(meteorobs) Fwd: "meteor smoke" is essential to the formation of noctilucent clouds.
Richard Kramer
kramer at sria.com
Tue Aug 7 10:43:43 EDT 2012
At 05:52 AM 8/7/2012, Marco Langbroek wrote:
>Op 7-8-2012 5:47, Richard Kramer schreef:
>>At 07:40 PM 8/6/2012, you wrote:
>>>Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas and is estimated to be responsible for
>>>approximately one-fifth of man-made global warming. Per kilogram, it is 25
>>>times more powerful than carbon dioxide over a 100-year time horizon .
>>
>>OK, so how does this make climate change responsible for noctilucent
>>clouds at lower latitudes?
>
>
>Climate change and NLC are both the *result* of increased Methane emissions.
True, if and only if climate change is primarily atmospheric in
nature. It is important to keep in mind that, to date, not a single
climate model on which this whole "field" of anthropogenic global
warming is based has been successfully validated. (My area of
expertise is empirical modelling. I apply the discipline to
analytical instrumentation and process control rather than climate
change. If I and others in my field practiced our discipline the way
the climate change advocates practice theirs, chemical plants would
be blowing up, dangerous drugs would be routinely sold, and people
would have their medical conditions misdiagnosed because of
instrumentation that would be producing wrong, unreliable outputs.
Since not a single climate change model has ever been successfully
validated, therefore none of the conclusions coming out of the models
is reliable (c.f. previous modelling fiascos such as J. Forrester's
World Dynamics and <Limits to Growth>). Accordingly, it is
irresponsible to base public policy (such as ethanol subsidies which
have completely distorted world grain markets, overtaxed geological
aquifers, incentivized a massive increase in the rate of
deforestation of tropical rain forests, and increased hunger, misery,
and death in the developing world (but I digress)).)
For a very competent view of this whole topic, I could recommend the
very sound work of MIT professor Richard Lindzen. (I used to be an
anthropogenic global warming believer until I took a careful look at
the improper way the various models have been misused. Bad science is
never a good thing.)
>While you are right insofar as it is the methane causing the
>increase in NLC and not climate change causing this itself (but
>wait: see below, it does so with a twist after all!), the two
>nevertheless are closely connected. More methane = rising greenhouse
>effect *and* more NLC.
Two independent manifestations (global warming and noctilucent
clouds) are not connected at all if their only "connection" is that
they are independent responses to a third phenomenon. They certainly
could not be considered closely connected.
>Moreover, with a twist climate change *is* in fact directly
>contributing to rising atmospheric methane levels. As a result of a
>warmer climate, permafrost disappears. As permafrost melts, methane
>contained in the formerly frozen deposits dissipates into the
>atmosphere. And yes: the quantities in question are large, this is
>not some minor process. It is seen as a serious positive feedback
>mechanism in post-glacial warming.
This permafrost melt == more methane release is only a theory. I seem
to recall some work which failed to confirm the expected rates of
methane release. For models which include this unvalidated feedback
it is likely a contributing factor to the failure of the models to validate.
>So they worded it a bit convoluted, but basically they are right:
>there is a connection between climate change and rising NLC
>visibility. Both could be the result of rising atmospheric methane
>levels (and part of the latter *is* the direct result of a warming climate).
I do not accept that that last premise has been confirmed.
>In that sense, these remarks were *not* gratuitous at all.
>
>What bothered me more is that they glossed over a number of earlier
>studies connecting NLC formation to micrometeoroid particles. It is
>not such a 'new' insight as it was suggested in the video. A friend
>of mine (Frans Rietmeijer, an IDP specialist at UNM) has been
>publishing a number of papers on this over the past 20 years, and in
>fact the idea is around since the sixties already.
Yet another reason the presentation is embarrassingly inadequate. I'm
also skeptical that methane levels on the order of 1 ppm (up about
150% over the past century or so) could source enough additional
water vapor to account for increased noctilucent cloudiness. I also
seem to recall some recent work which documents a DECREASE in lower
stratospheric water vapor over recent decades.
>Also, I am cautious as to whether NLC occurrences are really on the
>rise. You cannot exclude that the rise in sighting reports is an
>autofeedback due to a rising awareness of the phenomena. People
>don't see things if they don't look for it.
AI didn't mention earlier that another reason I would have graded the
presentation with a D or F is that it completely ignored the
possibility of observation bias. I am skeptical that
Cheers,
Richard
More information about the meteorobs
mailing list