backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 85 comment(s) - last by DPercy.. on Jul 24 at 8:36 PM


A graph showing 20 years of decreasing atmospheric aerosols in Europe. The portion in red is the increase from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.
Clean air legislation has an ironic side-effect

When the effects of global warming are discussed, Europe is often the focus. While many parts of the Earth have seen little or no warming in the past two decades, Europe has seen a rapid temperature increase of one full degree Centigrade. The rise has been a contributing factor in at least one deadly heat wave in recent years.

A new study suggests much of that warming isn't due to global warming at all, but rather a decrease in atmospheric pollution as a result of clean air legislation. The cleaner air has fewer small particles known as aerosols, which tend to block sunlight from reaching the Earth's surface. A reduction in aerosols leads to an effect known as "solar brightening," which increases surface warming.

The research was conducted by a team of 13 scientists, and led by Christian Ruckstuhl of the Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, in Zurich, Switzerland. By measuring an atmospheric characteristic known as optical depth, they determined that a substantial amount of solar brightening had taken place, leading to an increase in surface heat of 1 watt per square meter. Such an change is enough to add some some 360,000 megawatts of solar heat to Germany alone.

The measurements were conducted at a series of sites across Germany and Switzerland. Over the 20 year period from 1986-2006, a 60% decline in atmospheric aerosols was detected. The authors attribute this primarily to emission reductions of sulfur dioxide and carbon black particles, both of which were heavily generated in the 1970s and early 1980s by diesel engines and coal power plants. Clean air regulations requiring ULS (ultra-low sulfur) fuel and scrubber systems for coal-fired plants have dramatically reduced these emissions.  The result is the observed solar brightening, which has "strongly contributed" to Europe's warming over the period.

In performing their analysis, the authors had to subtract out the years from 1991 to 1994, as the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines caused a spike in aerosol concentrations in Europe that more than doubled readings in some places.

The research appears in the June 26 edition of Geophysical Research Letters.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

can't be
By acejj26 on 7/14/2008 7:39:50 PM , Rating: 2
Where are the naysayers who so desperately want to believe in man-made global warming? You know, the ones who just love to discredit any research that discredits the idea of global warming but accept any research that "proves" it as gospel. If you poke enough holes in a theory, can it still be considered a theory? Does it revert to something else?




RE: can't be
By TomZ on 7/14/2008 7:54:33 PM , Rating: 4
The "true believers" in man-made global warming have their faith; they don't need to be bothered with the science.

Regardless of whether AGW is real or imagined, the sad reality seems to be that the US is probably going to get sucked into the CO2-reduction insanity.

Stupid politicians - during the time when AGW seemed likely, they never acted. Now that it seems more and more unlikely, they seem poised to finally act. They're totally out of phase with the science.


RE: can't be
By RIPPolaris on 7/14/2008 10:02:42 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Stupid politicians - during the time when AGW seemed likely, they never acted. Now that it seems more and more unlikely, they seem poised to finally act. They're totally out of phase with the science.

I hate to break it to you, but I doubt they even care about being out of phase with science. What politicians do care about, however, is being out of phase with voters. Since people seem to believe in AGW at the moment, it seems like a good idea (publicity-wise) for politicians to support this crap.


RE: can't be
By TSS on 7/16/2008 3:44:24 PM , Rating: 3
uhm, enviromentalists mostly care for this goal too. not the people you see marching on the street, they have no clue what their doing anyway, but the people higher up making the decisions.

once the public oppinion sways away from global warming, you'll see that the enviromentalists will sway away from the enviroment and take up the stance whichever "fixes" the new problem.

meh. if i'd *have* to choose in that conflict (i prefer not to touch this one with a 20 foot pole), i'd go with the politicians. atleast you can honestly trust them to be dishonest.


RE: can't be
By Hoser McMoose on 7/15/2008 5:25:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The "true believers" in man-made global warming have their faith; they don't need to be bothered with the science.

Those who actually are bothered with science are already aware of this artifact though as it was one of the many things documented in the IPCC reports.

Whether the IPCC is accurately estimating the effects of aerosols or not is potentially a matter for debate, but they certainly have estimated their effects in Europe and elsewhere in the world.


RE: can't be
By Brian H on 7/18/2008 3:59:04 PM , Rating: 2
One of the oddities of the IPCC models is that they treat the high level cloud albedo as a warming factor in their "feedback" scenarios, instead of a cooling one. They declined to make a correction when this was pointed out.

LOL


RE: can't be
By jbartabas on 7/14/2008 7:59:20 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Where are the naysayers who so desperately want to believe in man-made global warming? You know, the ones who just love to discredit any research that discredits the idea of global warming but accept any research that "proves" it as gospel. If you poke enough holes in a theory, can it still be considered a theory? Does it revert to something else?


Poke holes in what exactly?

A few excerpts from the study because you obviously have read some stuff in M. Asher article that were no there (although I find his title a bit misleading, but I guess he tries to keep things short):

quote:
The rapid temperature increase of 1°C over mainland Europe since 1980 is considerably larger than the temperature rise expected from anthropogenic greenhouse gas increases. [...]
With respect to the temperature evolution in central Europe, increasing aerosols were apparently effective in masking greenhouse warming after the 1950s [...], whereas the observed direct solar forcing due to the strong aerosol decline since the mid-1980s has reinforced greenhouse warming [...].
The overall aerosol and cloud induced surface climate forcing [...] has most probably strongly contributed to the recent rapid warming in Europe. [...]


