Rich, the recent research on fine particulates points to PM3 as being a real
problem. Is your filtration system up to that?

"Rich" wrote in message
...
Coby Beck wrote:
Not that I think this is going to happen. This all sprang out of the
twit-du-jour saying that CO2 levels have been as high as 6000ppm in
earth's history so why are we worrying. We may well be heading for
~1000ppm though...

I understand Coby. I also had a personal interest here living this close
to a really congested road. I was kinda interested if any figures existed
and if anyone had more pointers for me. It's that my houses' environmental
system already has filters for dust but there's not any consideration for
CO/CO2 or SO/SO2 ..

The past few days though have been kinda good .. having a truly bad Summer
with lower than avg temps has also its advantages!:
http://www.lml.rivm.nl/data/histo/445-168.html (text in Dutch though)

Richard

In article .com,
"Roger Coppock" wrote:

WOW! Steve Schulin mined another quote. WOW!

All peer-reviewed published models predict warming in
response to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations.

LOL - the climateprediction.net team reported that their modeling
experiments have indeed included outputs with cooling projected instead
of warming. They didn't include them in the range they reported in
Nature, because they looked at them more carefully than they looked at
the rest and decided they depended on modeled stuff that couldn't
actually happen.

In other words all complete theories of the atmosphere
that exist have increasing CO2, CH4, N2O, and CFCs
causing the current warming.

Complete enough for government work, you say? I respectfully disagree
that the state-of-the-art climate models are nearly complete enough to
have a predictive value of more than dubious for purposes of policy. One
example I've mentioned several times here in 21st century is the failure
of models to account for the type of large variability in outgoing
longwave reported by Wielicki et al and Chen et al in Science, and
updated by work first highlighted here by Dr. Tobis. The forcing trend
over just the satellite years is greater in magnitude, and opposing in
sign, to the entire industrial age CO2 forcing value. You zealots have
been quite successful in overselling the predictive value of the models.

What more is needed for policy? See recent statements
by the NAS, AAAS, AGU, Royal Society, . . .

I agree that these are worth reading. For example the blue-ribbon panel
report often called the NAS Report from June 2001:

"Because of the large and still uncertain level of natural variability
inherent in the climate record and the uncertainties in the time
histories of the various forcing agents (and particularly aerosols), a
causal linkage between the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere
and the observed climate changes during the 20th Century cannot be
unequivocally established. The fact that the magnitude of the observed
warming is large in comparison to natural variability as simulated in
climate models is suggestive of such a linkage, but it does not
constitute proof of one because the model simulations could be deficient
in natural variability on the decadal to century time scale."

This excerpt is from p. 17 of the report. The National Academy of
Sciences has made a version freely available for online reading at
http://books.nap.edu/openbook/030907...tml/index.html -- And for
those who still have an open mind about the science, I urge you to read
the body of this report before reading the summary. Then read the
summary and see if you think the summary actually summarizes (and even
draws all its material) from the report.

Very truly,

Steve Schulin
http://www.nuclear.com

"Steve Schulin" wrote in message
...
I agree that these are worth reading. For example the blue-ribbon panel
report often called the NAS Report from June 2001:

"Because of the large and still uncertain level of natural variability
inherent in the climate record and the uncertainties in the time
histories of the various forcing agents (and particularly aerosols), a
causal linkage between the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere
and the observed climate changes during the 20th Century cannot be
unequivocally established. The fact that the magnitude of the observed
warming is large in comparison to natural variability as simulated in
climate models is suggestive of such a linkage, but it does not
constitute proof of one because the model simulations could be deficient
in natural variability on the decadal to century time scale."

Hi Steve,

What would constitute proof for you that the large increase in temperature
this last century is largely caused by GHG emissions?

I ask you only because you just quoted this. I often wonder that, when
someone, quite correctly, states that there is no proof that CO2 is causing
this temperature rise. What are they waiting to see?

--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")

In article , says...

In article .com,
"Roger Coppock" wrote:

WOW! Steve Schulin mined another quote. WOW!

All peer-reviewed published models predict warming in
response to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations.

[cut]

What more is needed for policy? See recent statements
by the NAS, AAAS, AGU, Royal Society, . . .

I agree that these are worth reading. For example the blue-ribbon panel
report often called the NAS Report from June 2001:

"Because of the large and still uncertain level of natural variability
inherent in the climate record and the uncertainties in the time
histories of the various forcing agents (and particularly aerosols), a
causal linkage between the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere
and the observed climate changes during the 20th Century cannot be
unequivocally established. The fact that the magnitude of the observed
warming is large in comparison to natural variability as simulated in
climate models is suggestive of such a linkage, but it does not
constitute proof of one because the model simulations could be deficient
in natural variability on the decadal to century time scale."

This excerpt is from p. 17 of the report. The National Academy of
Sciences has made a version freely available for online reading at
http://books.nap.edu/openbook/030907...tml/index.html -- And for
those who still have an open mind about the science, I urge you to read
the body of this report before reading the summary. Then read the
summary and see if you think the summary actually summarizes (and even
draws all its material) from the report.

What about the previous paragraph on page 17?

"Although warming at Earth's surface has been quite pronounced during the
past few decades, satellite measurements beginning in 1979 indicate
relatively little warming of air temperature in the troposphere. The
committee concurs with the findings of a recent National Research Council
report, 1 which concluded that the observed difference between surface and
tropospheric temperature trends during the past 20 years is probably real,
as well as its cautionary statement to the effect that temperature trends
based on such short periods of record, with arbitrary start and end
points, are not necessarily indicative of the long-term behavior of the
climate system. The finding that surface and troposphere temperature
trends have been as different as observed over intervals as long as a
decade or two is difficult to reconcile with our current understanding of
the processes that control the vertical distribution of temperature in the
atmosphere."

