Aerosols, Chemistry and Climate
Everyone can probably agree that the climate system is complex. Not only do the vagaries of weather patterns and ocean currents make it hard to see climate changes, but the variability in what are often termed the Earth System components complicates the picture enormously. These components - specifically aerosols (particulates in the air - dust, soot, sulphates, nitrates, pollen etc.) and atmospheric chemistry (ozone, methane) - are both affected by climate and affect climate, since aerosols and ozone can interact, absorb, reflect or scatter solar and thermal radiation. This makes for a rich research environment, but can befuddle the unwary.
I occasionally marvel at the amount of nonsense that is written about climate change in the more excitable parts of the web, and most of the time, I don't bother to comment. But in relation to the issue of aerosols, chemistry and climate, I read yesterday (h/t Atmoz) probably the most boneheaded article that I have seen in ages (and that's saying a lot).
The hook for this piece of foolishness were two interesting articles published this week by Ruckstuhl and colleagues and a draft EPA report on the impacts of climate on air quality. First, Ruckstuhl et al found that as aerosols have decreased in Europe over the last few decades (as a result of environmental standards legislation), the amount of solar radiation at the ground has increased while the amount reflected to space has decreased. They hypothesize that this may have helped Europe warm faster in the last few decades than it would have otherwise done. Or equivalently, since the aerosols are anthropogenic, that European temperatures had been subdued due to the cooling effects of the aerosols - and since they are now decreasing, the full effects of the greenhouse gases are starting to be felt. This is just an update to the 'global brightening' story we have touched on before. The EPA report is concerned with the impacts that climate change can have on atmospheric chemistry, and in particular the summertime peaks in urban ground-level ozone which are a well-known and serious health hazard. These are affected by local temperatures, cloudiness, temperature sensitive biogenic emissions and patterns of weather variability. Again, it is a story we have discussed before.
But the NewsBusters article succeeded in getting almost every aspect of these stories wrong. How do I correct thee? Let me count the ways.
- Aerosols are not smog:
First they confuse aerosols with photochemical smog. Both are pollutants, but the first is dominated by sulphate emissions from coal burning power plants, the second from ozone precursors such as NOx, volatile organic compounds, and carbon monoxide mainly emitted from vehicles. (Note that ozone is not directly emitted, but is created by chemical reactions from the precursors with the addition of a bit of photolysis - i.e. sunlight-driven chemistry). The effects on climate are very different: ozone is a greenhouse gas, so increases cause a warming, while sulphate aerosols are reflective, and so increases cause a cooling. The air quality issues in the EPA are almost all focused on ozone.
- Europe is not the Globe:
The next error is to equate changes in temperatures in Europe to the globe. While it would be true that if global aerosol levels declined it would lead to increased global warming, aerosol trends in Asia are increasing strongly, even while those in the US and Europe are dropping. The net effect is possibly a slight drop, but the impact on global temperature is as yet unclear. This regionality matters in both the sulphates case and for ozone. The relevant chemistry is sensitive to water vapour and temperature in varying ways as a function of the pollution level. In remote ocean areas, surface ozone will likely decrease as the globe warms for instance (due to increasing water vapour). In polluted environments increased temperatures and larger temperature-sensitive emissions of isoprene cause enhanced ozone levels.
- Surface ozone is not in the stratosphere:
Next, NewsBusters asserts that the ozone story is confusing because of the
.. treaty called the Montreal Protocol. This was designed to reduce and eventually eliminate the production and release of a number of substances thought at the time to be depleting ozone.
Ummm…. those substances (chiefly chlorofluorocarbons - CFCs) are still thought to be depleting the ozone layer - which is in the stratosphere, some 30km above the ground-level ozone that people shouldn't be breathing. CFCs have no impact on ground-level ozone at all (since their reactive chlorine is only released in the stratosphere).
- The final inanity:
Wouldn't it be fascinating if such efforts [such as the Montreal Protocol] lead to cleaner air around the world which ended up warming the planet, and that additional warmth is now breaking down the very ozone we thought we could save?
Every part of this sentence is wrong. The Montreal Protocol had no impact on cleaning the air, it stopped the growth of CFCs which are powerful greenhouse gases (in addition to their role in depleting stratospheric ozone), therefore it slowed global warming, rather than increasing it, and we aren't trying to save ground-level ozone. Had any of this been true it would indeed have been fascinating.
What should we make of this? Unfortunately one must conclude that no mistake is too dumb for someone, somewhere to make if they think they can spin it into supporting their anti-science agenda. For them complexity is something to be abused rather than a challenge to be understood, underlining quite clearly (again) the difference between science and propaganda.