So in simple term:

1950 - 1980 : large aerosol content over Europe mask the effect of GHG increase.

1980 - 2005 : GHG increase induce greenhouse warming + large decrease in aerosols = rapid T increase.

Now if you still think that this study "discredits the idea of global warming" and "poke holes" in the theory, would you be kind enough to warn the authors themselves because they obviously have missed that part.


RE: can't be
By acejj26 on 7/14/2008 8:36:01 PM , Rating: 2
The idea of CO2-induced global warming is brought about by computer models. When REAL WORLD DATA is introduced that defies the computer models, then something is wrong with the original assumptions made in the model, namely CO2 induces global warming. It's basically a mathematical contradiction proof.


RE: can't be
By jbartabas on 7/15/2008 1:04:37 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
The idea of CO2-induced global warming is brought about by computer models.


Not entirely. The direct radiative effect and the basic physical processes are not derived from computer models. The "idea" of CO2-induced warming actually appeared before computer existed. However the direct forcing you can derive from rather simple theory do not account for all the observed warming trend. To reproduce it, you need to model feedbacks. These are derived from computer models.

quote:
When REAL WORLD DATA is introduced that defies the computer models, then something is wrong with the original assumptions made in the model, namely CO2 induces global warming. It's basically a mathematical contradiction proof.


When data and models contradict each other, everybody goes back to check its own stuff. You seem to assume (like many on this site) that "Real world data" are perfect; you could not be more wrong. Data are: biased, noisy, instrumentally trended, incomplete in space/time coverage, limited in space/time resolution, etc ... They go through complex processing involving various simplifying assumptions that can lead to significant errors too.

However, beside this general point made here about comparison model/data, I don't really understand your comment in the scope of this study. In what the "real world data" reported in this study defy computer models?


RE: can't be
By Keith P on 7/19/2008 10:32:50 PM , Rating: 2
This research doesn't defy the models at all; in fact it's right in line with the models and entirely unsurprising. It's been known for a long time that part of anthropogenic greenhouse warming has been masked by anthropogenic aerosol. Now that aerosols are declining, the enhanced greenhouse effect is felt full-force.

Don't believe that? Read the IPCC report.


RE: can't be
By AlexWade on 7/14/2008 10:13:52 PM , Rating: 2
This study is classic. Given enough time, anybody anywhere can make any kind of connection but is in reality pure coincidence. Yes, that does include the climate change studies too.

I bet I can find a connection between how many mini-kegs of Heineken I drink and global warming. I had my first mini-keg in December 2006. Since then, the temperature around here has been unusually warm and dry. But before then when I only had Heineken in the bottle, the temperatures were about average. Therefore, me drinking Heineken mini-kegs causes global warming. (But I won't give up my mini-kegs even it reaches 200 degrees.)

It really isn't that hard to turn coincidence into "proof".


RE: can't be
By AlexWade on 7/14/2008 10:18:01 PM , Rating: 3
Just after I posted this, I found yet another coincidence "proof". Apparently, global warming causes kidney stones.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=0807142108...

You know what, this is getting insane. Next there will be a study that says global warming causes more drunk driving, makes rabbits aggressive, and makes God cry.


RE: can't be
By fxyefx on 7/15/2008 10:34:03 AM , Rating: 2
But global warming DOES make God cry. No, no! Don't try to convince me otherwise! noooo~ *stuffs ears with cotton*


RE: can't be
By Brian H on 7/18/2008 4:04:03 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, the Medieval Warm Period was boom time for humanity. The subsequent Little Ice Age, not so much.


RE: can't be
By masher2 (blog) on 7/15/2008 12:43:25 PM , Rating: 4
> " found yet another coincidence "proof". Apparently, global warming causes kidney stones."

A few weeks ago, ABC News posted a report about a "scientific study" which proved global warming was causing more earthquakes. A few hours after some bloggers roundly exposed the hoax, they yanked the story.


RE: can't be
By djkrypplephite on 7/15/2008 2:10:18 PM , Rating: 4
but how can you be sure it's not the kidney stones that are causing global warming?!


RE: can't be
By Bender 123 on 7/15/2008 4:13:58 PM , Rating: 2
I have this rock and you dont see any Tigers around do you?

Lisa, how much do you want for that rock.

Once again real life was predicted by the Simpsons...


RE: can't be
By rykerabel on 7/15/2008 4:51:21 PM , Rating: 2
RE: can't be
By Icelight on 7/15/2008 5:17:47 PM , Rating: 2
Someone find that graph that proves the number of pirates is directly correlated to global warming.


RE: can't be
RE: can't be
By FITCamaro on 7/16/2008 12:51:43 PM , Rating: 2
For $1 a day, you too can feed a pirate and prevent this rare breed of scalawag from disappearing from the world forever. Help us save the pirates.


RE: can't be
By Pythias on 7/16/2008 2:22:01 PM , Rating: 3
Ninja>Pirate.

