Why are scientists still measuring temps in archaic units today?
Anyway, it important science. Wonder if alarmists will still denounce it.

http://www.bnl.gov/bnlweb/pubaf/pr/P....asp?prID=1067

Why Hasn't Earth Warmed as Much as Expected?
New report on climate change explores the reasons
January 19, 2010

UPTON, NY - Planet Earth has warmed much less than expected during the industrial era based on
current best estimates of Earth's "climate sensitivity"-the amount of global temperature increase
expected in response to a given rise in atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2). In a
study to be published in the Journal of Climate, a publication of the American Meteorological
Society (the early online release of the paper is available starting 19 January 2010; the link is
given below), Stephen Schwartz, of Brookhaven National Laboratory, and colleagues examine the
reasons for this discrepancy.

According to current best estimates of climate sensitivity, the amount of CO2 and other
heat-trapping gases added to Earth's atmosphere since humanity began burning fossil fuels on a
significant scale during the industrial period would be expected to result in a mean global
temperature rise of 3.8°F-well more than the 1.4°F increase that has been observed for this time
span. Schwartz's analysis attributes the reasons for this discrepancy to a possible mix of two
major factors: 1) Earth's climate may be less sensitive to rising greenhouse gases than currently
assumed and/or 2) reflection of sunlight by haze particles in the atmosphere may be offsetting some
of the expected warming.

"Because of present uncertainties in climate sensitivity and the enhanced reflectivity of haze
particles," said Schwartz, "it is impossible to accurately assign weights to the relative
contributions of these two factors. This has major implications for understanding of Earth's
climate and how the world will meet its future energy needs."

A third possible reason for the lower-than-expected increase of Earth's temperature over the
industrial period is the slow response of temperature to the warming influence of heat-trapping
gases. "This is much like the lag time you experience when heating a pot of water on a stove," said
Schwartz. Based on calculations using measurements of the increase in ocean heat content over the
past fifty years, however, this present study found the role of so-called thermal lag to be minor.

A key question facing policymakers is how much additional CO2 and other heat-trapping gases can be
introduced into the atmosphere, beyond what is already present, without committing the planet to a
dangerous level of human interference with the climate system. Many scientists and policymakers
consider the threshold for such dangerous interference to be an increase in global temperature of
3.6°F above the preindustrial level, although no single threshold would encompass all effects.

The paper describes three scenarios: If Earth's climate sensitivity is at the low end of current
estimates as given by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, then the total maximum future
emissions of heat-trapping gases so as not to exceed the 3.6° threshold would correspond to about
35 years of present annual emissions of CO2 from fossil-fuel combustion. A climate sensitivity at
the present best estimate would mean that no more heat-trapping gases can be added to the
atmosphere without committing the planet to exceeding the threshold. And if the sensitivity is at
the high end of current estimates, present atmospheric concentrations of heat-trapping gases are
such that the planet is already committed to warming that substantially exceeds the 3.6° threshold.

The authors emphasize the need to quantify the influences of haze particles to narrow the
uncertainty in Earth's climate sensitivity. This is much more difficult than quantifying the
influences of the heat-trapping gases. Coauthor Robert Charlson of the University of Washington
likens the focus on the heat trapping gases to "looking for the lost key under the lamppost."

Schwartz observes that formulating energy policy with the present uncertainty in climate
sensitivity is like navigating a large ship in perilous waters without charts. "We know we have to
change the course of this ship, and we know the direction of the change, but we don't know how much
we need to change the course or how soon we have to do it."

Schwartz and Charlson coauthored the paper with Ralph Kahn, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in
Maryland; John Ogren, NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory in Colorado; and Henning Rodhe,
Stockholm University.

The early online release of the paper is available at AMS's journals online site.

Founded in 1919, the AMS has a membership of more than 14,000 professionals, professors, students,
and weather enthusiasts. AMS publishes nine atmospheric and related oceanic and hydrologic
journals, sponsors multiple conferences annually, and directs numerous education and outreach
programs and services. For more information see www.ametsoc.org.

Research at Brookhaven was funded by the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science.

Tags: environmental science
Number: 10-1067 | BNL Media & Communications Office

"Eric Gisin" wrote in message
...
Why are scientists still measuring temps in archaic units today?
Anyway, it important science. Wonder if alarmists will still denounce it.

http://www.bnl.gov/bnlweb/pubaf/pr/P....asp?prID=1067

Why Hasn't Earth Warmed as Much as Expected?
New report on climate change explores the reasons
January 19, 2010

Oh yeah, write a spam paper on why the gov got it wrong and then
write another spam paper on why the spam paper the gov wrote
about the first spam paper being wrong is also wrong, ad infinitum.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anwy2MPT5RE

On 20/01/10 17:37, in article , "Eric
Gisin" wrote:

Why are scientists still measuring temps in archaic units today?

