(meteorobs) Fwd: "meteor smoke" is essential to the formation of noctilucent clouds.

Matson, Robert D. ROBERT.D.MATSON at saic.com
Tue Aug 7 21:40:34 EDT 2012


To buttress what Richard Kramer posted, how many of you are aware of the
fact
that global temperatures have remained statistically flat (if not
slightly
declining) for the last *15* years -- in spite of a 9% rise in
atmospheric
CO2 over that same time period? It is fair to say that the climate
models
upon which the IPCC bases its global warming alarmism have proven to be
not just a little bit off, but utterly, spectacularly wrong. Among other
shortcomings, the models fail to properly address spectral and
radiometric
changes in solar output, while including positive feedback mechanisms
between CO2 and water vapor that do not exist in the real world.

How many more years of flat to falling temperatures will be enough to
convince people of the folly of attributing the lion's share of mid- to
late-20th-century warming to the burning of fossil fuels? Another five?
Another ten?  --Rob.Long-time-AGW-Skeptic

-----Original Message-----
From: meteorobs-bounces at meteorobs.org
[mailto:meteorobs-bounces at meteorobs.org] On Behalf Of Richard Kramer
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 7:44 AM
To: marco.langbroek at online.nl; Meteor science and meteor observing
Subject: Re: (meteorobs) Fwd: "meteor smoke" is essential to the
formation of noctilucent clouds.

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