Difference Between Night and Day

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 5:20 AM GMT on June 20, 2012

Share this Blog
12
+

Difference Between Night and Day

Somewhat to my aging surprise, I have resided in several states: North Carolina, Florida, Virginia, Maryland, Michigan and Colorado. Plus, I spent a year in Livermore, California. This is a climate blog, so I will get quickly to the subject, temperature. What I remember about the Florida air was that it was cleaner, had a remarkable pulse of sea breeze thunderstorms and lightning in the summer, and in the summer, it was not as hot as people complained about – at least during the daytime. I have spent far more time over a 100 degrees F in North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Colorado, and California than I have in Florida. Of course, this is the humidity not the heat.

When I was immersed in this heat, I used to think of the air as “heavy.” That’s the sort of thing that writers talk about, thick Southern air redolent with magnolia and sticky in mystery in the graveyard next to the swamp. So I used to think of this Florida air as so heavy and thick that it just couldn’t get hot. Of course, this is not a very smart way to think about heat and humidity. As I recall, water, two hydrogen atoms plus an oxygen one, is lighter than either the nitrogen or the oxygen molecules that make up most of air – not to mention that weighty molecule made of two oxygen atoms and a carbon atom.

Some time ago now I did a series of articles called Bumps and Wiggles. The sixth one in that series was called Water, Water, Everywhere and discussed the important role of water as a greenhouse gas. We have a lot of water; the oceans are full of it. Water evaporates from the ocean and lakes and the soil, and gets into the air. Warmer air holds more water, hence, if the temperature goes up, then we expect there to be more water in the air. Since water is a greenhouse gas, we would increase greenhouse warming with the addition of water vapor.

So back to Florida - there’s a lot of water in the air, but I stated above that my experience was that in the summertime during the heat of the day, it was not so hot. But nighttime is a different story in Florida. It does not cool down that much. There is a simple way to think about this. Daytime heating is strongly related to the presence of the Sun and direct heating by solar radiation. This radiation is primarily visible light. Carbon dioxide and water are not the primary absorbers of visible radiation. So this visible radiation goes through the atmosphere with relative ease. It heats the surface, and it is converted to thermal or infrared radiative energy. It is this infrared radiation that water and carbon dioxide absorbs and emits, acting like a blanket, and warming the surface. The infrared radiation is emitted day and night, and with the absence of the Sun at night, the greenhouse warming of the water vapor becomes prominent.

This relation between water vapor and daytime and nighttime temperatures is well known, and it influences decisions about where we live, and perceptions of nice and not so nice “climates.” Deserts are dry and notorious for wide swings between daytime and nighttime temperature. The lack of water vapor and clouds allows, at nighttime, the surface of the Earth to cool to space with some effectiveness. During the daytime it gets very hot. Look at the temperatures of Tucson and Phoenix, Arizona; they are frequently above 100 F. Florida has far smaller differences between daytime and nighttime temperatures. (Some day I will tell you about my July hike in the Anza Borrego Desert. Today, I will only mention that while planting this afternoon, 20120619, in Colorado the very dry dark soil was so hot I could not kneel on it. Happy plants.)

Last year, 2011, we had historical heat in large portions of the U.S., and it was notable that the nighttime lows were extraordinary and quite moist. (Rood from 2011). A couple of blogs ago, I mentioned the observation that there was a strong trend showing increase in nighttime lows – that is, it is not getting as cold at night as it used to (Heads and Tails: Still thinking about Spring 2012). This is suggestive of an increase in water vapor keeping the nighttime temperature high, but that is not the entire story. Because of the water vapor increase, there is more likelihood of clouds, and clouds have a stronger greenhouse effect than water vapor.

So I started this blog talking about Florida, and how the daytime temperature did not seem as hot as I might have expected. And, of course, I mentioned my not so bright idea of the air just being too laden with water. So I need to go back to that and think about that a bit. If there is water available to evaporate into the air, then it takes energy to convert that water from liquid to vapor. In the Florida afternoon, it gets hot, there are a lot of updrafts and downdrafts which enhance mixing, and there is a persistent flux of water from the ground and plants into the air. This evaporation consumes some of the heat, and effectively, limits how hot it gets. At night, of course, as the air cools, the water condenses, releasing some of that heat back – contributing to those warm nighttime temperatures.

Now I have a couple of threads wandering around here. I have water vapor and clouds acting as a greenhouse and keeping nighttime temperatures high. I have water vapor evaporating in the Florida afternoon and keeping daytime temperatures, in some sense, moderated. That is, it does not get as hot as one might imagine. I have introduced this idea of nighttime minimum temperatures increasing, and I have talked about these temperature increases being related to water, not carbon dioxide.

So, let’s answer the carbon dioxide question. If the climate were stable, that is, the Sun did not vary, carbon dioxide was not increasing, there were no volcanoes, etc. then water would still cycle back and forth between ice, liquid, and vapor. There would still be impacts on nighttime lows and daytime highs. Water vapor would be important to regional climate differences, like the difference between Florida and Colorado. We can reason that in this stable climate, over the course of the year, there would be a certain average amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. In this stable world, this average amount of water vapor in the atmosphere would be stable. When we add carbon dioxide, we make it a little warmer and the atmosphere can hold a little more water. We see here that a water vapor increase follows from carbon dioxide increase, greenhouse warming building on top of greenhouse warming.

That said, it is also possible to change the water regionally, for instance by irrigation. In this case there are regional impacts on the temperature that are not caused by carbon dioxide. Opposite of irrigation, there might be drying due to agriculture. From the discussion above, we might expect surface irrigation to contribute to nighttime warming and drying to contribute to daytime warming. In either case this is “climate change” caused by the activities of humans, but it is not directly caused be carbon dioxide increases. Such regional changes are very confounding to attribution studies of regional warming and cooling, and also cause of controversy amongst scientists and others who sometimes fight over one mechanism versus the other.

