Comments on: Too Much Uncertainty To Act http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5183 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:36:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Raven http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5183&cpage=1#comment-13765 Raven Tue, 05 May 2009 16:13:01 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5183#comment-13765 jasg, Not necessarily. Light penetrates into the snow. More importantly, when the snow/ices melts the previously covered BC will be exposed and increase the melt rate. But once the snow/ice complete melts the BC is lost into the ocean. jasg,

Not necessarily. Light penetrates into the snow.

More importantly, when the snow/ices melts the previously covered BC will be exposed and increase the melt rate. But once the snow/ice complete melts the BC is lost into the ocean.

]]> By: Tamara http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5183&cpage=1#comment-13763 Tamara Tue, 05 May 2009 14:32:05 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5183#comment-13763 Of course, soot is actually TOXIC. But I guess the EPA doesn't need to worry about things like that. Of course, soot is actually TOXIC. But I guess the EPA doesn’t need to worry about things like that.

]]> By: jasg http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5183&cpage=1#comment-13761 jasg Tue, 05 May 2009 09:36:15 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5183#comment-13761 Raven Doesn't new snow cover up old carbon thus negating its albedo-changing properties? Mike Smith Winter happens every year. This year something has changed, which coincides with 2 years of planetary coolness. I'd say the jury is still out. Raven
Doesn’t new snow cover up old carbon thus negating its albedo-changing properties?

Mike Smith
Winter happens every year. This year something has changed, which coincides with 2 years of planetary coolness.

I’d say the jury is still out.

]]> By: CurtFischer http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5183&cpage=1#comment-13751 CurtFischer Mon, 04 May 2009 20:04:34 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5183#comment-13751 I think Roger may be jumping the gun in his conclusions here. What evidence do we have that the EPA has made its decision about black carbon on political, rather than scientific grounds? I glanced at the two "recent research" links, and and although there are discussions and estimations of the aerosol indirect effect (AIE), it's not clear to me how accurate or justified the assumptions are. If these authors' methods have proven that their AIE estimates are much better than what anyone, including the IPCC, has estimated before, its not clear to me from these publications, and anyway, although I'm not a climate scientist, I would expect such a result to reach very high-profile journals and be loudly trumpeted. Maybe I missed it, but I haven't seen it yet. The aerosol indirect effect, or <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Radiative-forcings.svg" rel="nofollow">cloud albedo effect</a>, or whatever you want to call it, is a major area of climate uncertainty, and black carbon is much more likely to modulate this effect than CO2 or other long-lived greenhouse gases. And aside from the two research papers, why rely on the NYT for technical information? So, while I find Roger's theory ascribing a political motive to the EPA's black carbon plausible, I am not convinced its necessarily true by the evidence presented. I think Roger may be jumping the gun in his conclusions here. What evidence do we have that the EPA has made its decision about black carbon on political, rather than scientific grounds? I glanced at the two “recent research” links, and and although there are discussions and estimations of the aerosol indirect effect (AIE), it’s not clear to me how accurate or justified the assumptions are. If these authors’ methods have proven that their AIE estimates are much better than what anyone, including the IPCC, has estimated before, its not clear to me from these publications, and anyway, although I’m not a climate scientist, I would expect such a result to reach very high-profile journals and be loudly trumpeted. Maybe I missed it, but I haven’t seen it yet.

The aerosol indirect effect, or cloud albedo effect, or whatever you want to call it, is a major area of climate uncertainty, and black carbon is much more likely to modulate this effect than CO2 or other long-lived greenhouse gases.

And aside from the two research papers, why rely on the NYT for technical information?

So, while I find Roger’s theory ascribing a political motive to the EPA’s black carbon plausible, I am not convinced its necessarily true by the evidence presented.

]]> By: jae http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5183&cpage=1#comment-13742 jae Mon, 04 May 2009 18:49:33 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5183#comment-13742 Come on, folks, you all know that the EPA decided, a priori, for political reasons, to regulate CO2, regardless of any silly scientific considerations . They will get to soot, all in good time, if it suits their political objectives. Sorry to be so cynical, but I just can't help it. Come on, folks, you all know that the EPA decided, a priori, for political reasons, to regulate CO2, regardless of any silly scientific considerations . They will get to soot, all in good time, if it suits their political objectives. Sorry to be so cynical, but I just can’t help it.