They flip out and kill people. Haaaiiiii Yaaaaa!


RE: can't be
By jlips6 on 7/19/2008 2:28:00 PM , Rating: 2
RE: can't be
By marsbound2024 on 7/19/2008 2:46:54 PM , Rating: 2
Awesome link man.


RE: can't be
By RIPPolaris on 7/14/2008 10:22:15 PM , Rating: 2
The difference is while your 'study's findings are based purely on statistical correlation, this study measured the amount of aerosols in the air and the "solar brightening", and used those numbers to calculate the energy that was added.


RE: can't be
By FITCamaro on 7/15/2008 7:38:15 AM , Rating: 3
Global warming also caused the "Black Hawk Down" incident in Mogadishu.

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx...

God politicians are idiots.


RE: can't be
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 7/15/2008 3:25:58 PM , Rating: 4
That guy should be taken out and shot. It's incredible the amount of lies we feed students these days.


RE: can't be
By FITCamaro on 7/15/2008 5:32:40 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. They're just doing all they can to raise a nation of people who think they're entitled to something, worship the state, and think that mankind is an evil plague upon the world that must be controlled.


RE: can't be
By jamdunc on 7/18/2008 7:14:31 PM , Rating: 2
Can I now poke holes in your argument? Which basically doesn't actually quote the original poster correctly as it doesn't fit with your argument.

He said:

quote:
man-made global warming


And then later in his post abbreviates it to 'global warming'. At least that's how I read it and how I think most people would read it. Except you.

And the original article says that as emission went down, warming went up. So it wasn't man-made but natural.

So let's stop this natural warming, it can't be good. Oh quick, look, those tree's are naturally growing, stop them before they take over the planet.

We have so little actual real data for the amount of time the planet has existed, which in reality is just a well-educated guess. SO for the little data we have we seem to make a mountain out of a molehill without really knowing for certain. It's all just guesses. That's what a theory is, just a guess. And so there we have it, widespread chaos caused by environmentalists from a few guesses.


RE: can't be
By UppityMatt on 7/15/2008 7:47:53 PM , Rating: 3
His name is Jason Mick... He posts here all the time you can read his blogs here also. =)


RE: can't be
By rupaniii on 7/16/2008 11:04:03 AM , Rating: 2
Either way, everyone's still fighting over Antarctica and the USACE (US Army Corp of Engineers) is down there diligently 'taking ice core samples' if you believe you need the worlds greatest military engineering team to take ice cores.


Misleading heading
By pliny on 7/14/2008 11:06:42 PM , Rating: 2
What they say in the paper (subscription needed) is:
quote:
With respect to the temperature evolution in central Europe, increasing aerosols were apparently effective in masking greenhouse warming after the 1950s [Wild et al., 2007], whereas the observed direct solar forcing due to the strong aerosol decline since the mid-1980s has reinforced greenhouse warming, although the reduction of absorbing aerosols (such as black carbon) might have dampened the reinforcement.




RE: Misleading heading
By kbehrens on 7/14/2008 11:35:02 PM , Rating: 2
You're being misleading yourself. Here is the papers conclusion:
quote:
Our analyses show that AOD in the lower troposphere
over mainland Europe has drastically decreased since
1986, and it is virtually certain that this is due to the strong
reduction in anthropogenic aerosol emissions. MODTRAN
TM simulations have adequately confirmed the relationship
between decreasing AOD and increasing SDRcf
[Ruckstuhl, 2008]. Surface radiation measurements show
that solar brightening is more related to direct aerosol
effects under cloud-free skies than to indirect aerosol cloud
effects. The fact that indirect aerosol cloud effects remain
small despite the 60% decline in aerosol concentrations is
very surprising. However, it is possible that part of the cloud
mediated aerosol effect has been compensated by increasing
cloudiness due to changing large-scale atmospheric circulation.
With respect to the impact on climate or surface
temperature, the forcing due to the direct aerosol effect
under cloud-free skies SNRcf of +0.84 [+0.49 to +1.20]
Wm2 dec1 is about five times larger
than the total net
forcing TNRcloud due to changing cloudiness, which to a
large part is compensated by longwave cloud effects and
results in a week climate forcing of +0.16 [0.26 to +0.57]
Wm2 dec1. Overall, the aerosol and cloud induced
radiative surface climate forcing over mainland Europe
has been +1 Wm-2 dec-1 since the 1980s, and has very
likely strongly contributed to the recent rapid warming in
Europe.


RE: Misleading heading
By pliny on 7/15/2008 2:10:23 AM , Rating: 4
How am I misleading? They have quantified the effect at about 1 W/m2. They don't say that other AGW effects, which the IPCC estimates globally at mean 1.6 W/m2, are absent. They just say that Europe is warming more rapidly than elsewhere, due to this extra effect.

This is echoed in an abstract they published "http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU2008/03023/EGU20...":
quote:
First order estimates indicate that direct and indirect aerosol forcing combined may have produced about 50 percent of the rapid warming since the 1980s.


RE: Misleading heading
By kbehrens on 7/15/2008 10:57:49 AM , Rating: 2
You're being misleading by claiming the headline is misleading. It says that Europe's rapid warming is due to cleaner air rather than global warming, which is perfectly in line with the research conclusions. It doesn't say GW doesn't exist at all.


