Spacecraft seek climate clarity

An admission that the experts don't even know the basics about many of the variables that they so gaily inject into their "models"

Some of the gaping holes that exist in our understanding of the Earth's atmosphere will be answered by two new satellites launched on Friday. The Cloudsat and Calipso missions will study how clouds and aerosols (fine particles) form, evolve and affect our climate, the weather and air quality. Scientists say knowledge gaps in such areas severely hamper their ability to forecast future climate change. Different types of cloud, for example, can help cool or warm the planet. "We will be making the key observations that address this problem," said Dr Graeme Stephens, the Cloudsat principal investigator from Colorado State University, US.

The US space agency (Nasa) satellites were launched from the Vandenberg Air Force Base in California at 1002 GMT, after a week of delays due to technical problems and unfavourable wind conditions. They have been put in a 705km (438 miles) circular, sun-synchronous polar orbit, where they will fly in formation just 15 seconds apart. The spacecraft are part of an Earth-observation constellation Nasa calls the "A-Train".

The Cloudsat spacecraft carries an extremely sensitive radar. It sends short pulses of microwave energy down into the atmosphere, and by recording the way these pulses are scattered back to the satellite obtains a picture of the structure and water content of clouds. "The strength of the return from the radar is actually directly related to the amount of water that's in clouds. Effectively, it allows us to weigh the clouds," explained Dr Stephens. "The time delay of the pulses means we can look at different levels and that gives us the profile of clouds."

Calipso stands for Cloud-Aerosol Lidar and Infrared Pathfinder Satellite. It uses lidar, which fires pulses of shorter wave energy - in the infrared and visible part of the spectrum - down into the atmosphere to obtain a different, but complementary, set of data from Cloudsat's. In particular, Calipso is concerned with aerosols. These very fine particles are thrown up into the atmosphere by natural processes, such as volcanic eruptions, dust and sand storms, and even sea spray. Human activities, also, produce aerosols: through burning of forests; and industrial and vehicle emissions.

Aerosols take very complex forms, and contain a range of chemical compounds. They can be solid or liquid, or even solid material inside a drop of liquid. And their longevity is highly varied, with some aerosols lasting a few days and others hanging in the air for months. "The bottom line here is that to measure aerosols is very difficult; you need a variety of instruments," explains Dr Charles Trepte, Calipso project scientist from the US space agency's Langley Research Center. "Nasa and other agencies have been making measurements of aerosols from space for many years, but the problem is that they haven't been able to measure all the properties; and one thing they are missing is the vertical distribution of aerosols in thin clouds."

Aerosols have a fundamental relationship with clouds by providing the nuclei on which cloud droplets can form. Clouds that form in clean air are made up of droplets that tend to get bigger because they form on fewer nuclei; and these clouds tend to rain more, too. Clouds that develop in dirty air form many more, but smaller, droplets. These clouds also look brighter. By picking apart these details, Calipso will help scientists understand the direct and indirect effects of aerosols on climate. "Directly, they can scatter sunlight back to space and have a cooling effect just by reducing the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth system," said Dr Trepte. "They can also absorb solar radiation and warm the atmosphere, possibly alter circulations, change the thermal stability of the atmosphere and perhaps inhibit convection. "And then they have the indirect effects of changing cloud properties, allowing them to last longer, changing the amount of precipitation - either increase it or decrease it - and perhaps even dim or brighten clouds so that they have better or worse reflecting properties."

