Print 57 comment(s) - last by OldSgtZ.. on Feb 20 at 5:40 PM

Even the best climate models are affected by uncertainty in how much aerosols contribute to global warming. That uncertainty could mean that emissions cuts could reduce warming -- or that it might continue to increase for a while, despite cuts. Those are the conclusions of a recent review published by a University of Washington grad student.  (Source: NOAA)
Researcher calls the conclusions of the UN's IPCC incomplete and flawed

Kyle Armour, a doctoral student in physics at the University of Washington is boldly challenging that certain assertions of the Nobel Prize-winning International Panel on Climate Change, in their current state, may be flawed.  He argues that the UN's suggestion that stopping aerosol emissions will stop warming is misleading [press release].  These conclusions are noteworthy, given the controversial state of warming research and legislation aimed to "stop" global warming.

At issue is various climatology models, collected from published research, that attempt to simulate the effects of changing global climate variables. These variables include changing the levels of an "aerosols" (atmospheric dust) like sea salt or soot from burning fossil fuels; or greenhouse gases (GHGs) like CO2 or methane.  The effects of these variables are dubbed "forcings" (aerosol forcing, GHG forcings, solar forcing, etc.).  Various forcings sum up to predict a net climate change and its contributors by approximate percentage.  

Models are typically fit to current data, but the narrow range that many climate variables have been constrained to in the modern era limits them.  They're also limited by how many variables and effects on those variables they consider.  Last, but not least, they're limited by how accurately and completely we can measure certain variables (e.g. total global aerosol levels).

In this case, Kyle Armour says that current models are flawed in that they fail to consider how high the uncertainty is regarding the amount that aerosols contribute to climate change.  

He says that the aerosols could contribute a lot to climate change, or only a little.  

In the "best case" scenario they would only contribute a little to net warming, thus they would not be masking the effects of GHG-related warming.  If all emissions of aerosols and GHGs stopped (a cessation of fossil fuel burning, and mammalian livestock farming, in short) the aerosols would quickly exit the atmosphere.  GHGs would remain for years at elevated levels, but the net result would be a slight decrease in temperatures by about half a degree Fahrenheit, given that the aerosols were the chief culprits.

In other words, the current temperature, which is about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit above pre-Industrial Revolution levels would dip to only 1.0 degrees Fahrenheit above that base level -- but wouldn’t return entirely for many years.

Society can obviously not just instantly cut emissions, Mr. Armour acknowledges, but he says that such a scenario would offer justification to emissions cuts.

However, it's also possible that aerosols offer a larger contribution and are masking the effects of GHGs.  In this case, even if emissions stopped, temperatures would continue to rise and likely reach 3.5 degrees Fahrenheit above pre-Industrial Revolution levels, as the GHGs would persist in the atmosphere.  Such a temperature increase would likely cause some of the more severe predicted climate change effects (though it could offer benefits as well).

In other words, Mr. Armour is arguing that uncertainty in the aerosol components of models may lead to the IPCC significantly underestimating the amount of warming that will occur under various scenarios.

Mr. Armour says that keeping this uncertainty in mind is critical and the IPCC needs to do a better job in doing so in its next report.  He states, "This is not an argument to say we should keep emitting aerosols. It is an argument that we should be smart in how we stop emitting. And it's a call to action because we know the warming we are committed to from what we have emitted already and the longer we keep emitting the worse it gets."

One interesting conclusion of the study not explored by Mr. Armour is the question of maximum forcing.  Clearly historically temperatures rose due to increased GHGs, but leveled off (reach equilibrium) or reversed as the global system dampened the warming effects.  (In other words the Earth remained habitable, if a bit hotter, and didn't become some sort of arid, barren fireball.)  This equilibrium may be reached by a number of mechanisms -- radiative heat loss into space/changes in ocean currents/changes in atmospheric water vapor, etc.  The question is what is the "maximum" reachable temperature?  