12 July 2008 at 12:52
Especially like the cartoon commentary
12 July 2008 at 14:02
The last paragraph of this post describes the Newsbusters article exactly.
Newsbusters has in the past tried to smear Dr James Hanson.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/10/2/115733/134
Newsbusters from sourcewatch
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=NewsBusters
In particular editor Noel Sheppard, “Sheppard has used his NewsBusters posts in particular to attack the idea that global warming is caused by humans”
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Noel_Sheppard
12 July 2008 at 14:35
My wife has always claimed that my temperature-sensitive biogenic emissions are a serious health hazard, but I guess I’ll have to start listening to her now that gavin has confirmed it.
12 July 2008 at 15:08
Thanks Gavin.
The saddest part is the comments to Noel’s post. So many people only accept what they want to. So many people think they know more than everyone else.
Patience is difficult when sarcasm is so much more satisfying in the short term.
12 July 2008 at 16:35
Thanks Gavin,
I have seen a few of their garbage pieces. The upside of freedom of speech and the press is you get to hear a lot of opinions. The downside of freedom of speech is you get to hear a lot of opinions.
Separating the wheat form the chaff is the challenge we all face.
Here are some of the articles I have done on the issue, for those that care to examine what might be called a more reasoned perspective (and of course everything on RC
“We are under attack!” - A Primer on Political Spin
http://www.uscentrist.org/news/2006/under-attack-political-spin/
Does hot air from politicians contribute to global warming?
http://www.uscentrist.org/news/2006/hot-air-politicians/
Hot Air in the Media Contributes to Global Warming!
http://www.uscentrist.org/news/2007/hot-air-in-media/
Oh, and lest we forget the wonderful work by GISS, NASA, NOAA, NCDC, NSIDC, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera
13 July 2008 at 6:59
Re #2: re-read the (old) Hansen piece on the purported 720k from Soros, and it still gets my blood pressure up that a scientist in his position would have to shop around for pro bono legal advice for situations related to his proper activities as a civil servant.
$720k would not be too much for a legal fund to take on some of the more prominent libelers. Those tobacco lawyers are good but pricey in their mercedeses
[Response: In case someone reading is confused; Hansen got no 720K, or any Soros funding, and the sum total of the connection was a letter offering legal help which was not accepted. - gavin]
13 July 2008 at 7:46
If you’d seen the segment of C-SPAN’s Washington Journal the other day with a UCS member, you might say that it is not so much incorrect articles such as this which is the major problem, but the people who called in to accuse the UCS member of “lying;” parroting Sen. Al Gore Jr. (who is as wrong now as when he claimed to invent the internet;, et cetera.
It’s similar to the women who didn’t believe Hon. Sen. Obama when he claimed not to be a muslim. What can one say to someone who insists on being ignorant? No amount of evidence will suffice, or even credited.
13 July 2008 at 14:24
I used to go to the Newbusters website but got banned, but that is a whole diferent story. The people at the website are very narrow minded.
It is no surprise that Noel Sheepard wrote this post. HE usually only blogs about global warming or some liberal Hollywood actor in the news. I stopped responding to his post because of one interaction I had with him.
HE had a post how someone was trying to blame McCain’s economic adviser for problems with the economy. I posed that he was responsible for slipping into a bill the Enron Rule, which deregulated speculation in regards to energy commodities and companies. HE said there he wanted me to provide proof from a government website. I sent him a link from Motherjones.com written by David Corn that spelled it all out. He simply wrote back saying it was a opinion piece and brushed me off.
I would send you the link, but like I said, I got blocked from the website, which is shocking because they always are crying about how the democrats want to intact the fairness Doctrine. Actually, it’s not surprising.
13 July 2008 at 15:02
jhm writes, repeatedly (+gore +invent +internet +jhm — about 66 hits)
> What can one say to someone who insists on being ignorant?
One can say “look it up” but jhm posts the same nonsense repeatedly (Google finds about 66 hits for (+gore +invent +internet +jhm )
making him/herself an example:
> No amount of evidence will suffice, or even credited.
http://www.google.com/search?q=%2Bgore+%2Binvent+%2Binternet+%2BCerf&btnG=Search
13 July 2008 at 15:56
Yes; Aerosols of Deceit created by a Chemistry of Greed suspended in a Climate of Fear.
So to quote from this gentle voice from the wilderness:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TwentyYearsLater_20080623.pdf
Global Warming Twenty Years Later: Tipping Points Near
James Hansen1
My presentation today is exactly 20 years after my 23 June 1988 testimony to Congress, which alerted the public that global warming was underway. There are striking similarities between then and now, but one big difference.
