atmos

DER SPIEGEL: In fact, the Arctic is warming more dramatically than any other part of the world. What does that mean for Greenland?

Ahlstrøm: In recent decades, circulation patterns in the atmosphere have changed. We have evidence that warm air is reaching the ice sheet more and more frequently. This has to do with changes in the jet stream. They ensure that the air over Greenland in summer comes less frequently from the far north – and very often from the mid-latitudes, where it is warmer.

The Summit Station was established in 1989. The purpose was to support a research project. In the process, scientists drilled through Greenland's ice, which is more than 3-kilometers thick. There have been several subsequent drillings since then. The ice cores provide a precise climate archive because of the gas bubbles trapped in the ice, from which the composition of the air in the past can be determined. Among other things, the researchers are interested in finding out how much CO2 was in the atmosphere at a given point. But a lot of other information can also be gained from the ice cores, including ash from volcanic eruptions from all over the world that ended up in the Arctic via the air currents in the atmosphere.

Read more:

https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/rain-in-greenland-a-glaciologist-explains-a-rare-and-dangerous-event-a-4c144d2a-1819-4489-a404-dd8e70dcbe9e 

------------------

The consensus is that there is no consensus. The knives are out at the AAAS membership. The discussions would make the denialists of the Heartland Institute dribble from the mandible with envy, as they see a cacophony of views that can only help them promote the concept that global warming is boloney… (Note: Gus isn’t a AAAS member, but the barney is being passed on by a friend).

So who could blame the good Lord Monckton for being upbeat at the soon coming Las Vegas heartless fest on global cooling… 

Yes everyone at the membership of AAAS is openly discussing their doubts about this or that factor influencing the climate… We’ve already brush pass a couple of them here. But the panoply of views can only reinforce Gus’s position. 

So far the views expressed in these discussions is that the scientists of the IPCC have not proven the relationship between CO2 and global warming — like the relationship between someone kicking your arse and the pain you feel. Now it you find proofs between the kick up your arse and the pain you feel, please write to your local GP. There’s no such “proof”. This may sound ridiculous, but this is an area of high contestation in insurance and law. You may have witnesses, but they have to be honest (some witnesses can be corrupted for cash) and their recollections are rarely clearcut and will conflict, depending of which corner of the eye they saw the deed… There also could have been a "motivation", like a provocation first. Then, imagine that the culprit will rarely admit “Your Honour, I was an idiot. When I saw the wall, I thought "why not hit it?” Usually, you will get: “Your Honour, I saw a rabbit on the road, got distracted and hit an oncoming car which was “going too fast""… Now the insurance companies will have to search for rabbits in the areas and find a rabbit farm 32.7 kilometres away from the accident, proving nothing, but making oodles of cash on experts running around for “proofs” even looking at the speedometers of the crashed cars...  To prove that blah blah blah on earth does this we would need a non blah blah blah SAME planet at the SAME time as a reference point. This isn’t possible... 

In the present membership discussions, the "scientists” are more on the engineer side of mechanical processes. You push this rod and this thingemygigster moves. It also seems there is no scientist of the IPCC who appear in these discussions, possibly because a) they could feel their arguments are still a bit like wet gunpowder against the engineer’s cannons, b) or that they don’t know everything except in their area of observed expertise — and c) they appear in the discussion under a fake name as not to harm their reputation.

Some of the arguments make sense and to some extend rather than please the Heartland Institute, the boffins of which should be frightened their pants will fall off. The sum-total (∑) of the arguments of the AAAS membership is clearly showing global warming is real-ish. What-causes-what is often the guessed minutiae of what we don’t know. 

Meanwhile the management of the membership is inviting it to watch experts on the subject, usually financial experts financed by financial institutions which have seen a developing market to capitalise upon… (Gus is a bit too sarcastic for his own survival…)

The Sustainable Investment Forum North America in partnership with UNEP-FI, is just under a month away.

From September 21, the four-part virtual forum will welcome a large online interactive audience of asset owners and managers, banks, development institutions, policymakers, think tanks and NGOs looking to drive meaningful change in sustainable finance.

Join us to learn how investors are aligning with climate and UN sustainability goals at the online meeting place for the finance community during Climate Week NYC.

Climate Week????? I thought this was a CLIMATE CENTURY!!!!

——————————

Our Western societies are built on capitalism. In order to survive in a global warming world, capitalism has to refocus on making money from solutions that manage global warming. One can understand this. As nearly 90 per cent of the world economies are burning-carbon based, from energy-supply to making plastics, turning this around is a massive task, especially when the consensus is not a full consensus on the origin and consequences of the warming. We need cool heads. 

In one of the discussion, a fellow argues that most of global warming process is in the upper atmosphere, sparked by the burning of fossil fuels by aeroplanes that create CO2 and NOx gases. But could it be more complex than this? Upper atmosphere is a bit vague and needs more definition. 