If Mr. Armour is correct and we may already be locked in to a large temperature rise, the question is whether we'll reach this maximum.  If so, the climate change will already be enacted.  While this will be unfortunate in some ways (population would have to shift, growing areas would shift, etc.) and fortunate in others, humanity would already be forced to adapt to the change.

If indeed a maximum with dampening is destined to be reached, stopping emissions would do little good (unless we can somehow remove a significant quantity of GHGs from the atmosphere, which does not seem currently feasible).  Thus the question of whether fossil fuel and farming emissions should be cut, and if so how much, largely rests on a data set that is largely unknown and uncertain.  Mr. Armour's key conclusion is in noting this, and in noting that the IPCC needs to do a better job informing policy makers (politicians) of this uncertainty.

Mr. Armour's work has been published [abstract] in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

Comments     Threshold

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

Misleading Title
By Amedean on 2/16/2011 3:05:28 PM , Rating: 1
Modern journalism, all bark little bite. In case you are not aware, green house gasses are part of the emissions problem. Reading the title seems to produce a logical fallacy of false dichotomy. No doubt feeding from the controversy derived from plumbers and people who stayed in a "Holiday Inn Express" and claim to know the definite answer of the fictitious nature of global warming. This article is based from a thesis of an aspiring student and making headlines like this is as poor nature in line with watching Fox News.

RE: Misleading Title
By docawolff on 2/16/2011 4:07:05 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. The "climate change skeptics'" argument boils down to: Because we don't know everything about climate change, we therefore know nothing about climate change. This is the same argument put forth by Big Tobacco which allowed them decades of profitable business after they had data in hand that proved a link between smoking and lung cancer and heart disease. It is pretty much a classic strategy, and depends on P. T. Barnum's statement of birth rate and gullibility.

Need we point out that a thesis is not a peer-reviewed article?

RE: Misleading Title
By wookie1 on 2/16/2011 6:12:39 PM , Rating: 2
There are many unknowns in how the earth's climate system works. The CAGW scenario requires a positive-feedback multiplier on the normal greenhouse effect of CO2 to get any results above ~1C per doubling of CO2 concentration. It is assumed that clouds cause this positive-feedback by trapping more heat (water vapor of course is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2), but the problem is that some clouds also reflect more incoming radiation back into space.

The total effects of these clouds is not understood. Also, other natural processes affect cloud formation. Small changes in cloud cover and composition can have a pretty large effect on radiation trapped or reflected away. All of this is unknown, though. Clouds may have a negative-feedback effect, which would offset increases from other "forcings". Since the earth has had higher concentrations of CO2 in the past with both warmer and cooler temperatures than at the present, this seems likely.

Finally, these models that are used to argue the CAGW scenario have failed to even get the climate right for the last decade (statistical analysis at How they could be expected to be right in 100 years or more after falling down in less than 10 years is not clear to me.

SO, yes we have all of these warming scenarios coming out of the models, but no reason to have any faith in the models. Why should I throw tons of money at a problem that 1) might not actually exist, 2) if it exists, is completely uncontrollable by humans, 3) if some warming were to happen, could be beneficial to mankind (larger temperate regions, fewer deaths from cold, etc).

For extra credit, please tell us what the correct or optimal temperature of the earth should be. The average temperature now? End of the 20th century? 1850? Why?

RE: Misleading Title
By Nfarce on 2/16/2011 7:19:12 PM , Rating: 4
Never mind the fact that we can't even get a consistent temperature reading standard out there. Temp sensors placed in freaking PARKING LOTS? Please:

And regarding having faith in computer modeling as establishing "fact" I'd also submit the NOAA's track record of the past five years of Atlantic basin hurricane forecasting post-Katrina (since Katrina was supposedly a super-hurricane cause by man-made global warming) and more were on the way in the next several seasons:

2006: Forecast as "very active." Was "below average" at the end.
2007: Forecast as "very active." Was "below average" at the end.
2008: Forecast as "very active." Was "below average" at the end.
2009: Forecast as "average." NOAA had to reduce forecast mid-season and was "below average" at the end.
2010: Forecast as "very active." Was "below normal" at the end.