The Cloudsat and Calipso missions have a number of objectives:

* Together, the satellites will provide the first statistics on the vertical structure of clouds. Scientists will be able to see clouds from their tops to their bottoms - like getting a CT scan of clouds from space

* Cloudsat and Calipso will give researchers the first indirect but validated estimate of how much clouds and aerosols contribute to the vertical distribution of atmospheric warming

* Cloudsat will provide the first global estimates of the percentage of Earth's clouds that produce rain

* Cloudsat will afford scientists the first vertically sliced picture of how much water and ice are in Earth's clouds

* Cloudsat will provide the first ability to detect snowfall from space

* Cloudsat will offer the first estimates of how efficiently the atmosphere produces rain from condensates

* Calipso will provide the first statistics on the global vertical distribution of aerosols and aerosol types

* Calipso will reveal for the first time how often "sub-visible" cirrus clouds - very thin clouds invisible to the naked eye - occur, and whether they change with the seasons

The new understanding obtained through the spacecraft will be fed into computer models, to improve their predictions. This should lead not just to better weather and air quality forecasts, but to reduced uncertainties in our expectations of future climate change. "A tiny, tiny fraction of the water on our planet is in clouds and yet that tiny, tiny fraction is what provides the fresh water on which humans depend," Dr Stephens said. "Clouds replenish our fresh water resources and yet we can't really tell you today how clouds will change under the pressures of global climate change."

Source






BUSH'S ENERGY AND ECO-IDIOCY

Debates about energy on Fox News, the Republican Party's megaphone, reflect just how far Bush and his supporters have strayed from a priori economic truths, in adopting the Democratic agenda. The two ubiquitous interlocutors typically invited to "debate" energy-one a Democrat; the other a Republican-have no real disagreement about policy or the facts undergirding it. Their only quarrel concerns the degree to which Bush is carrying out the Democrats' plank; Democrat pinkos say not fast enough; Republican pinkos give him full marks.

Democrats don't even have to argue their case for the repugnant Marxist theory of environmentalism; Bush has accepted and acted on it-its fallacies inform his policies. As I've written:

"The theory used to be that capitalism was going to cause the impoverishment of the worker. The exact opposite transpired. Greater economic freedom, especially in developed nations, has enabled those who, in previous centuries would have lived short, nasty and brutish lives, to afford the accoutrements of modernity. The theory now is that the capitalist has taken a slight detour - the worker's demise will indeed follow as soon as the capitalist is through despoiling the environment."

Republicans have been converted: they are now "watermelons"-green on the outside, red on the inside. Duly, they ignore that supply and demand determine the price of gas-and that, other than taking care in future not to reduce supply by pulverizing a country that was once a major oil producer-supply has to be increased to reduce prices.

Furthermore, the price system is the best way to conserve. Americans are already adjusting consumption because of prices. Dare to meddle with these, as Bill O'Reilly advocates, and shortages or surpluses will follow in short succession. If you cap prices (or profits, as Comrade Bill advocates), people will conserve less because prices will have been artificially lowered, and suppliers will have no incentive to drill for crude and bring it to market. If the eco-idiots don't want lines at the pump the likes Iraqis are now enduring, let the price system work to conserve-and to secure supply.

Any impending scarcity is the responsibility of the powerful environmental lobby's opposition to oil exploration-and the governments that have heeded it. This lobby has seen to it that a domestic moratorium and thousands of regulations and restrictions have been foisted over the years on industry in a bungling attempt at conservation. The prices at the pump are their handiwork. Absent legislative barriers to exploration, courtesy of ignorant environmentalists, high prices would, ordinarily, signal to oil companies that there are profits to be made, and that they should intensify drilling, refining, etc. In short, get more product to market.

As to the "commie cars" Bush is pushing, much to the delight of Democrats: Don't expect Bush (who recently spoke of reducing "greenhouse admissions"), the Fox fillies, affiliated fops, or any other ignoramus on the networks, to tell you what they apparently don't understand-also the only thing you need to know about electric, hydrogen, and hybrid gas-and-electric vehicles-these are only as good as the original source of energy that powers them.

Take the Hydrogen vehicle: energy is released when water (H2O) is separated into Hydrogen and Oxygen. Notwithstanding that this process is not economically viable, and thus far more wasteful than oil extraction, to bring about this reaction, coal, natural gas, nuclear power, or a hydroelectric dam is required first. Dah! America's "People's Car"-engineered due to the same central planning that brought into being the lowly Russian Lada (it was decreed by USSR's Ministries Council)-is only as clean as "the original source of energy that generated the vim that powers it."