Back in 2000, the MSU results were not reporting any warming to speak of, thus
that paragraph and the subsequent one were reasonable .Now that S & C have
another corrected data set and are reporting about 0.12 deg C/dec warming,
where does that leave all you anti-AGW guys? Recall too that the other
analytical results indicate an even greater rate of warming.

--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------

Rich wrote:
Coby Beck wrote:

Not that I think this is going to happen. This all sprang out of the
twit-du-jour saying that CO2 levels have been as high as 6000ppm in
earth's history so why are we worrying. We may well be heading for
~1000ppm though...

I understand Coby. I also had a personal interest here living this close
to a really congested road. I was kinda interested if any figures
existed and if anyone had more pointers for me. It's that my houses'
environmental system already has filters for dust but there's not any
consideration for CO/CO2 or SO/SO2 ..

NOx is the real problem. That and ozone, but the VOCs are not
necessarily any walk in the park.

http://pah.cert.ucr.edu/~carter/reactdat.htm

josh halpern

The past few days though have been kinda good .. having a truly bad
Summer with lower than avg temps has also its advantages!:
http://www.lml.rivm.nl/data/histo/445-168.html (text in Dutch though)

Richard

"Steve Schulin" wrote in message
...
A pdf of the paper which prompts Roger's exaggerated thread title is
available at http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0504949102v1

Despite the great improvements in climate modeling over since the first
IPCC report, the predictive value of such simulations remain dubious at
best for purposes of policy. The modelers know that their solutions are
nonunique -- even when they use a reasonable description of reality,
their model is only one of many possible descriptions.

If you can demonstrate that these models yield *mathematically* nonunique
answers, that's as far as you need to go. A mathematically nonunique answer
has the following properties:

* it is pure crap, because the associated program converges to a
mathematically infinite number of solutions
* it is missing some kind of dependency, meaning that there are unrealized
and unmodeled equations/constraints

Your comment is about as strong of a negative comment as you can make from a
mathematical perspective. Can you back it up?


Here's how the
authors put it in the body of the paper: "... the increasing
destabilization of the terrestrial carbon sink with warming and drying
as modeled by coupled carbon*climate models such as presented here is
qualitatively plausible ..."

Very truly,

Steve Schulin
http://www.nuclear.com

In article .com,
"Roger Coppock" wrote:

Faster carbon dioxide emissions will overwhelm capacity of land and
ocean to absorb carbon

By Robert Sanders, Media Relations, 02 August 2005

BERKELEY - One in a new generation of computer climate models that
include the effects of Earth's carbon cycle indicates there are limits
to the planet's ability to absorb increased emissions of carbon
dioxide.

If current production of carbon from fossil fuels continues unabated,
by the end of the century the land and oceans will be less able to take
up carbon than they are today, the model indicates.

The Earth's various sources and sinks for carbon. The land and oceans
can absorb some of the increased carbon from fossil fuel emissions, but
as the emission rate increases, these sinks saturate and become less
effective at removing carbon from the atmosphere. (Graphics by Inez
Fung/UC Berkeley)

"If we maintain our current course of fossil fuel emissions or
accelerate our emissions, the land and oceans will not be able to slow
the rise of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere the way they're doing
now," said Inez Y. Fung at the University of California, Berkeley, who
is director of the Berkeley Atmospheric Sciences Center, co-director of
the new Berkeley Institute of the Environment, and professor of earth
and planetary science and of environmental science, policy and
management. "It's all about rates. If the rate of fossil fuel emissions
is too high, the carbon storage capacity of the land and oceans
decreases and climate warming accelerates."

Fung is lead author of a paper describing the climate model results
that appears this week in the Early Online Edition of the Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). Fung was a member of the
National Academy of Sciences panel on global climate change that issued
a major report for President Bush in 2001 claiming, [ . . . ]

For the rest of this artilce see:
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/r...2_carbon.shtml
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0804050702.htm

Rich wrote:
I understand Coby. I also had a personal interest here living this close
to a really congested road. I was kinda interested if any figures
existed and if anyone had more pointers for me. It's that my houses'
environmental system already has filters for dust but there's not any
consideration for CO/CO2 or SO/SO2 ..

cr*p .. and it only took me up to me getting into bed to realize I
actually wrote "S"O instead of "N"O .. sorry about the mixup!

Steve Bloom wrote:
Rich, the recent research on fine particulates points to PM3 as being a real
problem. Is your filtration system up to that?

Well, I don't think so. The building is built in '93 and no
modifications on the filtering system has been made after that. And just
by looking at specific surfaces next to the window is enough to prove
that. Even after a week these are coated with a thin black layer of soot.

We as people living next to the street have started to start a trial
against to local municipal to see if we can get levels down but it is
really worrysome!

Joshua Halpern wrote:
Rich wrote:

NOx is the real problem. That and ozone, but the VOCs are not
necessarily any walk in the park.

http://pah.cert.ucr.edu/~carter/reactdat.htm

yep .. I actually wrote SOx instead of NOx .. thanks for the link! I'll
look into that!

Richard

Rich wrote:

We as people living next to the street have started to start a trial
against to local municipal to see if we can get levels down but it is
really worrysome!

ofcourse what I wanted to write was that we have started a trial against
the local municipal. I'll try to proof-read before I post next time!

Richard