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