What I have described here has the potential for substantial complexity. If we just had carbon dioxide, no water, it would be trivial, at least in might be trivial, to understand warming. Adding water, ice, liquid, and vapor, makes the problem more complex. Then the fact that when water vapor condenses in the atmosphere it makes clouds – well, it’s a lot to manage. But, it might be reasonable to expect water vapor to have different effects on nighttime lows than daytime highs. It also means that great changes to the surface water budget, like the Dust Bowl and irrigation in the Corn Belt, would be expected to have important impacts on regional climate. I plan to address this more completely in the next couple of months.

I will end this entry with reference to a paper that in the march of climate science is getting old, Kukla and Karl, 1993, Nighttime Warming and the Greenhouse Effect (from Rood’s Class Website ) It is historically interesting to me. This paper talks about the decrease of day to night temperature variability that is occurring due to increases in the nighttime minimum. There are in 1993 and in the decade following many papers investigating this subject. The paper is written at a time when the greenhouse warming due to carbon dioxide had not so clearly emerged as it has today. It was also written when climate models were at least 2 full generations prior to today’s generation. That means that clouds, aerosols, and land-surface processes were not represented at the same level of fidelity as they are now. The paper marches through different mechanisms, setting the foundation for future investigation. A good read for readers of this blog.

As I understand it, heat wave coming to the East - Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, southeast Pennsylvania and southern New Jersey are expecting the heat index to reach from 100 to 105 degrees on Wednesday and Thursday (June 20 and 21, 2012). New York, Vermont and Massachusetts will see near record-breaking temperatures. Here in Colorado, Wednesday will be cooler, but Thursday back up to nearly 100. Keep an eye on those nighttime lows. Stay hydrated, especially if you are trying to use a fan to stay cool. Fans cool you through evaporation, and dehydrate you faster.

I am expecting this summer to offer many opportunities for such discussions. Here in Colorado, a land of scant water, I have just experienced both record daytime highs and record warm nighttime lows in the past couple of days. In the grand scheme of things, that’s relatively rare.


r



Figure 1: Self explanatory. Credits – several times removed, but taken from Planetsave. Isn’t the Web Wonderful?

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 144 - 94

Page: 1 | 2 | 3Blog Index

144. greentortuloni
9:27 AM GMT on June 27, 2012
Quoting BobWallace:


I think you're looking at it wrong.

In about every set of data there is some "noise", some variability. Things are rarely as cut and dried as flipping a light switch up and down and watching the ceiling light go on and off with each flip.

When you run an experiment you look at the amount of noise/variability in the data and statistically determine the probability that your results are "true" vs. the probability that the results came from the noise happening to line up in a way that misleads.

You end up saying "This data is significant at the 90% or 99% level". That there is only a 10% chance or a 1% chance that the outcome is due to the noise and not the variables studied.

There's always a chance that the results were bogus. Could be noisy data. Could be researcher error. Stuff happens.

Here's my rule. Show me a breakthrough piece of research and I'll say "That's interesting", but I'm not likely to act on that one piece of research alone.

I wait until it has been confirmed by other researchers via either direct or systematic replication. Perhaps until it's been replicated a couple of times.

If there'a 10% chance that Paper A outcome was due to chance and Paper B finds the same thing with a 10% chance then together the likelihood that both are wrong due to data noise is 1% (0.10 x 0.10). Throw in a third study and now the odds of the outcomes being due to a chance error drop to 0.1%.


I agree with you for most scientific data and I do understand how statistics work: i.e. given an x type of distribution of underlying data, these results would be produced randomly (i.e. due to noise) only 10, 5 or 1 % of the time. But the problem of global destruction is not one of science, it is one of public policy. Hurricanes warnings, for example, are given in terms of chance of landfall. Global Warming results should be given something like the following:

Chance of sea level rise of 6 meters by 2050: 20%
Chance of sea level rise of 4 meters by 2050: 50%
Chance of sea level rise of 2 meters by 2050: 80%
Chance of sea level rise of 1 meters by 2050: 90%
Chance of sea level rise of .2 meters by 2050: 95%

If I am a right wing nut job Cackalacky politician, it is a lot easier to brush ".2 meters by 2050" under the carpet than a decent chance of 4 meters.
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
143. BobWallace
5:21 AM GMT on June 27, 2012
Quoting greentortuloni:
One problem with all academic papers is that they stick to 90, 95 or 99% probable measures.

To me, that seems almost useless in the case of climate change. Ok, if I know a plane has a 90% chance of a mechanical failure while in flight... do I get on board or not? No, I stay on the ground. If it has a 99% chance of a slight malfuntion, I may or may not get on baord, but if it has a 10% chance of crashing, I stay at home.

The climate numbers in academic papers don't represent good bases for decisions.


I think you're looking at it wrong.

In about every set of data there is some "noise", some variability. Things are rarely as cut and dried as flipping a light switch up and down and watching the ceiling light go on and off with each flip.

When you run an experiment you look at the amount of noise/variability in the data and statistically determine the probability that your results are "true" vs. the probability that the results came from the noise happening to line up in a way that misleads.

You end up saying "This data is significant at the 90% or 99% level". That there is only a 10% chance or a 1% chance that the outcome is due to the noise and not the variables studied.

There's always a chance that the results were bogus. Could be noisy data. Could be researcher error. Stuff happens.

Here's my rule. Show me a breakthrough piece of research and I'll say "That's interesting", but I'm not likely to act on that one piece of research alone.