RE: Misleading heading
By jbartabas on 7/15/2008 1:18:56 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
You're being misleading by claiming the headline is misleading. It says that Europe's rapid warming is due to cleaner air rather than global warming, which is perfectly in line with the research conclusions. It doesn't say GW doesn't exist at all.


No, it says "Europe warming", not "Europe's rapid warming". The title is obviously misleading and clearly suggests than warming in Europe has nothing to do with climate change.

Actually Mike got it wrapped up pretty good in the text with "[...] much of that warming [...]". I understand he does not want a 20-word title but starting the title with "Part of Europe's warming [...]" or "Much of Europe's warming [...}" wouldn't have hurt.


RE: Misleading heading
By Andy35W on 7/16/2008 3:16:22 AM , Rating: 3
Yes, it's not an either or situation here it is a "both" situation so the headline is once again misleading as the author puts his spin on it.

Good link though and food for thought. Seems to suggest we should both reduce the pollution and also the CO2; I doubt many people would argue too much with that.


RE: Misleading heading
By porkpie on 7/16/2008 10:22:57 AM , Rating: 2
Reducing pollution = good.
Reducing CO2 = bad.


RE: Misleading heading
By Andy35W on 7/19/2008 4:21:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:

Reducing pollution = good
Reducing pollution = good.


Why not both?


RE: Misleading heading
By linder1971 on 7/16/2008 12:47:15 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know why you're trying so hard to downplay this. The fact is that most of the evidence for global warming comes from the fact we can't find other reasons for the planet to be warming up.

So every time we find a new cause of warming, the evidence for AGW gets that much thinner.


RE: Misleading heading
By Andy35W on 7/16/2008 4:16:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The fact is that most of the evidence for global warming comes from the fact we can't find other reasons for the planet to be warming up.


Eh?


RE: Misleading heading
By jbartabas on 7/16/2008 5:36:09 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
So every time we find a new cause of warming, the evidence for AGW gets that much thinner.


A decrease in aerosols would bring temperatures back to where they were before aerosols where produced.

Here this is not what's happening, temperature did not go back to the pre-aerosols era. They increased rapidly to reach a much larger value than before the 70ies.

Again, as stated by the authors of the study:
quote:
aerosols were apparently effective in masking greenhouse warming after the 1950s [...], whereas the observed direct solar forcing due to the strong aerosol decline since the mid-1980s has reinforced greenhouse warming


Reducing aerosols do not explained global warming since the 70ies, they explain why it's been so rapid in some areas (and again, faster than predicted by greenhouse warming).


Too funny
By porkpie on 7/14/2008 7:22:04 PM , Rating: 2
So driving LESS and using those CFL bulbs is making things warm up? I have to laugh over this, but it just goes to show, things aren't always what they seem.




RE: Too funny
By jbartabas on 7/14/2008 7:29:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So driving LESS and using those CFL bulbs is making things warm up?


Not really, but on the other hand one could cool things up by releasing more aerosols. I am not sure that's really such a good idea though ...


RE: Too funny
By ebakke on 7/14/2008 10:38:17 PM , Rating: 4
No one actually knows what the right thing to do is. No one even knows if it's really a problem. Everyone's just guessing, and proclaiming superior knowledge of the subject. I just want someone to come out and say, "the world's temperature is changing, and we have no f'ing clue (with any certainty) exactly why."


RE: Too funny
By masher2 (blog) on 7/14/2008 10:45:47 PM , Rating: 1
> "I just want someone to come out and say, "the world's temperature is changing, and we have no f'ing clue (with any certainty) exactly why."

Quite a few scientists say just that, in fact. The media tends to ignore such proclamations however.


RE: Too funny
By ebakke on 7/15/2008 9:14:22 AM , Rating: 2
Point taken. I guess I meant someone the masses will listen to.


RE: Too funny
By Denigrate on 7/15/2008 10:45:39 AM , Rating: 2
Didn't the head of NASA say just that last year? He was of course excoriated for it, and then retracted his statement rather than lose his job.


RE: Too funny
By kbehrens on 7/15/2008 10:54:43 AM , Rating: 5
This is what he (NASA Administrator Michael Griffin) said:
quote:
I have no doubt that … a trend of global warming exists. I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with. To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change.

First of all, I don't think it's within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown. And second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings — where and when — are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take.


RE: Too funny
By stromgald30 on 7/18/2008 1:45:54 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. Clean air regulations and preserving nature are almost undeniably positive goals because it reduces man's impact on the environment. But, should we be doing it so aggressively that it cripples our economy? More science less fanaticism is needed.


and so....
By danrien on 7/14/2008 10:58:26 PM , Rating: 2
is this somehow independent of the warming temperatures everywhere else?




RE: and so....
By masher2 (blog) on 7/15/2008 12:03:22 AM , Rating: 1
The scientists confined their study and conclusions to Europe; they didn't attempt to extrapolate them elsewhere.

Of course, outside the US one wouldn't expect to see similar conditions in SO2 and particulate reductions...but then again, most of the Southern hemisphere exhibited little to no warming over the period in question.


RE: and so....
By jbartabas on 7/15/2008 1:46:33 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The scientists confined their study and conclusions to Europe; they didn't attempt to extrapolate them elsewhere.