You mean using Fahrenheit? Because the article is general and for
ans American readers.

As for the heating rate, if you have a small flame under a container
with lots of water, the rate of temperature rise will be difficult
to compute. If the container is insulated all around, the calculation
is easy. If the bottom top and sides of the container are open
then heat loss can occur. If I were a modeler of such a system
I would want to verify my model (or adjust it) by placing heat
sensors all around the container and measure what was really happening.
All models are imperfect and the only assumption about this
kind of systems that will get warmer.

The earth's climate system is more complicated although at least
we have sensors in place. For me the big problem is the inertia
os the ocean in its heat content and being very cold at lower
levels. If for some reason that was churned up and some came to the
surface we might well have global cooling until the heating
effect of the CO2 caught up.

On Jan 21, 6:36*am, Earl Evleth wrote:
On 20/01/10 17:37, in article , "Eric

.. For me the big problem is the inertia
os the ocean in its heat content and being very cold at lower
levels. If for some reason that was churned up and some came to the
surface we might well have global cooling until the heating
effect of the CO2 caught up.

For you the big problem is your lack of scientific knowledge. Apart
from a lack of oceanic 'churning', the ARGO system shows no such
effect.

Cheers

On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 08:37:13 -0800, Eric Gisin wrote:

Why are scientists still measuring temps in archaic units today?
Anyway, it important science. Wonder if alarmists will still denounce it.

http://www.bnl.gov/bnlweb/pubaf/pr/P....asp?prID=1067

Why Hasn't Earth Warmed as Much as Expected?
New report on climate change explores the reasons
January 19, 2010

UPTON, NY - Planet Earth has warmed much less than expected during the industrial era based on
current best estimates of Earth's "climate sensitivity"-the amount of global temperature increase
expected in response to a given rise in atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2). In a
study to be published in the Journal of Climate, a publication of the American Meteorological
Society (the early online release of the paper is available starting 19 January 2010; the link is
given below), Stephen Schwartz, of Brookhaven National Laboratory, and colleagues examine the
reasons for this discrepancy.

According to current best estimates of climate sensitivity, the amount of CO2 and other
heat-trapping gases added to Earth's atmosphere since humanity began burning fossil fuels on a
significant scale during the industrial period would be expected to result in a mean global
temperature rise of 3.8°F-well more than the 1.4°F increase that has been observed for this time
span. Schwartz's analysis attributes the reasons for this discrepancy to a possible mix of two
major factors: 1) Earth's climate may be less sensitive to rising greenhouse gases than currently
assumed and/or 2) reflection of sunlight by haze particles in the atmosphere may be offsetting some
of the expected warming.

"Because of present uncertainties in climate sensitivity and the enhanced reflectivity of haze
particles," said Schwartz, "it is impossible to accurately assign weights to the relative
contributions of these two factors. This has major implications for understanding of Earth's
climate and how the world will meet its future energy needs."

A third possible reason for the lower-than-expected increase of Earth's temperature over the
industrial period is the slow response of temperature to the warming influence of heat-trapping
gases. "This is much like the lag time you experience when heating a pot of water on a stove," said
Schwartz. Based on calculations using measurements of the increase in ocean heat content over the
past fifty years, however, this present study found the role of so-called thermal lag to be minor.

A key question facing policymakers is how much additional CO2 and other heat-trapping gases can be
introduced into the atmosphere, beyond what is already present, without committing the planet to a
dangerous level of human interference with the climate system. Many scientists and policymakers
consider the threshold for such dangerous interference to be an increase in global temperature of
3.6°F above the preindustrial level, although no single threshold would encompass all effects.

The paper describes three scenarios: If Earth's climate sensitivity is at the low end of current
estimates as given by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, then the total maximum future
emissions of heat-trapping gases so as not to exceed the 3.6° threshold would correspond to about
35 years of present annual emissions of CO2 from fossil-fuel combustion. A climate sensitivity at
the present best estimate would mean that no more heat-trapping gases can be added to the
atmosphere without committing the planet to exceeding the threshold. And if the sensitivity is at
the high end of current estimates, present atmospheric concentrations of heat-trapping gases are
such that the planet is already committed to warming that substantially exceeds the 3.6° threshold.

The authors emphasize the need to quantify the influences of haze particles to narrow the
uncertainty in Earth's climate sensitivity. This is much more difficult than quantifying the
influences of the heat-trapping gases. Coauthor Robert Charlson of the University of Washington
likens the focus on the heat trapping gases to "looking for the lost key under the lamppost."

