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

[Dave Gheesling]

Not an area of expertise for me (not that I have any such areas :), but glad
you posted this and completely agree.  The notion that all the evidence of
global warming -- which even the casual and objective observer can see is a
term of political weaponry -- "all points to us" is absurd, particularly
since the books were evidently cooked, pun intended
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-
final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

I know those findings were refuted by many, but there is the painfully
obvious nature of the exposed email chest that is inescapable.  And the
political and financial stakes were/are very high.

That humans are responsible for *global warming* was an epic reach prior to
2009 (when I recall the objective sense was that maybe some 1-2% of the
contributors to global warming were human-caused), but that the term is even
in use since then is beyond the pale.  Humans...and their agendas...yikes...

Hope you are well otherwise!

All the best,

Dave

-----Original Message-----
From: meteorobs-bounces at meteorobs.org
[mailto:meteorobs-bounces at meteorobs.org] On Behalf Of Matson, Robert D.
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 9:41 PM
To: Meteor science and meteor observing
Subject: Re: (meteorobs) Fwd: "meteor smoke" is essential to the formation
of noctilucent clouds.

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

_______________________________________________
meteorobs mailing list
meteorobs at meteorobs.org
http://lists.meteorobs.org/mailman/listinfo/meteorobs