I wait until it has been confirmed by other researchers via either direct or systematic replication. Perhaps until it's been replicated a couple of times.

If there'a 10% chance that Paper A outcome was due to chance and Paper B finds the same thing with a 10% chance then together the likelihood that both are wrong due to data noise is 1% (0.10 x 0.10). Throw in a third study and now the odds of the outcomes being due to a chance error drop to 0.1%.
Member Since: February 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
142. greentortuloni
4:10 AM GMT on June 27, 2012
One problem with all academic papers is that they stick to 90, 95 or 99% probable measures.

To me, that seems almost useless in the case of climate change. Ok, if I know a plane has a 90% chance of a mechanical failure while in flight... do I get on board or not? No, I stay on the ground. If it has a 99% chance of a slight malfuntion, I may or may not get on baord, but if it has a 10% chance of crashing, I stay at home.

The climate numbers in academic papers don't represent good bases for decisions.
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
141. Harrier41
3:35 AM GMT on June 27, 2012
JohnLonergan, there's a space in the word "current" in each of your URL's that renders them invalid.  I cut and pasted them into my browser and removed the spaces to make them work, but I see someone already re-posted the corrected links.

Member Since: July 31, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 7
140. Some1Has2BtheRookie
3:00 AM GMT on June 27, 2012
Quoting JohnLonergan:
Some1has2BtheRookie, yeah, those are the ones, I'll have to see what I did wrong, thanks for saying something.

I think that we're already committed to 2C with CO2 already at 396.


You are quite welcome.

There have been some fairly recent measurements of CO2 in the Arctic that were over the 400 ppm.

Here is one article on this.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4749
139. JohnLonergan
2:29 AM GMT on June 27, 2012
Some1has2BtheRookie, yeah, those are the ones, I'll have to see what I did wrong, thanks for saying something.

I think that we're already committed to 2C with CO2 already at 396.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3404
138. Some1Has2BtheRookie
2:10 AM GMT on June 27, 2012
JohnLonergan, I could not get your links to work for me. I believe that these are the articles that are referencing:

Hotspot of accelerated sea-level rise on the Atlantic coast of North America

Long-term sea-level rise implied by 1.5 C and 2 C warming levels

While I have not read either article yet, I can only say that a 2 C rise in warming is almost certainly a given now. I have read that climatologist are now trying to hold the warming to a 4 C warming. Since they have been given dysfunctional brakes to work with, I am not very optimistic that the warming will stop at 4 C or below.

Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4749
137. JohnLonergan
1:23 AM GMT on June 27, 2012
First time commenter, I thought that these two papers I saw today are interesting, in a scary sort of way if you live near the coastline.


A new study forecasts sea level rise based on 2C of warming and the picture isn’t pretty.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurr ent/full/nclimate1584.html


Cape Hatteras, NC marks the southern edge of a just revealed sea level rise hot spot

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurr ent/full/nclimate1597.html
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3404
136. BobWallace
12:23 AM GMT on June 27, 2012
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


And yet I am willing to make a wager that nearly all, if not all, of these companies are eagerly awaiting the collapse of the Arctic sea ice so they can keep drilling for more fossil fuels. This equates to the tobacco companies admitting that tobacco use kills and then expands their fields to grow more tobacco. Except this time it is everyone that will feel their disease.


Yeah. They will almost certainly put profits first.

But if you look around you will see them starting to diversify. Some are moving into natural gas, even talking about NG for vehicle fuel. Chevron is big in geothermal, it's the world's largest producer of electricity from geothermal.

I do not expect corporations to follow some "moral path" if it conflicts with their profits. Corporations, my friends, are not ethical people.

Corporations will follow the money. And they will avoid activities that cost them money. I suspect the oil companies see the coming of EVs and when that happens their business model will need to be drastically different than today's. But they also see the opportunity to make a boatload of money from oil in the interim.

I'm just looking at the oil companies not acknowledging climate change and the role of CO2 and oil companies starting to look for other money making opportunities and finding myself heartened that we've made a bit of progress.


Member Since: February 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
135. Some1Has2BtheRookie
7:05 PM GMT on June 26, 2012
Quoting BobWallace:
Sorry, this is pretty much of a dump of my notes and not condensed down. But I thought it might interest folks (and I need to get working on my kiwi trellis)...

ExxonMobil tells its investors that “rising greenhouse gas emissions pose risks to society and ecosystems that could be significant.” Chevron says on its website: “[T]he use of fossil fuels to meet the world’s energy needs is a contributor to an increase in greenhouse gases … There is a widespread view that this increase is leading to climate change, with adverse effects on the environment.” ConocoPhillips goes further: “ConocoPhillips recognizes that human activity, including the burning of fossil fuels, is contributing to increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that can lead to adverse changes in global climate.” BP even cites the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on its website. And Shell urges that “CO2 emissions must be reduced to avoid serious climate change.”

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/issue/


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

More...

Exxon Mobil


Environmental performance (including GHG emissions) is assessed and recognized through the annual planning and budget process. During this process, key
strategies and objectives are established for each business line for both the short and long term. During the initial planning meeting and then each quarter, results
are stewarded against prior commitments.

Society currently faces, and will continue to face, two major, global energy-related challenges. The first is to maintain and expand energy supplies to meet growing
global demand. The second challenge is to address the societal and environmental risks posed by rising greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Managing GHG emissions and energy challenges requires action by individuals, companies, and governments. This will require an integrated set of solutions, and
for ExxonMobil, this includes increasing efficiency; advancing lower-carbon energy technologies; and supporting effective, national and international policies. Our
efforts aim not only to reduce emissions from our operations, but also to reduce emissions by end users of energy.