They refer to other studies among which:
Streets, D. G., Y. Wu, and M. Chin (2006), Two-decadal aerosol trends as a likely explanation of the global dimming/brightening transition, Geophys. Res. Lett.

A more global overview can be found in their conclusion:

quote:
Among the regional trends reported are: (a) a change from dimming to brightening over Europe in about 1985 [Wild et al., 2005]; (b) a decrease in solar radiation in the Swiss Alps from 1981 to 1995, followed by an increase between 1995 and 2003 [Pinker et al., 2005; Philipona and Dürr, 2004]; (b) a similar transition from dimming to brightening in the Former Soviet Union in the 1980s [Wild et al., 2005]; (c) the decline of solar radiation in China leveling off in the 1990s [Wild et al., 2005; Liu et al., 2004]; (d) a continued increase in dimming into the 1990s over India [Wild et al., 2005]; (e) an ongoing decline in surface solar radiation in Zimbabwe [Wild et al., 2005]; (f) only a small increase in extinction during the period 1978–1997 in Chile [Schwartz, 2005]; and (g) a decline in surface solar radiation in the United States during the period 1961 to 1990 [Liepert, 2002].


quote:
but then again, most of the Southern hemisphere exhibited little to no warming over the period in question.


The southern hemisphere has exhibited warming over the period in question:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/themi/s17...

and in addition to the asymmetry in aerosols and industrialization, the repartition of land/oceans between the two hemispheres is very different.


RE: and so....
By masher2 (blog) on 7/15/2008 2:02:06 PM , Rating: 2
> "The southern hemisphere has exhibited warming over the period in question:"

My statement was correct. In 1986, the average SH temperature anomaly was 0.030. Today, it stands at 0.073. That's a temperature rise of four one-hundredths of a degree, which certainly qualifies as "little to no warming":

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/h...

Furthermore, that's the mean for the entire hemisphere. Some areas have seen no warming whatsoever, or even strong cooling (such as the interior of Antarctica).


RE: and so....
By jbartabas on 7/15/2008 2:10:53 PM , Rating: 1
Well, we could play this little game at vitam, but we both know that nobody infer a trend in a "noisy" signal from the difference of two points. So I am going to let you have a little fun with your moot point because I am really not interested in repeating what should be basic science ...


RE: and so....
By masher2 (blog) on 7/15/2008 2:24:52 PM , Rating: 3
For shame, Jbartabas. Would you prefer a linear regression from 1986 onward? That results in a trend of only 0.16C, still "little to no cooling". Worse, the slope actually becomes negative (showing a cooling trend) if one starts the regression at 1996.


RE: and so....
By jbartabas on 7/15/08, Rating: 0
RE: and so....
By masher2 (blog) on 7/15/2008 5:27:34 PM , Rating: 3
> "Even if I find a larger trend, it's anyway already ~4 times larger than your previous estimate!"

But still utterly insignificant. It's smaller than the error bars (which means it may in fact be zero) and in any case, works out to a 3/4 degree warming per century. Trivial, by any measure.

And, you continue to distort my original statement, which was "*most* of the Southern Hemisphere has seen little to no warming". If one removes a couple hot spots such as the Antarctic peninsula, the trend is much smaller still. Most areas have indeed seen little or even no warming over the stated period. My original statement is correct, plain and simple.

> "The slope is negative only if you include the data for 2008"

Incorrect again. For the SH, 1996-2007, the trend is cooling. For NH+SH, you have to include 2008 data to see a cooling trend.


RE: and so....
By jbartabas on 7/15/08, Rating: 0
RE: and so....
By masher2 (blog) on 7/15/2008 8:29:12 PM , Rating: 2
> "I hope you can back it up with more than your word. Maps of surface anomaly do not support that claim. "

They most certainly do. Here's a map demonstrating just that, straight from NASA's GISS:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap....

As one can clearly see, other than the Antarctic peninsula and a couple other small areas, the warming is either nonexistent or very moderate. The NH carries the bulk of the warming signal:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap....

See those huge areas that are white? No warming. See the smaller areas that are blue? They are cooling. See all the yellow and goldenrod areas-- the bulk of the map? Little warming. No orange (outside those few small areas I mentioned area) and no red whatsoever. That all lies to the north.

If a color-coded map is too complex to analyze, there is a handy chart right below it, which quickly confirms the bulk of the warming lies in the Northern Hemisphere.

> "3/4 degree over a century is so insignificant that it happens to be the global trend over the last century ..."

Exactly so! And if we were convinced that warming would proceed no faster than that same, sedate pace, the entire global warming debate would dissolve. Unfortunately, some people are predicting warming of several times that. Hansen of GISS has predicted values of up to 12C in fact, and even the stolid IPCC is predicting 3-6C.



RE: and so....
By jbartabas on 7/16/2008 5:14:23 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
If a color-coded map is too complex to analyze, there is a handy chart right below it,


Do I sense a bit of agressivity here?

Well, I am not sure who can't analyze a color coded map, but I remember a bit of basic geophysics. You do vaguely remember that the Earth is roughly a sphere, right, and you do realize that the map you referred to uses a projection that does not conserve "area" . Namely surfaces at high latitudes (i.e. Antarctica and North pole in particular) on the map are actually much smaller real surfaces ...

