The data is available at: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/
You will want to read Spencer on which "product" from their center is most appropriate for your uses. Roy is faily good with email to professional colleagues, so if you need a leg up, drop him a note. David. On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 12:49 AM, Oliver Wingenter < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dear David, > > I would like to evaluate the Huntsville data myself. Could you kindly > direct me to where I can find this data set. > > Thanks, > > Oliver Wingenter > > On Dec 4, 8:13 am, "David Schnare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Oliver, the Huntsville data, which is not contaminated by a variety of > > "corrections" Hansen injects into his temperature histories, does support > a > > conclusion that we are back at 1980 temperatures and that the last few > years > > have reflected a level temperature. What that means about global > warming, > > in light of the PDO status, has not been adequately discussed in the > > literature. > > > > As for John Gorman's suggestion, it smacks a bit of the "leap before > > looking" philosophy. Those of us in positions of public trust are not > free > > to ignore uncertainty when making investment decsions on behalf of > citizens, > > nor are we able to ignore the costs of alternatives, including the "do > > nothing" alternative. We have to look at them all. The same applies to > the > > private sector. > > > > Some of you might wish to look at the insurance industry model to see how > to > > deal with large uncertainty, especially as so many have suggested that > SRM > > research is akin to an insurance policy. When faced with large > uncertainty, > > one makes small investments not large ones. One reserves options and > > capital untill the uncertainty clears somewhat. That is the position > many > > are taking today. It is not necessarily a wrong approach. After all, > the > > IPCC has described the uncertainties of the projections as so large that > > forecasts of temperature 100 years from now are plus or minus more than > 100 > > deg. C. That's rather a lot of uncertainty, and does not warrent harm > to > > the global economy, since it is that economy to which we must look for > ways > > to rebalance the carbon cycles. > > > > d. > > > > On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 2:47 AM, John Gorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > John is 100% right in all of these points. I t cant be proved till > > > afterwards. Asking for proof in advance is just a way of guaranteeing > more > > > research and no action. It is also the wrong philosophy. In his lecture > to > > > the world bank the Nobel Laureat economist -?- pointed out that we > should > > > not be looking at probabilities or cost effectiveness or cost benifit. > > > Possibility plus dire consequences requires action -now > > > > > JOhn Gorman > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Andrew Lockley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Cc: "Gwynne Dyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "geoengineering" > > > <[email protected]>; "Wilfried Haeberli" > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Paul Crutzen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >; > > > "Rapley Chris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 10:12 PM > > > Subject: [geo] Re: Can't Get There from Here > > > > > That's the critical point and it needs to be made clearly and backed > > > up with evidence. Further, you need to PROVE that the arctic sea ice > > > is the tipping point. > > > > > A > > > > > 2008/12/3 John Nissen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > > Gwynne and everybody, > > > > > > One additional point to make it absolutely clear about why we need > > > > geoengineering. I'll number this zero, so it begins the chain of > > > > argument: > > > > > > 0. Even if we were to stop all CO2 emissions overnight, the CO2 > level in > > > > the atmosphere would remain at around 385 ppm, and the net positive > > > > climate > > > > forcing (i.e. heating) around 1.6 Watts per square metre, for > decades. > > > > The > > > > global warming would therefore continue for decades. Therefore there > is > > > > no > > > > way that emissions reductions can produce a cooling effect on a > timescale > > > > of > > > > a few years. > > > > > > Actually the point can be made even stronger. To produce a cooling > > > > effect, > > > > one would need to have a net negative forcing. To produce this you > would > > > > need to bring the CO2 down below the pre-industrial equilibrium > point, > > > > generally taken as 280 ppm. And to do this in the Arctic, and > counter > > > the > > > > local albedo forcing, you'd need to take CO2 well below 280 ppm > within a > > > > few > > > > years. This is clearly absolutely impossible. > > > > > > And as regards geoengineering "as a last resort" [1], when do you > > > > determine > > > > the time that you should use it? When you can see that other methods > are > > > > not working, surely. That was probably in the mid 80s, when the > glacier > > > > mass ice loss suddenly deviated from the curve it had previously > > > > followed - > > > > showing a doubling of global warming per decade [2]. This sudden > > > > acceleration could not be explained by CO2 - but could have been > > > explained > > > > either by the additional forcing of Arctic sea ice which had started > to > > > > retreat, or by the removal of "pollutant" sulphur compounds from the > > > > atmosphere, or a combination of the two. (I discussed this with the > > > > glacier > > > > expert Wilfred Haeberli himself, to no