aeroman

6 ms·

1.
by aeroman 1y ago
I think this is the one https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/DOE_Criti... It is really just a collection of 'skeptic' arguments form the last 20 years or so. Science magazie had a
2.
by aeroman 1y ago
I would say we are largely past the second threshold too (that the warming is human caused). The last IPCC report had as the first statement in the summary for policymakers (from WG1 - the physical science group) A.1 It is unequivocal tha
3.
by aeroman 1y ago
I think part of the IMO2020 compliance is that fines have actually been applied for ships that have broken previous similar regulations. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/26/cruise-ship-ca... It
4.
by aeroman 2y ago
One thing I found really interesting abou the Graphcast paper (I appreciate this is not graphcast, but I think it is still relevant) is that it doesn't understand climate change. The model requires the training data to be recent to get
5.
by aeroman 2y ago
I think the one time bump could be a fair description in that is doesn't add to the long term warming rate in the same way GHGs do. The cumulative effect here is pretty much all realised within about 20 years (so not an instantaneous e
6.
by aeroman 2y ago
The wording of the article and the paper are a bit misleading here. It is definitely a one time even (although it plays out over 20 years) The doubling of the rate of warming only applies for the first year or two. Based on this paper, over
7.
by aeroman 2y ago
The mechanism is different from the impact of sulphur in the stratosphere (where there are no clouds), but it is the same as the mechanisms that have caused the majority of the aerosol cooling (a brightening of clouds). The same ze of the c
8.
by aeroman 2y ago
The numbers in this study need to be interpreted carefully, the way the authors presented them doesn't really help this. The warming rate they quote (0.24K per decade) is the instantaneous warming, which decreases over time. The warmin
9.
by aeroman 3y ago
Water vapour is a very strong infrared absorber, so much so that it is more important for the greenhouse effect than CO2. However, it is usually very difficult to change the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere as a whole (it just rains
10.
by aeroman 3y ago
The increase in humidity is actually a different effect - evapotranspiration from trees is included in climate models (along with their response to increasing CO2 concentrations) [0]. The effect in this article is more to do with the partic
11.
by aeroman 3y ago
This is related to my reply above, but clouds in general move heat upwards in the atmosphere through latent heating. When you evaporate water from the surface, you cool it (like sweating keeps you cool). This water vapour is then lifted by
12.
by aeroman 3y ago
Maybe I should describe my job differently...
13.
by aeroman 3y ago
It heats up the atmosphere and eventually gets emitted back into space! For the Earth's temperature to remain approximately constant, the energy leaving the system (as infra-red) has to balance the energy entering the system (as sunlig
14.
by aeroman 3y ago
As a "cloud person", I just want to add a few things to the description of how clouds affect the climate (and why high clouds have a wamring effect). All clouds are white, so they all reflect sunlight back into space (during the d
15.
by aeroman 3y ago
The PR part also applies to Earth Observation Satellites (ESA and EUMETSAT). (Almost) any time you see a wide area picture of the Earth from Space (particularly around a weather event), it comes from NASA's MODIS instrument [e.g. 0]. T
16.
by aeroman 3y ago
I thought that aircraft could use much more than 5%, but that the maintenance regime was different - e.g. [1]. Current engines assume a proportion of impurities and are tuned to work with that, but could be modified to run with 100% SAF if
17.
by aeroman 3y ago
I suspect it will at least be publicly available, although there might be some terms attached (I don't know). SEVIRI (the current instrument) has data available through the EUMETSAT data store. It was a while since I registered, but it
18.
by aeroman 3y ago
The new imager (FCI) will be fantastic for studying the atmosphere, particularly clouds and aerosols (like desert dust). The older imager (SEVIRI) didn't have a blue channel, so all the true-colour images have to be synthesised from da
19.
by aeroman 3y ago
There were a few Earth Observation missions that didn't make orbit about 10-15 years ago. This was due to a failure of the Taurus-XL fairing separation. The orbiting carbon observatory (OCO) failed to reach orbit in 2009 [1]. It got a
20.
by aeroman 4y ago
Organisations aiming to reduce sulpfur in ship fuel are defiitly aware of the cooling impact it has on the climate. However, the health benefits of this reduction are not to be understated - with shipping sulfur being responsible for 100s o
21.
by aeroman 4y ago
Another way to think about it is in terms of average person years American: ~15 tonnes CO2 per year - 126 years European: ~10 tonnes CO2 per year - 190 years World average: ~5 tonnes CO2 per year - 379 years This one plane emits
22.
by aeroman 4y ago
I understand where you are coming from and agree that we need to know more about this to do it properly if required. However, I think some of this reflex is jusified by the known side-effects (not even the potential unintended consequences)
23.
by aeroman 4y ago
Just to add that the majority of geoengineering methods currently proposed - particularly those that reduce absorbed solar radiation (such as stratospheric sulfate and marine cloud brightening) come with some significant side-effects. Many
24.
by aeroman 4y ago
Water provides the 'energy' that drives many storms. As a bubble (or parcel) or air rises, it cools. Eventually it gets cold enough to condense water (some of which forms rain). This heats the parcel of air, making it less dense t
25.
by aeroman 4y ago
I am not entirely sure what a cliamte change absolutist is, but have you thought of the possibility they might be right? Obviously we have had extreme weather before, but many of the extremes we are seeing now are far, far outside normal (i
26.
by aeroman 4y ago
Media focus does play a role, but weather records from many parts of the world go back over 100 years. These are independent of what the media is focussing on today and give us a very good picture of whether a particular weather event is &#
27.
by aeroman 4y ago
I think there is one extra point though - that these events can be much, much more frequent. When an event is 100 times more likely, you are getting very close to a 'caused by' situation. Obviously, extreme events existed in the p
28.
by aeroman 4y ago
Yes, there were extreme events in the past. These events are now much more frequent thanks to climate change. Sometimes 10s to 100s of times more common. Gloal climate change is caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases. This is now ver
29.
by aeroman 4y ago
You could try the Met Office website. This is a station in North West London https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/observations/gcpvj0v07 Humidity was about 15-20% during the afternoon, winds 13 gusting 26mph.
30.
by aeroman 4y ago
Some of the side effects are common to all kinds of solar radiation management (SRM) - geoengineering that makes the Earth more reflective in some way or another. Greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation emitted by the Earth and heat the

More ›