So statements like:
quote:
As one can clearly see, other than the Antarctic peninsula and a couple other small areas , the warming is either nonexistent or very moderate. See those huge areas that are white? No warming. See the smaller areas that are blue? They are cooling. and a couple other small areas ,


on such a map are stupid. Half of the Earth surface is at latitudes less than +/-30 deg. You can see on the zonal mean that NH and SH do not dramatically differ there. The largest of the differences are definitely at lat > 60 deg, which represents a smaller fraction of the Earth surface.

In addition, you're making a moot point again, i.e. trying to show that most SH had "little to no warming" by showing that NH had much larger warming. I never said NH did not have larger warming (0.69C), it is a well known fact and it was clearly reported on the trends I've referred to earlier. The fact is that most of the SH had exhibited significant warming (average of 0.25C in 21 years, and not .16C like you computed), despite it being smaller than the NH. But as usual with "skeptics", you have to exaggerate and transform "less warming" into "little or no warming".

To add to your erroneous trend, you tried to minimize it by suggesting that it was increased by a couple of hot spots, but that most of SH saw smaller warming, or to quote you in order to not misrepresent you point:

quote:
If one removes a couple hot spots such as the Antarctic peninsula, the trend is much smaller still.


Here is an histogram (per lat/lon box) of the temperature change for the SH:

http://img170.imageshack.us/my.php?image=histotsha...

The red vertical line represents your estimate of the trend (actually your second estimate, you'll forgive me to forget about your "0.04C" ... ). As you can see the histogram is largely toward positive values, but also towards values larger than your "estimate" of the trend. The peak (i.e most "pixels") is around 0.35 C ... Again, this would have to be projected on real surfaces to have a realistic estimates, but for now I stick to you "method" for assessing "areas". If an histogram "is too complex to analyze", you can also look at your "handy chart right below" the map you've linked to, and see than most SH zonal averages are above 0.2C, i.e. larger than your average trend. It seems that these hotspots tend to proliferate at all latitudes ...

So clearly, this "little" trend of .16C (which is erroneous, and Hadley had about the same 0.25 C trend btw) is in no way created by a couple of "hot spots". Actually if you look closely at the map you'll see that most of the tropical area (~40% of the total surface) is yellowish/light orange, i.e. T > 0.2 C and up to 2 C.

quote:
Exactly so! And if we were convinced that warming would proceed no faster than that same, sedate pace, the entire global warming debate would dissolve.


Again you're making a moot point. The discussion was never on the future warming of SH, which neither of us can project. The question was about the warming of SH during the period concerned by the aerosol study.

The SH trend is for that period is noticeably less than NH's trend (0.25C against 0.69C), nobody said the contrary. But pretending that 0.25C in 21 years is "insignificant" is definitely a rather arguable personal opinion. However, stating that value is due to a couple of hot spots and that most of the SH saw less warming, is just wrong.


A solution to global warming
By onelittleindian on 7/15/2008 1:37:41 PM , Rating: 2
So even if global warming exists, it sounds like we can solve the problem just by pumping some sulfur compounds into the stratosphere. Up that high they won't cause respiratory problems, and they can easily cool the earth by a couple degrees or more. And it would be a lot cheaper than revamping our entire economy around zero-carbon emissions.




RE: A solution to global warming
By jbartabas on 7/15/2008 1:49:02 PM , Rating: 2
RE: A solution to global warming
By Jim28 on 7/15/2008 3:36:13 PM , Rating: 2
I have a question,

I have heard in some circles the 70s cooling event was due to aerosols. If this is true, then why hasn't the output of aerosols from Asia and India had an affect? I thought the output there was greater than what we did in the 70s due to the scale of production in places like China and Inida, not to mention all of the coal power plants, and steel production there with no envirnomental regulation.


RE: A solution to global warming
By jbartabas on 7/15/2008 5:01:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If this is true, then why hasn't the output of aerosols from Asia and India had an affect?


I am not sure why you suggest that this hasn't had any effect.

One of the study I already cited reported :
* a decline of solar radiation in China leveling off in the 1990s
* a continued increase in dimming into the 1990s over India

They have not quantified the resulting radiative forcing though.


RE: A solution to global warming
By Jim28 on 7/15/2008 9:05:17 PM , Rating: 2
Actually that was not a statement I was throwing thoughts out there for comment. I was simply curious about how this aerosol cloud is accounted for in any modeling. From your answer I gather it hasn't been dealt with yet?


RE: A solution to global warming
By jbartabas on 7/16/2008 5:24:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Actually that was not a statement I was throwing thoughts out there for comment. I was simply curious about how this aerosol cloud is accounted for in any modeling. From your answer I gather it hasn't been dealt with yet?


Aerosol are actually dealt with in models. However, these and clouds are probably the source for the largest uncertainties. I do not know about a quantification of the radiative effect of aerosols over China and India. But that could exist. If I find something, I'll keep you posted.


RE: A solution to global warming
By masher2 (blog) on 7/15/2008 1:50:22 PM , Rating: 2
This has actually already been proposed, along with many other ideas to ameliorate global warming, some even more feasible.