Again a wide gap has developed between what is understood about global warming by the relevant scientific community and what is known by policymakers and the public. Now, as then, frank assessment of scientific data yields conclusions that are shocking to the body politic. Now, as then, I can assert that these conclusions have a certainty exceeding 99 percent.
The difference is that now we have used up all slack in the schedule for actions needed to defuse the global warming time bomb…
And
…. In my opinion, if emissions follow a business-as-usual scenario, sea level rise of at least two meters is likely this century. Hundreds of millions of people would become refugees. No stable shoreline would be reestablished in any time frame that humanity can conceive.
And
…The disturbing conclusion, documented in a paper I have written with several of the world’s leading climate experts, is that the safe level of atmospheric carbon dioxide is no more than 350 ppm (parts per million) and it may be less. Carbon dioxide amount is already 385 ppm and rising about 2 ppm per year. Stunning corollary: the oft-stated goal to keep global warming less than two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) is a recipe for global disaster, not salvation.
…
Keep up the good work sir!
13 July 2008 at 16:25
I know this is OT, but
jhm embarassed himself by saying
This is another one of those things that everybody knows that just isn’t so. Vice President Gore did not claim to have invented the internet. He claimed to have been important in its development. And I have heard Vint Cerf, one of the folks who did invent the internet, defend Gore as a vital supporter of the technology involved. See Snopes.com
13 July 2008 at 16:37
Re: #7
Speaking of “parroting”, you should really stop repeating this piece of dittohead gibberish. Vince Cerf seems to think that Gore was instrumental in creating the internet: and he was actually there. Where were you?
13 July 2008 at 16:38
Sorry, my cite was removed for some reason.
13 July 2008 at 17:21
In an interesting bit of information the AP is reporting that a Rutgers University yellow submarine named “Scarlet Knight” is collecting raw data on the temperature and salinity of the seawater.
A comment on Al Gore. In the late 1980’s and early 1990’s Al Gore was promoting the internet heavily. This was a time when I was using the predecessor of the internet. At that time I thought he was a person of vision and influence concerning the potential of the internet. It was unfortunate that he misspoke about inventing the internet. But he did see its potential before many others. His vision about the internet then and his vision about the climate now are to be commended.
13 July 2008 at 18:33
Al Crawford writes, ignoring all the help checking the story:
> It was unfortunate that he misspoke about inventing
You misspeak, since that’s not what the man said. Check your sources.
If you believe what you write is true, where are you getting it, why do you consider your source reliable on this? Who’s your authority?
13 July 2008 at 21:11
Re: Al Gore and the invention of the Internet
Perhaps we can put this to rest once and for all and get back on topic:
In March 1999, Gore told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer that he “took the initiative in creating the Internet.”
According to Stephen Wolff of Cisco Systems, who oversaw the National Science Foundation’s NSFnet (the Internet’s immediate precursor), in 1986 then-senator Gore pushed through legislation requiring a White House study on whether telephone companies could create a national network. “It’s what the Internet is now,” said Wolff.
Ref: Science, Vol. 283 (March 1999), page 1975.
13 July 2008 at 21:42
“If you believe what you write is true, where are you getting it, why do you consider your source reliable on this? Who’s your authority?”
My source is my memory. I remember when he said it and it gained wide coverage in the press and on TV. So I do consider my source reliable. Now, he did not really mean to say he invented the internet but rather that he played a part in its development — which he did from a political standpoint. And he quickly put out corrections. But what he actually said certainly came out that he was claiming the invention of the internet. He misspoke.
If you can find a source that contradicts my memory then so be it. But that is what I remember.
13 July 2008 at 22:28
Al Crawford wrote in 17:
Here is a recording — with sound effects added by someone who clearly doesn’t like Gore — where Gore says “I took the initiative in creating the internet.”
You can listen to it yourself:
Here is the context that it is ripped from:
He is clearly claiming credit not for “inventing” the internet, but for leading the legislative action necessary to make it a reality.
The word “invent” first appeared in a mailing-list message headline by a reporter for a Republican press release. There is a link to the message in the analysis by Seth Finkelstein which I linked to above.
Incidentally, I didn’t have to rely upon memory — which is a good thing as my memory isn’t that great. Instead I just looked it up on the internet. First at YouTube (using “Gore internet” as the search terms to get the recording) then in Google (using the words in the recording) to get the context. Took maybe thirty seconds total.