Source







Arnie's Carbon mania

A wise investor puts her money in investments that offer the highest returns at the lowest cost. A poor investor puts his money in investments that offer low returns at a higher cost. I don't know what you'd call an investor who puts lots of money into "investments" that offer no benefits, but "Schwarzenegger" might be a good label. The Governor's pledge to lower greenhouse gas emissions in California to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 will bring Californians little or no environmental benefit, while costing the citizenry a substantial amount of money. The Governor has long pandered to California's environmental interest groups, but as an earlier (and wiser) Republican Governor named Reagan observed, "Facts are stubborn things." So let's look at the stubborn facts.

If it worked perfectly, the legislation now in front of the California Legislature -- largely in line with the Governor's plan -- would lower California greenhouse gas emissions by 145 million tons by the year 2020. That might sound like a large reduction. But let's do some math. Global emissions of greenhouse gases in 2020 are estimated to be about 42.6 billion tons of carbon dioxide equivalent -- yes billions, with a 'b.' If California avoids emitting 145 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent, that's about a 0.3 percent (three-tenths of one percent) reduction of global greenhouse gas emissions. Now let's figure out what benefit that provides. Despite people mislabeling greenhouse gases as "pollutants," greenhouse gases are non-toxic: the only benefit you get from reducing them is to avoid some degree of global warming in the future.

The predicted warming by the year 2020 according to the absolute worst-case computer models of the United Nations[2] is about about 1.3 degree (Fahrenheit). If we make the assumption that California's action will knock out temperature change equal to its greenhouse gas reductions (0.3 percent) we see that California's actions will avert about four one-thousandths of a degree of warming, an amount far too little to measure, much less to offer any benefits to Californians (or anyone else, for that matter).

So much for benefits, let's talk about costs. California politicians like to talk about California as if it were a country. So, let's pretend that's true, and assume the likely cost of GHG reductions in California will be similar to what's been estimated in other high-tech, economically-powerful countries. A 2002 study looked at the impact of greenhouse gas reductions on the economies of four European countries with goals about 20 percent weaker than what the Governor is proposing, so we'll call those least-cost estimates. Germany, according to that study, would lose nearly 3 percent of its gross domestic product and up to 1.3 million jobs annually by 2020, and ever after. The Netherlands would lose about 2 percent of GDP, and up to 180,000 jobs, while the UK would also lose about 2 percent of GDP, which could cost them up to 750,000 jobs.

What could the Governor do if he was serious about the threats posed by our ever-changing climate? The best thing he could do would be to drop the ludicrous idea of instituting global weather control via greenhouse gas controls and focus on making California's infrastructure resilient in the face of any climate change from any cause. For example, he might fix the perverse incentives that led people to put houses and business down in areas sensitive to small fluctuations in water supply, or weather. He might crusade against insurance subsidies that enable people to build (and repeatedly rebuild) in flood plains, on eroding beachfronts, on the ever-sliding hills of Malibu, or other regions particularly susceptible to climate-induced damage. He might end water subsidies that let farmers grow water-intensive crops in the desert, while wasting massive quantities of fresh water. He might work to establish competitive free markets in energy, agriculture and transportation to make these vital goods lean, mean, responsive machines.

It's not easy to communicate the idea that a policy of resilience and adaptability is in the best interests of Californians. Indeed, in the changing climate of California politics, it's apparently easier to play the role of carbon's Kindergarten Cop.

Source

***************************************

Many people would like to be kind to others so Leftists exploit that with their nonsense about equality. Most people want a clean, green environment so Greenies exploit that by inventing all sorts of far-fetched threats to the environment. But for both, the real motive is to promote themselves as wiser and better than everyone else, truth regardless.

Global warming has taken the place of Communism as an absurdity that "liberals" will defend to the death regardless of the evidence showing its folly. Evidence never has mattered to real Leftists

Comments? Email me here. My Home Page is here or here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there are mirrors of this site here and here.

*****************************************