And to think some people and politicians want to push forward job-killing and tax hell of Cap & Trade all because of model-driven data on alleged man-made global warming. Tell ya what. Let's get the modeling accuracy basics like regional hurricane forecasting down before attempting to model the entire planet and a cause for a raise (or lowering) of average temperatures.

RE: Misleading Title
By walk2k on 2/16/11, Rating: -1
RE: Misleading Title
By Nfarce on 2/16/2011 10:36:41 PM , Rating: 2
Are you going to debate the FACTS of the blog posted? Are you going to debate the FAILURES of computer modeling (the other point)? Or are you just going to drool on your keyboard like we all know you do best? Oh wait...

RE: Misleading Title
By wookie1 on 2/17/2011 11:06:15 AM , Rating: 2
I'd also recommend where the contributors (volunteers around the country) have surveyed and documented the USHCN weather stations around the country. In addition to the UHI effect, many of these weather stations are in the middle of parking lots (like the University of Arizona), next to BBQ grills, on rooftops (and sometimes next to the big A/C unit on the roof), between runways at major international airports, etc. To say that temperature can be measured by all of these stations with the accuracy needed seems far-fetched.

Also, these temperatures are adjusted prior to being reported by GISS. You may think that each month's adjustments are for that month only, but it turns out that the entire historic record is changed each month. So the temperature for any particular day in the past is dependent on what date you look at the data. Part of the adjustments are supposed to be to compensate for UHI, but some stations in the middle of large cities are adjusted warmer! Not sure how you would adjust a city station up to fix readings that would be too warm due to UHI?

Satellite measurements may be more immune to these issues, but the length of the record is only something like 30 years, so too short when oceanic cycles like AMO and PDO are ~30 years.

RE: Misleading Title
By walk2k on 2/16/2011 8:09:08 PM , Rating: 1
Sorry but over 97% of climate scientists believe global warming is real.. sorry if we believe them over some Faux News mouthpieces for the oil cartels.

RE: Misleading Title
By someguy123 on 2/16/2011 10:44:02 PM , Rating: 2
Normally I'd agree with you if it wasn't for Harold Lewis resigning due to lack of transparency and corruption within the global warming research community.

RE: Misleading Title
By Nfarce on 2/16/2011 10:50:37 PM , Rating: 2
It's called supporting an argument (or in this case movement) for continuing grants - that's our taxpayer dollars for simpletons. Of course, the easiest thing to do is follow what the politicians do. Moonbats can shove their fascist draconian Cap & Trade up the bunghole with a red hot global warming poker.

RE: Misleading Title
By thurston on 2/16/2011 5:47:42 PM , Rating: 1
I don't know if you have noticed this or not but most of Jason Mick's articles would be right at home on Fox News.

RE: Misleading Title
By Nfarce on 2/16/2011 7:25:25 PM , Rating: 2
Well I sure wouldn't expect to see opposing views of AGW on MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Chicago Tribune, The Atlanta Journal Constitution, The Orlando Sentinel, The LA Times, and all of those other 'fair and balanced' "news" outlets.

RE: Misleading Title
By chagrinnin on 2/16/2011 7:28:22 PM , Rating: 3
That's where Jon Stewart comes in.

RE: Misleading Title
By walk2k on 2/16/2011 8:06:48 PM , Rating: 2
Clearly reality has a liberal bias.

RE: Misleading Title
By Nfarce on 2/16/11, Rating: 0
RE: Misleading Title
By YashBudini on 2/20/2011 12:49:37 PM , Rating: 2

Doesn't get any more fair and balanced than that.

"I f***ing cannot play Halo 2 multiplayer. I cannot do it." -- Bungie Technical Lead Chris Butcher

Most Popular ArticlesSmartphone Screen Protectors – What To Look For
September 21, 2016, 9:33 AM
UN Meeting to Tackle Antimicrobial Resistance
September 21, 2016, 9:52 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM
5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Update: Problem-Free Galaxy Note7s CPSC Approved
September 22, 2016, 5:30 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki