EPA Pollution Standards

EPA Where You Live

Air

Drinking Water

Point Source Discharge

Glossary of EPA terms

USDA NRCS Phosphorus Index

Antarctic Ice Increasing?

Most of this post deals with a paper by Turner, 2009.

My confusion started with a Watts Up With That post claiming that Antartica is actually gaining sea ice. As usual, a SkepticalScience page attempts a refutation, but to do so has to get into some complicated details.

So what is the trend?

from: http://nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice.html

But Antartic sea ice is formed by a number of factors, including UV radiation from the hole in the Ozone layer, and land ice has been decreasing:"Ozone levels over Antarctica have dropped causing stratospheric cooling and increasing winds which lead to more areas of open water that can be frozen"

Apparently, land ice is more important in Antartica, and this had been decreasing. If the Ross Ice sheet collapsed, as it has numerous times in past interglacials, it would raise sea level by 21 feet.

Climate Change: Contrails

Aircraft Contrails Stoke Warming (Reuters, ):"Aircraft condensation trails criss-crossing the sky may be warming the planet on a normal day more than the carbon dioxide emitted by all planes since the Wright Brothers' first flight in 1903, according to a study in Nature Climate Change." [This is about 0.025 Watts per square meter, according to the IPCC (2007)]

Citation: Ulrike Burkhardt & Bernd Kärcher Global radiative forcing from contrail cirrus. Nature Climate Change 1, 54–58 (2011)

Image from Earth Observatory: "NASA scientists have found that cirrus clouds, formed by contrails from aircraft engine exhaust, are capable of increasing average surface temperatures enough to account for a warming trend in the United States that occurred between 1975 and 1994."
Citation: Minnis, Patrick, J. Kirk Ayers, Rabindra Palikonda, Dung Phan, 2004: Contrails, Cirrus Trends, and Climate. J. Climate, 17, 1671–1685.

"Trends in cirrus coverage and 300-hPa relative humidty (1971-19995) and estimated 1992 linear congtrail coverage. (a) Trends in cirrus coverage for all regions with more than 15yr of data. (b) Subset of (1) for all regions having trends sinifcant at the 90% confidence level according to Student's t test. (c) Estimated linear contrail coverage...Only observations taken from land stations and from ships are used for the land and ocean air traffic regions, respectively. (d) Trends in annual mean NCEP relative humidity at 300 hPa."

Citation: Minnis, Patrick, J. Kirk Ayers, Rabindra Palikonda, Dung Phan, 2004: Contrails, Cirrus Trends, and Climate. J. Climate, 17, 1671–1685.

"In response to the Minnis et al. conclusion, contrail Radiative Forcing (RF) was examined in two global climate modelling studies (Hansen et al., 2005; Ponater et al., 2005). Both studies concluded that the surface temperature response calculated by Minnis et al. (2004) is too large by one to two orders of magnitude. For the Minnis et al. result to be correct, the climate efficacy or climate sensitivity of contrail RF would need to be much greater than that of other larger RF terms, (e.g., CO2). Instead, contrail RF is found to have a smaller efficacy than an equivalent CO2 RF (Hansen et al., 2005; Ponater et al., 2005) (see Section 2.8.5.7), which is consistent with the general ineffectiveness of high clouds in influencing diurnal surface temperatures (Hansen et al., 1995, 2005). " (IPCC 2007)

Best Periodic Table Ever

I've been on the lookout for the best periodic table for a couple months now, and have finally found it. Various versions can be downloaded here. An explanation of the new format.

Physiological Toxicology

Different toxic compounds come to rest in different organs and regions of the body, depending on their mode of transport in the human body. For example, many toxins are "mistaken" for similar compounds, and stored accordingly. Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are fat soluble and look like cholesterol, so they are stored in fat deposits. Lead "looks like" calcium, so it is stored in the bones.

Climate Crunch

Deconstructing Conclusions

During the winter of 2009-2010 I began investigating climate science, and since then have been reading in the field on-and-off. Again this last winter I have been reading way too much, trying to get to the bottom of various intricacies of the coupled earth-human system. Suffice to say, the Earth's climate is extremely complex, and every scientific sub-discipline has made its own peace with the devil in the details. Getting to the bottom of what scientists believe, and why, is no easy task, and after more than a year of research I have learned a huge amount about the Earth, but still am not definitively convinced about every aspect of climate change science.

This is as it should be. Science is complex and ever-evolving, and the Earth is a very, very complicated place. But provisional results and untested assumptions, although ever-present, make soft bedrock for climate policy. The truth is that we simply do not understand many of the key issues, such as feedbacks, in the climate system.