At ExxonMobil, our strategy to reduce GHG emissions is focused on increasing our own energy efficiency in the short term; implementing current proven emission reducing technologies in the near and medium term; and developing breakthrough, game-changing
technologies for the long term.

--

While climate change remains extraordinarily complex, increasing scientific evidence makes it clear that rising GHG emissions pose risks to society and
ecosystems. These risks justify the development and implementation of responsible actions by governments, companies, and individuals.
ExxonMobil believes that the long-term objective of a climate change policy should be to reduce the risk of serious impacts on society and ecosystems, while
considering the importance of energy to global economic development.

http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/Files/cdp_inv estor_2011.pdf

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

Chevron

At Chevron, we recognize and share the concerns of governments and the public about climate change. The use of fossil fuels to meet the world's energy needs is a contributor to an increase in greenhouse gases (GHGs)—mainly carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane—in the Earth's atmosphere. There is a widespread view that this increase is leading to climate change, with adverse effects on the environment.

http://www.chevron.com/globalissues/climatechange /

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

Conoco Phillips

ConocoPhillips recognizes that human activity, including the burning of fossil fuels, is contributing to increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that can lead to adverse changes in global climate.

http://www.conocophillips.com/EN/susdev/policies/ climate_change_position/Pages/index.aspx

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

Royal Dutch Shell

Population growth and economic development are driving energy demand. All energy sources will be needed, with fossil fuels meeting the bulk of demand. At the same time CO2 emissions must be reduced to avoid serious climate change. To manage CO2, governments and industry must work together. Government action is needed and we support an international framework that puts a price on CO2, encouraging the use of all CO2-reducing technologies. We believe the best way Shell can help secure a sustainable energy future is by focusing on four main areas: natural gas, biofuels, carbon capture and storage, and energy efficiency.

http://www.shell.com/home/content/environment_soc iety/environment/climate_change/

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

Saudi Aramco

Saudi Aramco shares the world's concern that climate change is a long-term challenge, and we are working to play a leading role in developing and implementing technological solutions in a responsible manner.

http://www.aramcooverseas.com/en/about-us/about-s audi-aramco/

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

Hess

We encourage the U.S. government to work with other countries to reach a global solution to climate change that encompasses developed and developing countries. We believe that establishing a global emissions market will facilitate emissions reductions in the most cost effective manner. Our experience in the European Union, its trading scheme and emissions reduction projects, provide guidance on how we manage greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions for our operations in other parts of the world.

Our company recognizes the financial implications, risks and opportunities that come with climate change. We continue to evaluate a full range of options to responsibly manage our greenhouse gas emissions

http://www.hess.com/reports/sustainability/US/200 8/Environmental%20Performance/ClimateChange.aspx

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

Similar statements have been made by Pemex (Mexican oil company) and the China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC).


And yet I am willing to make a wager that nearly all, if not all, of these companies are eagerly awaiting the collapse of the Arctic sea ice so they can keep drilling for more fossil fuels. This equates to the tobacco companies admitting that tobacco use kills and then expands their fields to grow more tobacco. Except this time it is everyone that will feel their disease.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4749
134. BobWallace
6:47 PM GMT on June 26, 2012
Sorry, this is pretty much of a dump of my notes and not condensed down. But I thought it might interest folks (and I need to get working on my kiwi trellis)...

ExxonMobil tells its investors that “rising greenhouse gas emissions pose risks to society and ecosystems that could be significant.” Chevron says on its website: “[T]he use of fossil fuels to meet the world’s energy needs is a contributor to an increase in greenhouse gases … There is a widespread view that this increase is leading to climate change, with adverse effects on the environment.” ConocoPhillips goes further: “ConocoPhillips recognizes that human activity, including the burning of fossil fuels, is contributing to increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that can lead to adverse changes in global climate.” BP even cites the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on its website. And Shell urges that “CO2 emissions must be reduced to avoid serious climate change.”

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/issue/


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

More...

Exxon Mobil


Environmental performance (including GHG emissions) is assessed and recognized through the annual planning and budget process. During this process, key
strategies and objectives are established for each business line for both the short and long term. During the initial planning meeting and then each quarter, results
are stewarded against prior commitments.

Society currently faces, and will continue to face, two major, global energy-related challenges. The first is to maintain and expand energy supplies to meet growing
global demand. The second challenge is to address the societal and environmental risks posed by rising greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Managing GHG emissions and energy challenges requires action by individuals, companies, and governments. This will require an integrated set of solutions, and
for ExxonMobil, this includes increasing efficiency; advancing lower-carbon energy technologies; and supporting effective, national and international policies. Our
efforts aim not only to reduce emissions from our operations, but also to reduce emissions by end users of energy.

At ExxonMobil, our strategy to reduce GHG emissions is focused on increasing our own energy efficiency in the short term; implementing current proven emission reducing technologies in the near and medium term; and developing breakthrough, game-changing
technologies for the long term.