Schwartz observes that formulating energy policy with the present uncertainty in climate
sensitivity is like navigating a large ship in perilous waters without charts. "We know we have to
change the course of this ship, and we know the direction of the change, but we don't know how much
we need to change the course or how soon we have to do it."

Schwartz and Charlson coauthored the paper with Ralph Kahn, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in
Maryland; John Ogren, NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory in Colorado; and Henning Rodhe,
Stockholm University.

The early online release of the paper is available at AMS's journals online site.

Founded in 1919, the AMS has a membership of more than 14,000 professionals, professors, students,
and weather enthusiasts. AMS publishes nine atmospheric and related oceanic and hydrologic
journals, sponsors multiple conferences annually, and directs numerous education and outreach
programs and services. For more information see www.ametsoc.org.

Research at Brookhaven was funded by the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science.

Tags: environmental science
Number: 10-1067 | BNL Media & Communications Office

There may be another reason, totally different. While doing other research
I stumbled across an interesting one having to do with the mass center of
the earth. According to the article if the mass center of the earth moves
only a few centimeters it will affect earth's climate. I wish I had written
down the reference. I no longer have access to the databases so I can't
look it up. Maybe someone with some university library access can get it.

On Jan 20, 1:44*pm, Michael Dobony wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 08:37:13 -0800, Eric Gisin wrote:
Why are scientists still measuring temps in archaic units today?
Anyway, it important science. Wonder if alarmists will still denounce it.

Eric Gisin wrote:
Why are scientists still measuring temps in archaic units today?
Anyway, it important science. Wonder if alarmists will still denounce it.

You'll notice that the paper treats CO2 as a factor in GW as a foregone
conclusion. The question is where the heat is going. It surprises me
that the article doesn't mention the capacity of the oceans to absorb heat.

http://www.bnl.gov/bnlweb/pubaf/pr/P....asp?prID=1067

Why Hasn't Earth Warmed as Much as Expected?
New report on climate change explores the reasons
January 19, 2010

UPTON, NY - Planet Earth has warmed much less than expected during the
industrial era based on current best estimates of Earth's "climate
sensitivity"-the amount of global temperature increase expected in
response to a given rise in atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide
(CO2). In a study to be published in the Journal of Climate, a
publication of the American Meteorological Society (the early online
release of the paper is available starting 19 January 2010; the link is
given below), Stephen Schwartz, of Brookhaven National Laboratory, and
colleagues examine the reasons for this discrepancy.

According to current best estimates of climate sensitivity, the amount
of CO2 and other heat-trapping gases added to Earth's atmosphere since
humanity began burning fossil fuels on a significant scale during the
industrial period would be expected to result in a mean global
temperature rise of 3.8°F-well more than the 1.4°F increase that has
been observed for this time span. Schwartz's analysis attributes the
reasons for this discrepancy to a possible mix of two major factors: 1)
Earth's climate may be less sensitive to rising greenhouse gases than
currently assumed and/or 2) reflection of sunlight by haze particles in
the atmosphere may be offsetting some of the expected warming.

"Because of present uncertainties in climate sensitivity and the
enhanced reflectivity of haze particles," said Schwartz, "it is
impossible to accurately assign weights to the relative contributions of
these two factors. This has major implications for understanding of
Earth's climate and how the world will meet its future energy needs."

A third possible reason for the lower-than-expected increase of Earth's
temperature over the industrial period is the slow response of
temperature to the warming influence of heat-trapping gases. "This is
much like the lag time you experience when heating a pot of water on a
stove," said Schwartz. Based on calculations using measurements of the
increase in ocean heat content over the past fifty years, however, this
present study found the role of so-called thermal lag to be minor.

A key question facing policymakers is how much additional CO2 and other
heat-trapping gases can be introduced into the atmosphere, beyond what
is already present, without committing the planet to a dangerous level
of human interference with the climate system. Many scientists and
policymakers consider the threshold for such dangerous interference to
be an increase in global temperature of 3.6°F above the preindustrial
level, although no single threshold would encompass all effects.

The paper describes three scenarios: If Earth's climate sensitivity is
at the low end of current estimates as given by the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, then the total maximum future emissions of
heat-trapping gases so as not to exceed the 3.6° threshold would
correspond to about 35 years of present annual emissions of CO2 from
fossil-fuel combustion. A climate sensitivity at the present best
estimate would mean that no more heat-trapping gases can be added to the
atmosphere without committing the planet to exceeding the threshold. And
if the sensitivity is at the high end of current estimates, present
atmospheric concentrations of heat-trapping gases are such that the
planet is already committed to warming that substantially exceeds the
3.6° threshold.