Planes fly at the edge of the atmosphere and the troposphere… While Bezos rocket “flew” to the edge of space, Sir Richard's only went as far as the top-edge of the Stratosphere, above which starts the Mesosphere itself edging the Thermosphere… But the distances are not measuring “perfect boundaries” differences. There are undefined unfocused mixes within these boundaries. So one could be confuse. 

The atmosphere is an elastic medium made of layers of diminishing amount of gaseous mix which are not the same at various latitudes. 

MEANWHILE THE KITCHEN WILL FEEL COLDER AS WE DEFROST THE OLD-FASHIONED FRIDGE with its door opened… But since the stove is on, the water heater is warm and the wood in the fireplace is burning, there will be conflicts in the general feelings of warm and cold. Your whisky is getting colder because of the ice you have placed in the glass, but the combo whisky/ice IS WARMING TO ROOM TEMPERATURE, eventually. We can go blue in the face about what does what, there is a point at which we run out of ice — and the kitchen gets too hot, until the outer-space absorb the extra heat… And even then, things are not clear cut… Could we lose our atmosphere, like Mars did for various reasons which we're studying in a hurry...

In the diagram at top, we have studied the Earth’s atmosphere before. The boundaries are not as defined as we have shown in the diagram above but the areas of discussions are defined well enough within the ranges. 

From the Journal of Geophysical Research — Space Physics:

Concerns about climate change often focus on Earth’s lower atmosphere, where most of the weather we experience occurs. However, climate change also affects the upper atmosphere. Understanding climate trends in the upper atmosphere could aid many applications, such as planning satellite missions and interpreting their data, managing space debris, and assessing the risk of disruptive space weather.

Research by Cnossen provides new insights into trends and drivers of upper atmosphere climate change, highlighting the important roles of both carbon dioxide and Earth’s magnetic field.

Although the lower atmosphere has been warming, the upper atmosphere—above 100 kilometers in altitude—has been cooling in recent decades. [we already have noted this on this site] Previous research suggests that this cooling trend is driven by a combination of greenhouse gas emissions, shifts in Earth’s magnetic field, and long-term variations in solar and geomagnetic activity associated with the solar cycle.

To further understand these drivers, Cnossen used the Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model with thermosphere and ionosphere extension (WACCM-X) to simulate changes in atmospheric temperature and density from Earth’s surface to an altitude of 500 kilometers between 1950 and 2015. The analysis included careful accounting of the effects of the solar cycle—typically a major challenge in upper atmosphere research. After factoring in these effects, the simulation confirmed earlier suggestions that rising carbon dioxide levels are the main driver of long-term cooling in the portion of the upper atmosphere known as the thermosphere*. However, long-term shifts in Earth’s magnetic field also appear to play a significant role in thermospheric climate change toward the North and South Poles.

The analysis also addressed the ionosphere, the charged portion of the upper atmosphere. The simulation suggested that long-term changes in ionospheric density are driven by both carbon dioxide and Earth’s magnetic field. Magnetic field effects on the ionosphere’s climate are particularly pronounced above a region that stretches roughly from northeastern South America, across the Atlantic, to western Africa.

These findings could help inform future research into upper atmosphere climate change and its long-term implications. (Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JA028623, 2020)

—Sarah Stanley, Science Writer

https://eos.org/research-spotlights/drivers-of-upper-atmosphere-climate-change

We need more observations. The observations we have noted so far are still quite brutal:

— loss of ice in Greenland, Himalayas, Arctic and Antarctic

— melting of glaciers

— warming of the permafrost

— storms of the century happening every year

— record rain, record temperatures

The surface of the planet is warming up.

Meanwhile we measure with precision:

— CO2, methane and NOx — in their EXTRA quantities/proportion in the atmosphere

— 

And we can announce that:

— as the CO2, methane, NOx gases increase we also observe an increase trend of temperature on the surface of the planet, with variations from year to year. 

— there is no proof of correlation. But stay on the safe side of the road. You could be hit by a truck coming in the other direction.

— don’t build housing estate in flood plains on the pretence there has not be a flood there in the last 257 years. There was one this year and there will be another in two years time...

It’s time to be smarter than the average polar bear. 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

GL.

Insurance assessor of damages

* We have already explained this seemingly contradiction on YD. Carbon dioxide retains more heat in the lower atmosphere, preventing the usual amount of earthly heat escaping into the Thermosphere. Less heat coming from below, the Thermosphere becomes "cooler". Note the Thermosphere has traces of rare molecules/atoms at between 400 and 4000 Degrees Celsius. This can be due to night/day shifts and it demands MANY observations for saying: After factoring in these effects, the simulation confirmed earlier suggestions that rising carbon dioxide levels are the main driver of long-term cooling in the portion of the upper atmosphere known as the thermosphere.