--

While climate change remains extraordinarily complex, increasing scientific evidence makes it clear that rising GHG emissions pose risks to society and
ecosystems. These risks justify the development and implementation of responsible actions by governments, companies, and individuals.
ExxonMobil believes that the long-term objective of a climate change policy should be to reduce the risk of serious impacts on society and ecosystems, while
considering the importance of energy to global economic development.

http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/Files/cdp_inv estor_2011.pdf

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

Chevron

At Chevron, we recognize and share the concerns of governments and the public about climate change. The use of fossil fuels to meet the world's energy needs is a contributor to an increase in greenhouse gases (GHGs)—mainly carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane—in the Earth's atmosphere. There is a widespread view that this increase is leading to climate change, with adverse effects on the environment.

http://www.chevron.com/globalissues/climatechange /

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

Conoco Phillips

ConocoPhillips recognizes that human activity, including the burning of fossil fuels, is contributing to increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that can lead to adverse changes in global climate.

http://www.conocophillips.com/EN/susdev/policies/ climate_change_position/Pages/index.aspx

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

Royal Dutch Shell

Population growth and economic development are driving energy demand. All energy sources will be needed, with fossil fuels meeting the bulk of demand. At the same time CO2 emissions must be reduced to avoid serious climate change. To manage CO2, governments and industry must work together. Government action is needed and we support an international framework that puts a price on CO2, encouraging the use of all CO2-reducing technologies. We believe the best way Shell can help secure a sustainable energy future is by focusing on four main areas: natural gas, biofuels, carbon capture and storage, and energy efficiency.

http://www.shell.com/home/content/environment_soc iety/environment/climate_change/

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

Saudi Aramco

Saudi Aramco shares the world's concern that climate change is a long-term challenge, and we are working to play a leading role in developing and implementing technological solutions in a responsible manner.

http://www.aramcooverseas.com/en/about-us/about-s audi-aramco/

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

Hess

We encourage the U.S. government to work with other countries to reach a global solution to climate change that encompasses developed and developing countries. We believe that establishing a global emissions market will facilitate emissions reductions in the most cost effective manner. Our experience in the European Union, its trading scheme and emissions reduction projects, provide guidance on how we manage greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions for our operations in other parts of the world.

Our company recognizes the financial implications, risks and opportunities that come with climate change. We continue to evaluate a full range of options to responsibly manage our greenhouse gas emissions

http://www.hess.com/reports/sustainability/US/200 8/Environmental%20Performance/ClimateChange.aspx

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

Similar statements have been made by Pemex (Mexican oil company) and the China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC).
Member Since: February 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
133. BobWallace
6:36 PM GMT on June 26, 2012
Quoting vanwx:
Somebody  posted a proven 8" sea  level rise on the the most expensive property in the US and that the flood insurance companies were complicit (you can't get a mortgage on a property unless it's insured). Even at this minuscule level we re seeing in giant pay-outs.
What I'm looking for is a link to that article about how the insurance companies used other funds to support these beach-side mansions to the expense of non at risk house holders.
thanks in  advance.
I don't think any smart money is buying Hatteras Beachfront anymore, but please give me a link to the article about insurance co's spiking the land value there.


I'd be interested to see that as well.

Some years back the insurance industry acknowledged that climate change was real and that it would impact their business.

Perhaps what happened is that some sort of federal or state insurance coverage was made available to beach houses. I can see that happening if you had some climate change deniers in government helping out their friends.

Member Since: February 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
132. vanwx
6:15 PM GMT on June 26, 2012
Somebody  posted a proven 8" sea  level rise on the the most expensive property in the US and that the flood insurance companies were complicit (you can't get a mortgage on a property unless it's insured). Even at this minuscule level we re seeing in giant pay-outs.
What I'm looking for is a link to that article about how the insurance companies used other funds to support these beach-side mansions to the expense of non at risk house holders.
thanks in  advance.
I don't think any smart money is buying Hatteras Beachfront anymore, but please give me a link to the article about insurance co's spiking the land value there.
Member Since: February 6, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 126
131. BobWallace
6:11 PM GMT on June 26, 2012
Quoting RevElvis:
Hotspot of accelerated sea-level rise on the Atlantic coast of North America

Link to article "Nature"

North Carolina Considers Making Sea Level Rise Illegal

Link to Scientific American blog

"Bill will limit sea level rise to 15.6" - any more than that will be against the law"


I'm so looking forward to the North Carolina legislature writing a bill (oops, ordering) the next hurricane headed their way to "just go away".

That, my friends, will be some clever wordsmithing....
Member Since: February 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
130. RevElvis
5:31 PM GMT on June 26, 2012
Hotspot of accelerated sea-level rise on the Atlantic coast of North America

Link to article "Nature"

North Carolina Considers Making Sea Level Rise Illegal

Link to Scientific American blog

"Bill will limit sea level rise to 15.6" - any more than that will be against the law"
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
129. Birthmark
5:11 PM GMT on June 26, 2012
Quoting BobWallace:
Here's another "little nasty" for the ice. All the ice, not just Arctic sea ice.

Via a discussion on Neven's site: As top layers melt the dirt that has been trapped in the layers of ice over the years settles on the top of the remaining ice.

As each annual layer top melts it contributes its dirt to the total.

That increases heat absorption, it lowers albedo.


Well, isn't that pleasant!
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
128. Birthmark
5:08 PM GMT on June 26, 2012
Quoting cyclonebuster:
I live in Alabama. Friday's high is supposed to reach 106 and Saturday 108 according to WU. Tunnels anyone?

{Monty Python-esque faux-French accent} We already got one. We like it very much.

(I told him we already got one. )
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
127. BobWallace
3:19 PM GMT on June 26, 2012
Here's another "little nasty" for the ice. All the ice, not just Arctic sea ice.

Via a discussion on Neven's site: As top layers melt the dirt that has been trapped in the layers of ice over the years settles on the top of the remaining ice.

As each annual layer top melts it contributes its dirt to the total.

That increases heat absorption, it lowers albedo.

Member Since: February 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
126. Some1Has2BtheRookie
2:31 PM GMT on June 26, 2012
Quoting Neapolitan:
Well, I appreciate your candor. I also admit to grudging admiration for your stated willingness and ability to hold fast to your ideological opinion even in the face of irrefutable scientific evidence diamterically opposite it. Congrats!

Great song, by the way. You finally nailed one.