]]> By: Collide-a-scape » Blog Archive » Collide-a-scape >> Black Carbon’s Pandora Box http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5183&cpage=1#comment-13739 Collide-a-scape » Blog Archive » Collide-a-scape >> Black Carbon’s Pandora Box Mon, 04 May 2009 18:29:43 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5183#comment-13739 [...] Roger Pielke Jr., wonders: So if the science is robust and the political will is there, why would EPA steer away from black [...] [...] Roger Pielke Jr., wonders: So if the science is robust and the political will is there, why would EPA steer away from black [...]

]]> By: Mike Smith http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5183&cpage=1#comment-13738 Mike Smith Mon, 04 May 2009 18:23:36 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5183#comment-13738 "The trouble with that black carbon research, which i used to believe in, is that it all predates the recent rapid recovery of the Arctic ice: http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png The slowdown of the Chinese economy perhaps? We’ll just need to wait and see. Looks to me that this fruit is rotten though." The Chinese slowdown (producing less black carbon) may have something to do with it. But a certain factor is that we are emerging from sunless winter. The primary effect of black carbon is on the albedo of the Arctic. Because there is no sunlight in winter, the black carbon effect is negated, thus the rapid recovery each of the last two winters. A demonstration is here: http://climatesci.org/2008/04/02/guest-weblog-on-albedo-from-mike-smith/ Mike “The trouble with that black carbon research, which i used to believe in, is that it all predates the recent rapid recovery of the Arctic ice:
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png

The slowdown of the Chinese economy perhaps? We’ll just need to wait and see. Looks to me that this fruit is rotten though.”

The Chinese slowdown (producing less black carbon) may have something to do with it. But a certain factor is that we are emerging from sunless winter. The primary effect of black carbon is on the albedo of the Arctic. Because there is no sunlight in winter, the black carbon effect is negated, thus the rapid recovery each of the last two winters.

A demonstration is here: http://climatesci.org/2008/04/02/guest-weblog-on-albedo-from-mike-smith/

Mike

]]> By: Raven http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5183&cpage=1#comment-13736 Raven Mon, 04 May 2009 18:13:58 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5183#comment-13736 jasg, The 2007 meltback could have been caused, in part, by an accumulation of BC on the surface of the ice over many years. If this hypothesis has merit it suggests that the 2007 meltback should be followed by a ice recovery since the BC would have been washed away with the ice. The BC would then continue to accumlate and trigger another 2007 like event in 5-10 years. jasg,

The 2007 meltback could have been caused, in part, by an accumulation of BC on the surface of the ice over many years. If this hypothesis has merit it suggests that the 2007 meltback should be followed by a ice recovery since the BC would have been washed away with the ice. The BC would then continue to accumlate and trigger another 2007 like event in 5-10 years.

]]> By: jasg http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5183&cpage=1#comment-13734 jasg Mon, 04 May 2009 17:24:19 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5183#comment-13734 The trouble with that black carbon research, which i used to believe in, is that it all predates the recent rapid recovery of the Arctic ice: http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png The slowdown of the Chinese economy perhaps? We'll just need to wait and see. Looks to me that this fruit is rotten though. The trouble with that black carbon research, which i used to believe in, is that it all predates the recent rapid recovery of the Arctic ice:
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png

The slowdown of the Chinese economy perhaps? We’ll just need to wait and see. Looks to me that this fruit is rotten though.

]]> By: Mark Bahner http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5183&cpage=1#comment-13730 Mark Bahner Mon, 04 May 2009 16:46:35 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5183#comment-13730 But I am curious about the 40% figure. Can anyone tell me where they got that? Is that a commonly accepted number in AGW circles? It's probably from something like Figure SPM.2: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf However, CO2 in that figure is slightly larger than all the other positive forcings combined (even solar forcing). So I don't know how they got a number as low as 40%. But I am curious about the 40% figure. Can anyone tell me where they got that? Is that a commonly accepted number in AGW circles?

It’s probably from something like Figure SPM.2:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf

However, CO2 in that figure is slightly larger than all the other positive forcings combined (even solar forcing). So I don’t know how they got a number as low as 40%.

]]>