The authors emphasize the need to quantify the influences of haze
particles to narrow the uncertainty in Earth's climate sensitivity. This
is much more difficult than quantifying the influences of the
heat-trapping gases. Coauthor Robert Charlson of the University of
Washington likens the focus on the heat trapping gases to "looking for
the lost key under the lamppost."

Schwartz observes that formulating energy policy with the present
uncertainty in climate sensitivity is like navigating a large ship in
perilous waters without charts. "We know we have to change the course of
this ship, and we know the direction of the change, but we don't know
how much we need to change the course or how soon we have to do it."

Schwartz and Charlson coauthored the paper with Ralph Kahn, NASA Goddard
Space Flight Center in Maryland; John Ogren, NOAA Earth System Research
Laboratory in Colorado; and Henning Rodhe, Stockholm University.

The early online release of the paper is available at AMS's journals
online site.

Founded in 1919, the AMS has a membership of more than 14,000
professionals, professors, students, and weather enthusiasts. AMS
publishes nine atmospheric and related oceanic and hydrologic journals,
sponsors multiple conferences annually, and directs numerous education
and outreach programs and services. For more information see
www.ametsoc.org.

Research at Brookhaven was funded by the U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Science.

Tags: environmental science
Number: 10-1067 | BNL Media & Communications Office

On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 08:37:13 -0800, "Eric Gisin"
wrote:

Why are scientists still measuring temps in archaic units today?
Anyway, it important science. Wonder if alarmists will still denounce it.

http://www.bnl.gov/bnlweb/pubaf/pr/P....asp?prID=1067



Sure, units are important, unless the subject is
heating and cooling, then BTU, pound, and F become
very useful and matches all the catalogs.

On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 08:37:13 -0800, "Eric Gisin"
wrote:


http://www.bnl.gov/bnlweb/pubaf/pr/P....asp?prID=1067

Why Hasn't Earth Warmed as Much as Expected?

snip

1) Earth's climate may be less sensitive to rising greenhouse gases than currently
assumed and/or 2) reflection of sunlight by haze particles in the atmosphere may be offsetting some
of the expected warming.

cf

Global dimming
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/prog...ng_trans.shtml

Start extract

NARRATOR: For 15 years Travis had been researching an apparently
obscure topic, whether the vapour trails left by aircraft were having
a significant effect on the climate. In the aftermath of 9/11 the
entire US fleet was grounded, and Travis finally had a chance to find
out.

snip

NARRATOR: Travis suspected the grounding might make a small but
detectable change to the climate. But what he observed was both
immediate and dramatic.

DR DAVID TRAVIS: We found that the change in temperature range during
those three days was just over one degrees C. And you have to realise
that from a layman's perspective that doesn't sound like much, but
from a climate perspective that is huge.

NARRATOR: One degree in just three days no one had ever seen such a
big climatic change happen so fast. This was a new kind of climate
change. Scientists call it Global Dimming. Two years ago most of them
had never even heard of it, yet now they believe it may mean all their
predictions about the future of our climate could be wrong. The trail
that would lead to the discovery of Global Dimming began 40 years ago,
in Israel with the work of a young English immigrant called Gerry
Stanhill. A trained biologist, Gerry got a job helping to design
irrigation schemes. His task was to measure how strongly the sun shone
over Israel.

DR GERALD STANHILL (Agricultural Research Organisation, Israel): It
was important for this work to measure solar radiation, because that
is the factor that basically determines how much water crops require.

NARRATOR: For a year Gerry collected data from a network of light
meters; the results were much as expected, and were used to help
design the national irrigation system. But twenty years later, in the
1980s, Gerry decided to repeat his measurements to check that they
were still valid. What he found, stunned him.

DR GERALD STANHILL: Well I was amazed to find that there was a very
serious reduction in sunlight, the amount of sunlight in Israel. In
fact, if we compare those very early measurements in the 1950s with
the current measurements, there was a staggering 22% drop in the
sunlight, and that really amazed me.

NARRATOR: A 22% drop in solar energy was simply massive. If it was
true surely Israelis should be freezing. There had to be something
wrong. So when Gerry published his results they were ignored. DR
GERALD STANHILL: I must say the publications had almost no effect
whatsoever on the scientific community.

NARRATOR: But in fact Gerry was not the only scientist who had noticed
a fall in sunlight. In Germany a young graduate climatologist called
Beate Liepert found that the same thing seemed to be happening over
the Bavarian Alps too. DR BEATE LIEPERT (Lamont-Doherty Earth
Observatory): I was the same, I was as sceptical as any other
climatologist. But then, um, I, I saw the same results er in Germany,
so um I believed him.

End extract

On Jan 21, 10:27*am, Surfer wrote:
[garbage]

science by making **** up,
plus,
science by radio program.

keeeerist, the obamunists are cracking up.