definite conclusion.) We > should > > > > then > > > > have realised that putting sulphate aerosol in the stratosphere was > an > > > > obvious way to stop the acceleration, as it could counter both the > effect > > > > of > > > > sulphur removal from the troposphere AND any additional forcing of > Arctic > > > > sea ice. > > > > > > But it is easy to be wise in hindsight. Now we have no time to lose > as > > > > the > > > > sea ice threatens to disappear faster than we ever imagined possible. > > > > > > Cheers from Chiswick, > > > > > > John > > > > > > [1] Paul Crutzen has considered albedo enhancement a last resort: > > > >www.springerlink.com/content/t1vn75m458373h63/fulltext.pdf > > > > > > [2] Glacier mass ice loss. Haeberli et al. See trend on figure 1b: > > > >http://www.wgms.ch/mbb/mbb9/sum06.html > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: John Nissen > > > > To: Gwynne Dyer > > > > Cc: geoengineering > > > > Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 3:58 PM > > > > Subject: Fw: [geo] Can't Get There from Here > > > > > > Hello Gwynne, > > > > > > I appreciate very much that you explore the security dimension. But > > > > there's > > > > one vital thing you miss. > > > > > > You write: > > > > > > "The third conclusion is that there is a point of no return after > which > > > > warming becomes unstoppable—and we are probably going to sail right > > > > through > > > > it. It is the point at which anthropogenic (human-caused) warming > > > triggers > > > > huge releases of carbon dioxide from warming oceans, or similar > releases > > > > of > > > > both carbon dioxide and methane from melting permafrost, or both. > Most > > > > climate scientists think that point lies not far beyond 2 degrees C > > > hotter > > > > (3.6 degrees F). " > > > > > > but you miss the glaring example of a tipping point - the > disappearance > > > of > > > > the Arctic sea ice. So here is a logical argument. Considering: > > > > > > 1. The Arctic is warming at least double the speed of average global > > > > warming. > > > > > > 2. If the sea ice goes, the Arctic warming accelerates and is liable > to > > > > trigger huge releases of methane from permafrost, long before the > global > > > > warming reaches 2 degrees. (It is also liable to trigger disastrous > sea > > > > level rise from Greenland ice sheet melting.) > > > > > > 3. According the latest research, documented in the Climate Safety > > > report > > > > (launched last week [1]), the sea ice could disappear in 3-7 years > (at > > > the > > > > end of summer). > > > > > > 4. Geoengineering now appears to be the only possible means to save > the > > > > Arctic sea ice, and prevent a "tipping point" becoming a "point of no > > > > return". > > > > > > 5. The local climate forcing (heating) from the albedo effect, as > Arctic > > > > sea ice retreats in summer, could more than double between now and > > > > complete > > > > sea ice disappearance. > > > > > > 6. Geoengineering needs to be up to full scale as quickly as > possible, > > > to > > > > maximise the chance of saving the Arctic sea ice. > > > > > > Therefore: > > > > > > 7. We need immediately to initiate a top-priority, super-urgent > project > > > > for > > > > geoengineering to save the Arctic sea ice - a project with the focus, > > > > determination and urgency of the Manhattan project. > > > > > > The consequences of failure are too dreadful to contemplate. Failure > is > > > > not > > > > an option. Psychologically, we have to think of this as war, in > order to > > > > accept the enormity of the predicament we are in and be spurned to > > > action. > > > > > > Can you refute this argument? Can anybody refute this argument? > > > > > > Could Obama and his defense advisers accept this argument? (I shall > work > > > > on > > > > our own Prime Minister Brown.) > > > > > > Cheers from Chiswick, > > > > > > John > > > > > > [1]http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/12/414238.html > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: Alvia Gaskill > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 2:08 PM > > > > Subject: [geo] Can't Get There from Here > > > > Like the financial crisis, when the roof falls in, watch out, it may > be > > > > your > > > > own. > > > > >http://www.straight.com/article-173168/gwynne-dyer-four-harsh-truths-. > .. > > > > > > Gwynne Dyer: Four harsh truths about climate change > > > > > > By Gwynne Dyer > > > > Publish Date: December 2, 2008 > > > > > > About two years ago, I realized that the military in various > countries > > > > were > > > > starting to do climate change scenarios in-house—scenarios that > started > > > > with > > > > the scientific predictions about rising temperatures, falling crop > > > yields, > > > > and other physical effects, and examined what that would do to > politics > > > > and > > > > strategy. > > > > > > The scenarios predicted failed states proliferating because > governments > > > > couldn't feed their people; waves of climate refugees washing up > against > > > > the > > > > borders of more fortunate countries; even wars between countries that > > > > shared > > > > the same rivers. So I started interviewing everybody I could get > access > > > > to: > > > > not only senior military people but also scientists, diplomats, and > > > > politicians. > > > > > > About seventy interviews, a dozen countries, and eighteen months > later, I > > > > have reached four conclusions that I didn't even suspect when I began > the > > > > process. The first is simply this: the scientists > > > > ... > > > > read more » > > > -- David W. Schnare Center for Environmental Stewardship --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