Ossqss is quite the persistent individual when it comes to holding to beliefs that have been many times and in many ways proved to be invalid beliefs. I could easily imagine him being aboard a sinking ship and he persistently keeps asking for another glass of water. What makes this even worse is that I can also imagine him wanting the glass of water just so that he can throw the water in the face of everyone else on board the ship. Reality will not deter him from his beliefs and his beliefs have no place in reality.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4749
125. cyclonebuster
1:01 PM GMT on June 26, 2012
I live in Alabama. Friday's high is supposed to reach 106 and Saturday 108 according to WU. Tunnels anyone?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
124. Neapolitan
11:44 AM GMT on June 26, 2012
Quoting Ossqss:


Really, ya think?

NO, I don't think so!

See you in a solstice!

LMAO
Well, I appreciate your candor. I also admit to grudging admiration for your stated willingness and ability to hold fast to your ideological opinion even in the face of irrefutable scientific evidence diamterically opposite it. Congrats!

Great song, by the way. You finally nailed one.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13580
123. Ossqss
4:06 AM GMT on June 26, 2012
Quoting Neapolitan:
And not a moment too soon. ;-)

Look, Oss, almost all of us have backed the wrong horse at one time or another, as you clearly have with the climate "debate". There's no shame in it; there's even less shame in coming clean about the errors in your thinking. Now, were I a typical denialist, I too might double down on that denialism even as the preponderance of evidence continued to mount against my POV. It's human nature to be defiant, and even admirable under certain circumstances; after all, that's how mountains are climbed. But when you find yourself clinging to the side of that mountain while boulders, avalanches, entire massive landslides of logic and reason and fact pummel you from above, at some point you have to reach deep and be honest with yourself and ask the question: "Am I going the wrong way?" Now, despite your dubious taste in music, you seem like a reasonable enough fellow. Are you now at that point of self-realization? And if you're not yet there, when will you be? Well, whenever that happens, fear not; we'll be right here willing to listen. As always...


Really, ya think?

NO, I don't think so!




See you in a solstice!

LMAO
Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8186
122. Birthmark
12:05 AM GMT on June 26, 2012
Quoting BaltimoreBrian:
Ossqss you accused Birthmark of threatening children. Ossqss did you ever apologize for that?



Sort of. But what's worse is he accused me of being a librarian! I may never get over that. lol
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
121. Birthmark
12:01 AM GMT on June 26, 2012
Quoting Ossqss:
MR. Rood, you have reached a new low with posting that cartoon. I guess it is to be expected in these desperate times for your cause.

I find it beneath acceptable levels and profoundly enlightening to see it here.

I forget. Are you Mr. Kettle or Mr. Pot?
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
120. cyclonebuster
7:49 PM GMT on June 25, 2012
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


The gear ratio of the climate change drivers to the gear ratio as to what is observed concerning the climate change. What we are observing today with the climate change appears to happening about twice as fast as we expected to see these changes. In other words, the drive "gear" seems to be producing twice the speed of the output "gear". We misjudged the gear ratio?



Or RED dot to Blue dot ratio:

Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
119. BaltimoreBrian
5:58 PM GMT on June 25, 2012
Quoting cyclonebuster:


You mean down to............


Excellent point! Well done indeed :)
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 26 Comments: 8631
118. cyclonebuster
5:57 PM GMT on June 25, 2012
Quoting BaltimoreBrian:
Time to check what the arctic sea ice has been up to.


You mean down to............
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
117. BobWallace
5:53 PM GMT on June 25, 2012
The Arctic might get interesting over the next few days. The ice on the east side of Greenland has melted away (or blown away) from the coast along a long strip. (That's going to help heat up the land along the coast.) And the winds are forecast to be coming westerly which is likely to shove that ice into the melting ground.

There is a prediction of steady movement of ice through the Fram Straight for next several days. Not like the rapid movement of some time back when we saw big extent drops, but nice and steady and the most concentrated ice (all that purple and darker purple) is all lined for a trip out.

Then there's a lot of 6C to 12C Atlantic hanging out around the general Iceland area just waiting to melt some ice.



Then, over on the east (oops, west) side of Greenland the ice is starting to melt quickly. The Baffin Bay might be melted out in two weeks. The remaining ice is pretty much chunks of ice floating around in open water. Hard to see it lasting past three...


You can see a larger version and the color key here. Link
Click on the image to enlarge.

And you can see the current/flow projections here. Link
The "Valid On" column is the daily prediction based on the model run.
Member Since: February 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
116. BaltimoreBrian
5:38 PM GMT on June 25, 2012
Ossqss you accused Birthmark of threatening children. Ossqss did you ever apologize for that?


Quoting Ossqss:
MR. Rood, you have reached a new low with posting that cartoon. I guess it is to be expected in these desperate times for your cause.
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 26 Comments: 8631
115. BaltimoreBrian
5:35 PM GMT on June 25, 2012
Time to check what the arctic sea ice has been up to.
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 26 Comments: 8631
114. Some1Has2BtheRookie
1:25 PM GMT on June 25, 2012
Quoting cyclonebuster:


Gear ratio for what?


