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

[Terrance Gibson]

Can we please get back to "meteors"?

thanks

t.


On 7 August 2012 22:03, Dave  Gheesling <dave at fallingrocks.com> wrote:
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> meteorobs mailing list
> meteorobs at meteorobs.org
> http://lists.meteorobs.org/mailman/listinfo/meteorobs