climatologist

Home » climatologist

Contrail data on global warming

I was on Local Edge Radio today. I presented this data, but some listeners want to read this data for themselves. Cool. Here’s the data.

From Science Daily:

For three days after September 11, the Federal Aviation Administration grounded commercial aircraft in the U.S., stranding travelers, hindering mail delivery and interrupting courier service, but for scientists at Penn State and the University of Wisconsin–Whitewater, the three-day shutdown provided a rare glimpse of the climate effects of jet contrails.

“In the past, some studies have compared the climate of areas with little overhead air traffic with those under heavily used flight paths,” says Dr. Andrew M. Carleton, professor of geography. “Other studies looked at cloud cover before the advent of heavy jet traffic in the 1960s and afterwards, but these studies really provide circumstantial evidence.”

Carleton, and Dr. David Travis, climatologist at University of Wisconsin-Whitewater and Ryan Lauritsen, then an undergraduate at UW-W, looked at high and low temperatures recorded throughout the country during the three days of commercial air shutdown and at satellite photos taken during that time. The satellite photos show where contrails were occurring, mostly absent over the U.S. between Sept 11-14, but still occurring in Canada and northern Mexico.

“We show that there was an anomalous increase in the average diurnal temperature range for the period Sept. 11-14, 2001,” the researchers reported in today’s (Aug. 8 ) issue of the journal Nature. “Because persisting contrails can reduce the transfer of both incoming solar and outgoing infrared radiation and so reduce the daily temperature range, we attribute at least a portion of this anomaly to the absence of contrails.”

The diurnal temperature range is the difference between the nighttime low temperature and the daytime high temperature, usually for a given day.
“Because the shutdown occurred before noon on Sept. 11, the low temperature had already been reached, so we looked at 24-hour periods beginning with the high on Sept. 11 to the low on Sept. 14,” said Carleton.

The change in the temperature difference was plus 1.1 degree Celsius, equal to plus 2 degrees Fahrenheit, above the 30-year long-term mean diurnal temperature range. The researchers compared the temperature ranges on these three days to those of the three days directly before Sept. 11 and the three days after Sept. 14, finding that the days before and after were similar, but that the three days in question differed by 1.8 degrees Celsius or 3.2 degrees Fahrenheit. (more…)

More info – here

By |2011-10-06T16:07:03-04:00October 6th, 2011|Energy, Environment|Comments Off on Contrail data on global warming

Climate Change and Ice Core Data – Climate Deniers Are Terribly Confused

I find it amusing how all of the sudden everybody’s an expert climatologist. Whenever I post something on climate change I always get several e-mails from people telling me that the science is “bad.” None of these people have actually read a scientific paper that I know of. None of them have the ability to discern between “good science” and “bad science.” Conservative commentators, who also cannot evaluate scientific papers, have stated that many of these papers represent “bad science” and conservatives parrot this nonsense.

Just for a second, let’s forget all the craziness that surrounds climate change secondary to man’s burning of fossil fuels. Let’s forget the controversy of who said this or that and let’s just focus on a couple of things. Let’s focus on carbon dioxide and temperature. Let’s just focus on one group of studies which looked at ice core data. (Anybody who has a problem with this data, please let me know.)

I wrote the following several months ago, but I think it still applies today:

How can climatologists point to some of the events that are happening now as evidence of climate change secondary to man’s burning fossil fuels? Well, thankfully, I don’t have to come up with an experiment off the top of my head. Smart people, scientists, have done this for us. There are a few places in the world that don’t change all that much. As a matter fact, they haven’t changed for thousands of years. One place would be Antarctica the other would be Greenland. In these two places, it gets extremely cold. The ice in some places is several miles thick. NASA explains it like this:

Throughout each year, layers of snow fall over the ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica. Each layer of snow is different in chemistry and texture, summer snow differing from winter snow. Summer brings 24 hours of sunlight to the polar regions, and the top layer of the snow changes in texture—not melting exactly, but changing enough to be different from the snow it covers. The season turns cold and dark again, and more snow falls, forming the next layers of snow. Each layer gives scientists a treasure trove of information about the climate each year. Like marine sediment cores, an ice core provides a vertical timeline of past climates stored in ice sheets and mountain glaciers.

So, by drilling into the ice, we can go back in time and see what the environment was like. What was the composition of the ice 100 years ago… or a thousand years ago? How much methane or carbon dioxide was in the atmosphere? Whatever was in the atmosphere should be trapped in the ice. Scientists have been able to look back over 420,000 years. (Please click on the picture for a larger version.)
Notice how at the end of the graph (the right side) CO2 levels are higher than at any time during the measuring period. This seems to correlate very nicely with the industrial age, which started approximately 150 years ago. Below is another graph looking at temperature variation and carbon dioxide concentration. This graph covers only 18,000 years. Again, towards the end of the graph, on the right, you can see the abrupt increase in carbon dioxide.
This data makes a compelling argument that the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere is a new phenomenon. CO2 has not accumulated at this high a level over the last 420,000 years. This is a compelling argument to support the fact that man is having a definite impact on the world around us and that climate change second to man’s burning fossils is really happening. Currently, the leading explanation for this accumulation is the beginning of the industrial age and the burning of carbon fuel at a much higher rate than ever before. The question is whether you are going to believe the scientists or the other guys who are making huge vats of money burning fossil fuels. Is oxygen real or not?

So, by drilling into the ice, we can go back in time and see what the environment was like. What was the composition of the ice 100 years ago… or a thousand years ago? How much methane or carbon dioxide was in the atmosphere? Whatever was in the atmosphere should be trapped in the ice. Scientists have been able to look back over 420,000 years. (Please click on the picture for a larger version.)

So, here’s my question – what’s the problem with this science? If there’s no problem with the science than it is clear that CO2 levels seem to correlate with rising temperatures. It is also clear that CO2 levels have risen to levels we haven’t seen in over 500,000 years. Now, we can argue over why CO2 levels have risen. We can pretend that this is some natural phenomenon that started approximately 150 years ago or, we can look at this data and realize that man’s burning of fossil fuels is throwing hundreds of thousands of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere and it may, just may, have some effect on our climate.

By |2012-11-28T01:42:26-04:00July 2nd, 2011|Environment|3 Comments
Go to Top