was the director of the European Centre for Medium Range Forecasting, a large numerical modelling facility based in the UK which is perhaps the world’s premier institution concerned with global meteorological forecasts up to one year ahead. Modelling on this time scale involves much the same techniques as in the longer-term climate forecasting. In 2014, only three weeks after his appointment as a member of the Advisory Board to the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), he was forced to resign(20)."

"There are many examples where the transition from paid employment in climate research to retirement has been accompanied by a significant change of heart away from acknowledging the seriousness of global warming. It seems that scientists too are conscious of the need to eat, and like everyone else must consider the consequences of public dissent from the views of the powers-that-be. One example was Dr Brian Tucker."

Saturday, 8 July 2017

Prof. Linzen listed the following topics which are often exploited by the panic brigade to win our attention:-
  • ·         ‘the  97%’,
  • ·         ‘warmest years on record’,
  • ·         extreme weather ,
  • ·         sea level rise,
  • ·         Arctic sea ice,
  • ·         polar bears,
  • ·         ocean acidification,
  • ·         coral reefs,
  • ·         ‘global warming as the cause of everything’.
& says:-
‘The accumulation of false and/or misleading claims is often referred to as the ‘overwhelming evidence’ for forthcoming catastrophe. Without these claims, one might legitimately ask whether there is any evidence at all.'

He ends:-
I haven’t spent much time on the details of the science, but there is one thing that should spark skepticism in any intelligent reader. The system we are looking at consists in two turbulent fluids interacting with each other. They are on a rotating planet that is differentially heated by the sun. A vital constituent of the atmospheric component is water in the liquid, solid and vapor phases, and the changes in phase have vast energetic ramifications. The energy budget of this system involves the absorption and reemission of about 200 watts per square meter. Doubling CO2 involves a 2% perturbation to this budget. So do minor changes in clouds and other features, and such changes are common. In this complex multifactor system, what is the likelihood of the climate (which, itself, consists in many variables and not just globally averaged temperature anomaly) is controlled by this 2% perturbation in a single variable? Believing this is pretty close to believing in magic. Instead, you are told that it is believing in ‘science.’ Such a claim should be a tip-off that something is amiss. After all, science is a mode of inquiry rather than a belief structure.’

Saturday, 11 February 2017

Current Overview

Well, there's not been much progress on tieing down the science of climate. Microbes in the atmosphere maybe seeding clouds.  They definitely make a difference.

The Atlantic is moving into a cold phase which will, over several years, cause UK's weather to get colder, akin to the 1960s.
However, it's likely that the additional carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere (much less than was predicted) will raise night temperatures slightly.  And of course, the heat our towns and cities spew out also raises average temperature. (which I understand is included in the calculations)

The only certainty is that the average temperature has been increasing very slowly, with lots of ups and downs along the way, for over 250 years at a fairly steady rate.
For the past 50 years or so, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been very slowly increasing. The night-time temperatures have also been increasing during this period.

We need to wait lots more years before having any certainty on how much, why and what the best policy response should be.

Basically, the universe is 'determined' in that each little step moves on in a determined way from the previous position.  Our physics is not yet sufficient to move from the little nano-steps to be able to predict the end result e.g. you can't take the properties of a water molecule and use them to predict how water flows downhill.
However, climate science does take carbon-dioxide molecular properties and make prediction of the Earth's future average temperature, thus ignoring the mathematics of complex systems.

Monday, 10 August 2015

Climate Theories should include Feedbacks from Life

My theory is that Life, the earth and its atmosphere have self-correcting dampening methods to prevent the acceleration of temperature due to increased Greenhouse Gases, bearing in mind that:-

(1) All the GHGs are part of the Biological Cycle.
(2 ) Water can turn into rain or ice, cooling the planet.
(3) No-one understands how clouds form.
(4) Microbes are everywhere, including the top of the atmosphere & inside clouds.