The gear ratio of the climate change drivers to the gear ratio as to what is observed concerning the climate change. What we are observing today with the climate change appears to happening about twice as fast as we expected to see these changes. In other words, the drive "gear" seems to be producing twice the speed of the output "gear". We misjudged the gear ratio?
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4749
113. Neapolitan
10:30 AM GMT on June 25, 2012
Quoting Ossqss:
Out>
And not a moment too soon. ;-)

Look, Oss, almost all of us have backed the wrong horse at one time or another, as you clearly have with the climate "debate". There's no shame in it; there's even less shame in coming clean about the errors in your thinking. Now, were I a typical denialist, I too might double down on that denialism even as the preponderance of evidence continued to mount against my POV. It's human nature to be defiant, and even admirable under certain circumstances; after all, that's how mountains are climbed. But when you find yourself clinging to the side of that mountain while boulders, avalanches, entire massive landslides of logic and reason and fact pummel you from above, at some point you have to reach deep and be honest with yourself and ask the question: "Am I going the wrong way?" Now, despite your dubious taste in music, you seem like a reasonable enough fellow. Are you now at that point of self-realization? And if you're not yet there, when will you be? Well, whenever that happens, fear not; we'll be right here willing to listen. As always...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13580
112. cyclonebuster
6:13 AM GMT on June 25, 2012
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Sadly, I believe the gear ratio of this motion may have a different ratio than originally thought to be. The 1000:1 gear ratio may be more like a 500:1 gear ratio. This would be a doubling of the output gear's speed. ... I think that I stated this correctly.


Gear ratio for what?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
111. Daisyworld
5:44 AM GMT on June 25, 2012
Quoting BobWallace:


Thanks, I've done both.

Problem, for me, is that it's a two hour drive to my nearest uni library (and even worse since there is almost no public parking). A long drive and then a bus ride.

That leaves me having to look for another way to get a paper. I hate to bother someone when it's something I'd like to read, but it's not highly important.

I wouldn't object to paying a small fee, but $32 for something that is being sold as part of a $10 journal at news stands is out of line.


Never worry about bothering the article author. That's why their contact information is published along with the abstract (which everyone should have access to). Nearly every author would be flattered you were interested enough to want to read their full article, and would gladly send you either a re-print, or point you to where you can get one. After all, science is about sharing knowledge! :-)
Member Since: January 11, 2012 Posts: 6 Comments: 859
110. Some1Has2BtheRookie
5:42 AM GMT on June 25, 2012
Quoting cyclonebuster:
Pretty soon Ice Breakers will extinct also..........

"Conditions in context

The main contributors to the unusually rapid ice loss to this point in June are the disappearance of most of the winter sea ice in the Bering Sea, rapid ice loss in the Barents and Kara Seas, and early development of open water areas in the Beaufort and Laptev Seas north of Alaska and Siberia. Recent ice loss rates have been 100,000 to 150,000 square kilometers (38,600 to 57,900 square miles) per day, which is more than double the climatological rate."

Link


Sadly, I believe the gear ratio of this motion may have a different ratio than originally thought to be. The 1000:1 gear ratio may be more like a 500:1 gear ratio. This would be a doubling of the output gear's speed. ... I think that I stated this correctly.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4749
109. cyclonebuster
5:30 AM GMT on June 25, 2012
Pretty soon Ice Breakers will be extinct also..........

"Conditions in context

The main contributors to the unusually rapid ice loss to this point in June are the disappearance of most of the winter sea ice in the Bering Sea, rapid ice loss in the Barents and Kara Seas, and early development of open water areas in the Beaufort and Laptev Seas north of Alaska and Siberia. Recent ice loss rates have been 100,000 to 150,000 square kilometers (38,600 to 57,900 square miles) per day, which is more than double the climatological rate."

Link
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
108. Some1Has2BtheRookie
4:38 AM GMT on June 25, 2012
Quoting Ossqss:


Your Sun, that provides you your life, and is the source of all you see and live. Simple, no?

You simply waste peoples time with your rhetoric, but no more of mine.

:-)


Does not nature follow the Laws of Physics? If not, how do the intricacies of nature allow it to act outside the Laws of Physics? This is an interesting question that perhaps only you can answer. Please, should you be able to answer this one simple question, I will become a devout student of yours. I promise.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4749
107. cyclonebuster
4:37 AM GMT on June 25, 2012
Tracking at record lows again I see even after a near normal ice extent a few weeks ago...... More proof of thin ice......... Let me know when you want to see normal ice extent? My plan works beautifully. It may take about 5 years after they are built but they are up to the task........


Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
105. BobWallace
4:04 AM GMT on June 25, 2012
Quoting Daisyworld:


Access to peer-reviewed journals can be difficult in this day and age if you're not affiliated with an academic institution, or your place of employment does not offer you online subscriptions to browse. You have a couple of choices when this happens: (1) E-mail the author and politely ask for a re-print (I have done this myself with other articles, and was given my own PDF copy), or (2) go to your local university library and use their computer lab. Either way, it's still technically free to the public, we're just required to do a little more legwork.

Hope that helps.


Thanks, I've done both.

Problem, for me, is that it's a two hour drive to my nearest uni library (and even worse since there is almost no public parking). A long drive and then a bus ride.

That leaves me having to look for another way to get a paper. I hate to bother someone when it's something I'd like to read, but it's not highly important.

I wouldn't object to paying a small fee, but $32 for something that is being sold as part of a $10 journal at news stands is out of line.
Member Since: February 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
104. Some1Has2BtheRookie
4:03 AM GMT on June 25, 2012
Quoting Ossqss:


One day, you too (U2) will fully understand the intricate nature of our world's climate. It will certainly be a "beautiful day" at that point .....\\

Until then, learn how to learn.

Nough said.

Out>



You certainly can help me to "learn to learn" by simply answering the questions I have put before you. Are you able to answer the questions and to help me learn and acquire the knowledge of the intricacies of nature that you have already learned? Teach me, ossqss. ... Please?

I hate to bring up an old topic, but how can one learn how to learn unless they already possess the ability to learn? Should they already possess this ability then they can only refine the methods that they use to learn. Look to the sun for the answers. The sun holds all of the answers for you to learn. Is this correct, ossqss?
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4749
102. Some1Has2BtheRookie
3:41 AM GMT on June 25, 2012
Quoting Ossqss:
Quote ":Figure 1: Self explanatory. Credits – several times removed, but taken from Planetsave. Isn’t the Web Wonderful? "

Self explanatory also..... really?, is this message coming from a professional or a propagandist?