However, such proposals invariably generate tooth-chattering rage among environmentalists, who see any human involvement in nature to be inherently evil.


RE: A solution to global warming
By FITCamaro on 7/15/2008 2:50:45 PM , Rating: 2
They should off themselves then. Their breathing affects nature. Their eating affects nature. Their residence affects nature.


Let's not get carried away
By marsbound2024 on 7/19/2008 1:22:56 PM , Rating: 2
Well this is all very interesting. However I am one to believe that man cannot just pump out various chemicals and gases into the atmosphere and expect everything to just be fine and dandy. I am sure that in a bit of an ironic way, our pollution might have actually reflected solar radiation back in space, but our carbon dioxide emissions remained steady. We simply have gotten rid of a lot of the harmful smoggy gases and chemicals which would otherwise act as a mirror but we haven't necessarily effectively decreased global carbon dioxide output from man-made sources.

Now I read somewhere that the Sun would reach a minimum around 2050. Some people speculated that the Earth should start cooling due to this, akin to the Little Ice Age. It hasn't started to do so yet and I am not exactly sure when it might start to do so. Nonetheless, I still believe that man is contributing to global warming with our now "cleaner" pollution. We are still emitting vast quantities of carbon, just not the other stuff that might reflect solar radiation back out into space.

It's a catch-22 in a way. You can either pump out the really harmful stuff to help reflect the solar radiation again, or you can do what's better for our biosphere currently and take all the really poisonous gases and chemicals out of our pollution and risk increasing temperatures.

Either way, our automobiles and factories HAVE to be contributing to global carbon emissions. Don't just say trees contribute. Sure they do, but man has deforested millions upon millions of acres in the past two to three centuries alone. The Industrial Revolution commenced back in the 1800s and though I agree that you cannot make correlation be causation, it is simply another round of evidence to look at in determining what seems to be causing this seemingly unnatural warming cycle.

We've had warming and cooling cycles in the past and so I will certainly leave my opinions open to accept that. However, in the past there wasn't a human civilization artificially producing billions of tons of carbon emissions.

These are just my thoughts however. I just won't allow my internal fears of maintaining an equilibrium and my tendencies to see life as a constant get in the way. So just because I see some articles that seem to throw some parts of our past hypotheses away, I certainly do NOT believe this discredits a theory.

Climate change is a very VERY complex phenomena. We are kidding ourselves if we think we understand every single aspect of it. However, I do think we can put the pieces together and start to get the general gist of what's going on. Thus, I still believe humans are contributing. Until there is substantial evidence discrediting human influence and discrediting that the elements of our pollution cannot have a greenhouse effect, then I will retain my open mind and belief that the rise of civilization--completely unnatural and never seen before on Earth--has affected the climate.

If we could look at Earth from the Moon 10,000 years ago and then compare it with a picture from today... what would we see? North America is a whole lot less greener today. So is Europe. The interesting thing about this is, would the sum of plant life 10,000 years ago produce more or less carbon emissions than the sum of civilization today?




RE: Let's not get carried away
By phxfreddy on 7/19/2008 3:25:59 PM , Rating: 2
The earth has started to cool. You can see it on the temp graphs and I felt it last winter.

You just want it to be true.


By marsbound2024 on 7/19/2008 6:19:43 PM , Rating: 2
I want it to be true? That is utterly ridiculous. I want my grandchildren to suffer from the effects of me and my ancestors? Don't be silly.

If you were at all intelligent, you would know that climate change will mean in some areas, there will be more precipitation, maybe even colder winters and others there will be more drought and more heat. And as far as I can see, the Earth is still warming. This entire article is about Europe warming. So to be honest, I don't think the entire Earth is cooling.

But you know what, if it were I would rejoice. The return of the glaciers and the return of some lost islands, would be a welcome sight! Not asking for an ice age, but it would be nice to see Earth cooler than it is now.

You go live in Europe and tell me the Earth is cooling.


Human impact on climate?
By 4play on 7/15/2008 4:48:04 PM , Rating: 2
So let me get this straight, we humans CAN have an impact on the Earth's climate? We put aerosols into the air, which suppressed warming, and now that it has been removed, the temperature has been corrected to a higher value.

So does this finally kill the idea that humans cannot have any significant impact on the climate change, whether it be to increase or decrease temperatures?




RE: Human impact on climate?
By Hoser McMoose on 7/15/2008 5:53:25 PM , Rating: 3
That depends on which side of the argument you sit on...

Those who absolutely believe in Global Warming will deny that this study means anything and that it's all CO2. No amounts of studies will change their mind.

Those who absolutely believe that Global Warming is a hoax will use this study to somehow 'prove' that humans CAN'T have an effect on the atmosphere. No amounts of studies will change their minds.

The few people that actually bother to THINK about things will ignore the morons that fall into the two groups above and take each study as they come.

Unfortunately this third group appears to be by far the smallest of the three when it comes to discussing climate change.


By Believer on 7/15/2008 4:31:56 AM , Rating: 3
It's really two different things, but since Global Dimming is decreasing with less pollution in the air to reflect sunlight, more rays will reach the Earth's surface to heat it up.