Many issues, such as divergence in tree-ring proxy records, don't by themselves discredit the theory of anthropogenic global warming, even if scientists can't explain everything. But they do begin to cast doubts. The issue of "hide the decline" probably falls into this category, because although some scientists chose to substitute instrument data for the misbehaving paleo data, the divergance can be explained. But is this explanation just hand-waving? How do we really know what happened hundreds or thousands of years ago? Obviously climate proxies may be complicated, idiosyncratic, and only reliable under certain conditions. It has been said that "trees are not thermometers," but this admission, even if carefully defined, can lead to increasing skepticism.

Unresolved Issues

Skeptic Science (SkS) has a great index of skeptic arguments, many of which continue to be problematic. They attempt to "refute" each argument, and they are the best source for good answers to most of these issues. But not every question can be answered definitively. Sometimes one question simply leads to three or four more. For example, they point out that warming is not due to the sun....but it is very, very, complicated. SkS explains why CO2 lags temperature in paleoclimate....but their response is not good system thinking, doesn't address the skeptic arguments about what the Vostok ice core means, and isn't especially convincing.

I've been researching climate change for over a year, and still am not close to understanding many of the major issues. What's worse, I can't find good evidence that the climate scientists understand all of the issues either! Much of science is dependent on good faith and trust, but at some point an explanation has to be convincing. Some theories (and I would put String Theory and Global Warming into this category) are too gnarly to be comprehended by mere mortals. They may be true, but I can't believe in what I don't understand.

The bottom line is that, if you really want to know,... its complicated. I'm officially revoking my previous conclusion, pending better explanations of the science. Maybe I'll have to wait to believe the models until they're proved true: until then I'll continue to entertain belief in multiple possibilities about this weird, beautiful world we live on.

More Paleoclimate Links:

NASA Climate Monitoring

NOAA paleoclimate

A History of Paleoclimatology

Information on Radioactive Particles from Japan

source: http://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2011/03/latest-on-japanese-radiation.html

Wavelet Coherence Analysis!

I've started using a cool Matlab program that generates a 4-dimensional power spectra for any time series. A normal power spectra is averaged over an entire dataset, but this technique, called Wavelet Coherence Analysis using a sliding "window" to examine power spectra continuously over the entire series. Of course, for longer and longer wavelengths, the sliding window necessarily becomes larger and larger, until wavelengths can no longer be measured on the data. The dark black hemicurve on this diagram shows that limit, and the data greyed out beyond that line is edge-affected power spectra.

The data I chose for this analysis were the maximum daily temperatures for Chapel Hill, North Carolina, in 2010. There are 365 days along the X axis, and various wavelengths ranging from 4 to 64 days along the Y axis. Colors indicate "power" at a given wavelength, for a given time of the year. Significant areas within the hemicurve are circled with a black line.

This analysis shows that there were some 6-day cycles in springtime (near DOY 150) that were statistically significant. Beyond that, not much jumps out: the signal does now have high periodicity. Now I'm looking for better-behaving data.

Sunspots, Space Weather, and the Earth

Prikryl et al 2009: Solar magnetic sector boundary passage (SBP) and vorticity area index (VAI), by weather reconstruction ERA-40 dataset back to 1963-2002, confirmed the "Wilcox effect". The interplanetary magnetic field and associated "space weather" directly effect Earth's weather.

News from Dr. Leif Svalgaard at Stanford:

Wolf was right...we can use magnetic field strength to calibrate solar irradiance. The correlation between solar far-UV radiation and geomagnetic force on the Earth's surface is extremely good;

now we have an objective calibration for sunspot number.
The conclusion? Leif 2007 finds no long-term trend in solar irradience from at least 1600. through the present.

Risk Assessment

Nuclear and chemical technologies (except for medicines) have been stigmatized by being perceived as entailing unnaturally great risks.

R. Gregory, J. Flynn, and P. Slovic, ‘‘Technological Stigma,’’ American Scientist 83, 220–223 (1995).

The social problem is compounded by the fact that we tend to manage our risks within an adversarial legal system that pits expert against expert, contradicting each other’s risk assessments and further destroying the public trust. The young science of risk assessment is too fragile, too indirect, to prevail in such a hostile atmosphere. Scientic analysis of risks cannot allay
our fears of low-probability catastrophes or delayed cancers unless we trust the system. In the absence of trust, science (and risk assessment) can only feed public concerns, by uncovering more bad news. A single study demonstrating an association between exposure to chemicals or radiation and some adverse health effect cannot easily be offset by numerous studies failing to and such an association.