Ah! Yes, that video clears everything up. I will say one thing for certain, ossqss. You sure know how to post some good music videos! Did you catch the primary question that the lyrics are asking? What are you thinking?
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4749
101. Some1Has2BtheRookie
3:34 AM GMT on June 25, 2012
Quoting Ossqss:
MR. Rood, you have reached a new low with posting that cartoon. I guess it is to be expected in these desperate times for your cause.

I find it beneath acceptable levels and profoundly enlightening to see it here.

"Going Under" as they say, just like Kyoto, eh?








Good evening Ossqss. I see that you need to "learn to learn". Have you come here to give it one more attempt to actually learn something? Should our sun be the cause of all of the heat retention we are seeing on our planet, then are you able to explain why we are seeing more low maximum records being set than we are seeing low minimum records being set for night time temperatures? You must remember one thing here. Our sun will not be able to shed any light for you on this, if you get my drift.

Or, perhaps you are better able to answer this question for us - How has our releasing tons/day of CO2 into our atmosphere allowed CO2 to defy the Laws of Physics and remove itself as a greenhouse gas? Or, perhaps we are now using the new and improved carbon free fossil fuels?

Show us how our sun can warm our planet and yet rising CO2 levels will not retain more of this heat, even it were true that all of the warming we are seeing is due solely to a changing sun. Do you have a video that explains any of this? Do you narrate this video as well?

Here is something for you to try, ossqss. Pose these questions to Anthony Watts and see what answers he has for you. You may be one of the few among us that can actually learn something from Anthony Watts concerning global warming/climate change. ... What's up with that?
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4749
100. Ossqss
3:28 AM GMT on June 25, 2012
Quote ":Figure 1: Self explanatory. Credits – several times removed, but taken from Planetsave. Isn’t the Web Wonderful? "

Self explanatory also..... really?, is this message coming from a professional or a propagandist?

Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8186
99. Daisyworld
3:07 AM GMT on June 25, 2012
Quoting BobWallace:


I feel a need to rant. Yeh, I know it's early in the morning to get started, but I woke up early.

The research reported in this article was probably 100% federally and state financed. We, the taxpayers, paid for the research and for the time spent writing it up.

And now we have to pay someone to see what we financed?

I'm sorry. This just seems wrong to me.

Yes, it does cost some money to make the paper available on line. But $32?

Back in my research days we wrote into our budget a small amount of money that went to professional journals for reprints. Sometime after the paper was published one would receive a big box of article reprints which one could send out to anyone who requested.

Requests almost never happened, people either had the journal or made a copy in the library rather than writing to request a copy and waiting for days.

The cost of that box of reprints was considerably higher than the actual print/ship costs. It was an underhand way to help finance the journals.

Now there's no paper to ship around. It's mostly text on a server somewhere. Why should we have to pay an outrageous sum to read something we've already paid for?

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.................

eta: Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr...................

I just discovered that I can buy the entire journal issue in paper form for only $10. That article and a whole bunch of others.

I can buy entire books in e-form for $10. And they want $32 for a single article?


Access to peer-reviewed journals can be difficult in this day and age if you're not affiliated with an academic institution, or your place of employment does not offer you online subscriptions to browse. You have a couple of choices when this happens: (1) E-mail the author and politely ask for a re-print (I have done this myself with other articles, and was given my own PDF copy), or (2) go to your local university library and use their computer lab. Either way, it's still technically free to the public, we're just required to do a little more legwork.

Hope that helps.
Member Since: January 11, 2012 Posts: 6 Comments: 859
97. BobWallace
1:27 AM GMT on June 25, 2012
Quoting martinitony:
Cold






eta:

Couple of thing Martin -

1) You are aware that it is winter 'down there'?

2) You are aware that there is still a big ozone hole over Antarctica which lets lots of heat escape?
Member Since: February 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
96. Some1Has2BtheRookie
10:24 PM GMT on June 24, 2012
Quoting martinitony:
Cold


Hot
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4749
95. martinitony
8:57 PM GMT on June 24, 2012
Cold
Member Since: July 29, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 970
94. spbloom
4:06 AM GMT on June 24, 2012
Quoting BobWallace:


I feel a need to rant. Yeh, I know it's early in the morning to get started, but I woke up early.

The research reported in this article was probably 100% federally and state financed. We, the taxpayers, paid for the research and for the time spent writing it up.

And now we have to pay someone to see what we financed?

I'm sorry. This just seems wrong to me.

Yes, it does cost some money to make the paper available on line. But $32?

Back in my research days we wrote into our budget a small amount of money that went to professional journals for reprints. Sometime after the paper was published one would receive a big box of article reprints which one could send out to anyone who requested.

Requests almost never happened, people either had the journal or made a copy in the library rather than writing to request a copy and waiting for days.

The cost of that box of reprints was considerably higher than the actual print/ship costs. It was an underhand way to help finance the journals.

Now there's no paper to ship around. It's mostly text on a server somewhere. Why should we have to pay an outrageous sum to read something we've already paid for?

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.................

eta: Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr...................

I just discovered that I can buy the entire journal issue in paper form for only $10. That article and a whole bunch of others.

I can buy entire books in e-form for $10. And they want $32 for a single article?


Really important papers like this are more often than not linked on the site(s) of the author(s), as this one was.

And I see that the idiot trolls are back. Oh well.
Member Since: May 12, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 428

Viewing: 144 - 94

Page: 1 | 2 | 3Blog Index

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.