This in turn causes more of the infrared heat waves to be released from the surface, which are then trapped by the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

What's even more, the increased lighting to reach the oceans causes more water vapor to arise, and since water vapor is also a greenhouse gas it grants added effects.

Back in the days when I read a course in Sustainable use of resources, our professor attributed this known fact of the decreasing global dimming as the start of any real escalation in global warming.

Guess one can only wait and see.

But regardless of the naysayers and believers, if the temperature changes reaches a point where the arctic tundra wastelands loosens up to release their carbon dioxide storages, and the same with the storages in the oceans, then I reckon the environmental discussion about deforesting can finally settle, if you get my point.




This just in!
By MrBlastman on 7/15/2008 9:43:31 AM , Rating: 3
America's global warming has been attributed to the excessive amount of hot air emanating from our politicians mouths!

Washington is slated to be bulldozed next month. For further info, please attend the town hall community meeting next week.




and another
By angryandroid on 7/15/2008 2:43:08 PM , Rating: 3
Yet another scientific study which throws doubt on the politicaly supported science of GW. The problem for a lot of politicians and even scientists now, is that if they change their mind and say, "wait, things aren't quite as clear cut as we first thought", then it will be a cold day in hell before the public listens to them over something like this again.

Unlike the concept of gravity and mathematical pi, global warming is a far less precisely understood science. I just hope that true science is observed in the end so that we can finally know the facts.




interesting....
By sasafras101 on 7/15/2008 11:33:51 PM , Rating: 1
okay,
again people are charging at this information too quickly, each looking to use it as they please (just like the greedy politicians :P) But there is more than one reaction here.

Aerosols, it seems have caused a cooling affect, to some degree, in the area researched. And rightfully they should. The more particles in the atmosphere, the less radiation would have penetrated to the surface. What's interesting is that these particles should then heat up causing radiative heating, because, they are not white like the top of high elevation clouds which mostly reflect all visible light that reaches them. they should then respectively heat the air around them causing a sort of radiative heating affect which would influence the temperature with an opposite feedback to the one first looked at. (kind of like a miniature greenhouse for visible light)

secondly, the aerosols don't trap much of the energy that cannot be seen with the human eye. which would most likely be picked up by the greenhouse. which should mean that the greenhouse had been functioning like it was supposed to and the actual increase in temperatures could mostly be contributed to the end result of more visible light reaching the earth's surface.

so in the end cleaner air might mean more warming, but it would be due to more visible light reaching the earth's surface, rather than more energy being absorbed by the greenhouse (Also, there is little indication as to how much of the aerosol is man made and how much is natural (yes natural sources emit harmful aerosols as well) so again the data is not necessarily finite towards the extent of human impact.)

please correct me if i made any mistakes :)




RE: interesting....
By Screwballl on 7/16/2008 1:05:02 PM , Rating: 2
from the IPCC's flip-flopping stance: aerosols cause slower but long term warming... removal of aerosols means faster short term warming but less long term warming..
of course anyone with a brain sees that the earth goes through its own warming and cooling trends with or without man so man-made global warming is a myth aimed at taking more money from our pockets one way or another.
Granted it can be used to help clean things up and make it healthier for man but don't put it under the false-guise of man-made global warming


"solar brightening,"
By 3kliksphilip on 7/15/2008 9:34:24 AM , Rating: 2
I knew it! Solar IS the future!




By kattanna on 7/15/2008 10:19:34 AM , Rating: 2
i mean all that hot air from all those politicians in those countries so tightly packed in within europe could easily account for some warming im sure

;>)




d**ned if you do...
By Screwballl on 7/15/2008 1:58:11 PM , Rating: 2
d**ned if you don't.

With the aerosols, the heat stays trapped in the upper atmosphere causing the temperature to rise thus heating up larger surface areas but slowly... and now with less aerosols the surface temperature is rising quicker....

Yet the mention of the volcano had to be removed to show "man made" particles and the effect...

So this proves that the planet is warming on its own slowly and the man made particles helped to slow that process for a few decades.... but wait, on a global average, the planet is actually cooling... so is man causing that too??

Too many politicians see the money they can make from it when the planet is doing its own thing, with or without man.




Wow
By greenchasch on 7/16/2008 12:03:08 PM , Rating: 2
Look at the size of that spike from Pinatubo.

If a little pop like that has that much effect, its kind of scary what a really big eruption or two could do.




I doubt either theory
By phxfreddy on 7/19/2008 3:24:09 PM , Rating: 2
I doubt the dust theory. I am sure MMGW is invalid. I think the great big fireball in the sky is the cause. Why does anything think this nuclear fusion reactor is dead solid constant? Its obviously not.




By DPercy on 7/24/2008 8:36:57 PM , Rating: 2
Earth's temp will either go up or down. Why is warming a serious problem? Please give reason's that make sense. We already know what a little cooling will do. There are a fair number of greenies that would love to see a kill off of humans, a kill off that a warming earth won't achieve.
Recall the green folks dancing in the streets when the big wave killed a couple hundred thousand a few years back.




"A lot of people pay zero for the cellphone ... That's what it's worth." -- Apple Chief Operating Officer Timothy Cook

DailyTech Poll
Do you use copy/paste on your smartphone? 




15 Comments















botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki