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
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
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
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.
quote: Primary driver: the Sun
quote: Ever taken a f*ing science class?
quote: Sorry to be harsh, it's just amazing how stupid some of the statements made on this site are, and it really makes me sad.
quote: Global temperatures are rising, there is no debate about that
quote: the next generations will have no choice but to pay, which doesn't seem to bother anybody
quote: The cost to stop using fossil fuels (which is easier to quantify, and nobody wants to voluntarily pay)
quote: but the ocean's properties aren't changing.
quote: Oceans do drive the weather and mediate the climate, but when talking about long term climate change, we are changing properties of the atmosphere that affect it's insulating properties, but the ocean's properties aren't changing. So, the atmosphere is still the primary driver of change