13 July 2008 at 23:03
I, too, was involved with what became the internet in the mid-80s, and (truth in lending) I am not an Al Gore supporter or admirer. He did state that he invented the internet. As I recall it was an inadvertent overstatement and a misspeak (No, Hank, I’m not going to round up all the peer reviewed papers on it.), I think in the run up to the 2000 campaign. However, as Senator (if memory serves) Gore he was tremendously influential with the White House’s Office of Telecommunication Policy (OTP) and NSF (and Congress) to get funding and support for transforming the “internet” from the then network — a very small, restricted to a few Universities, National Labs, and the like, and to be used only for academic research (and funded mostly by NSF) — into the precursor of what it is today with ubiquitous and widespread (including commercial (”.com”) access and use.
Invent it? No. Damn important to its growing up? Yes.
Is this deja vu??
14 July 2008 at 0:11
There is a full moon out tonight — no, I do not have a reference — and it is cloudy where I am at so I can’t really see — but I know there is a full moon out tonight.
Why do I know — because of all of the silly stuff in this thread since I made my comment about Al Gore (#14).
I made a post about a cute yellow sub that is zipping along in the Atlantic using only the power of the currents. And it is collecting a bunch of raw data about the ocean.
Then, as a side note, I made what I thought was a complement to Al. But I didn’t give a reference. And all hades broke loose.
And I am completely confused about how all of this is related to the climate. I think I will go to bed and sleep on it. Maybe when I wake in the morning all the werewolves will be gone!
P.S.
Check out “We Can Solve It” and join Al’s effort at saving the world.
And you might also like to go to http://www.climatecrisis.net/ also in honor of Al.
14 July 2008 at 0:38
Al Gore’s exact words were, “… I took the initiative in creating the internet.” I’ll leave it to the semantics experts to decide whether “creating” and “inventing” are the same thing.
Actually, ARPANET had been in operation before Gore joined the Senate, so the “internet” as we know it today was more of a release for public and corporate consumption of an entity which had previously been the exclusive domain of a few universities and their government funding agencies. Actually, Big Business pushed harder for public participation than private individuals, who generally didn’t have a clue.
I don’t like Al Gore for many reasons, but if he took a leadership role in prying it away from the Ivory Tower crowd and their funding sources, then I’m forced to tip my hat to him as a man with an exceptionally accurate long range vision for it’s possibilities.
14 July 2008 at 0:50
Rod B & Al Crawford:
You want to believe something that simply DID NOT happen. Gore chose his words rather carefully, and the Finkelstein reference in #18 is useful in understanding the real sequence.
I got a copy of the Vint Cerf/Bob Kahn letter when it came out. [One of Dave Farber’s friends forwarded it to me.] It was accurate then, and that hasn’t changed.
14 July 2008 at 1:00
For those of you who trust Snopes.com to sniff out urban legends, you can check out:
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
Snopes agrees with Richard, Hank, Chuck, and Timothy that “invent” is pure fiction.
14 July 2008 at 2:06
No one has EVER come up with a source that shows he actually said that. The quote’s well-known, and is as has been given above, he claimed credit for taking the INITIATIVE in creating it, through funding.
Because, of course, he never actually said it. You want to BELIEVE he said it, nothing more.
14 July 2008 at 2:21
Well, always please consider what we don’t know, e.g.:
Fuzzi, S., M.O. Andreae, B.J. Huebert, M. Kulmala, T.C. Bond, M. Boy, S.J. Doherty, A. Guenther, M. Kanakidou, K. Kawamura, V.-M. Kerminen, U. Lohmann, L.M. Russell and U. Pöschl, 2006. Critical assessment of the current state of scientific knowledge, terminology, and research needs concerning the role of organic aerosols in the atmosphere, climate, and global change. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Vol. 6, pp. 2017-2038, June 9, 2006, online
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/6/2017/2006/acp-6-2017-2006.pdf
“In spite of impressive advances in recent years, our present understanding of organic aerosol (OA) composition, physical and chemical properties, sources and transformation characteristics is still rather limited, and their environmental effects remain highly uncertain….”
14 July 2008 at 6:32
> misspeak
is a misnomer… no, Gore’s “error” was to provide a single, easy soundbite, ready to be ripped out of context. As everybody knows the proper thing to do is place parts of the sound bite far apart on the audio track (as he did in the NPR interview recently) so the swiftboaters have to get competent in audio editing
14 July 2008 at 8:51
Al Gore’s exact words were, “During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet.”
Factually true, correct English and not even ambiguous.
Take the Red Pill folks. Figure this one out for yourselves, and reality will never be the same again.
14 July 2008 at 9:12
Re:#7
One doesn’t have to remain ignorant. Read one or more of the books recommended listed in the post “All Paper Salutes To The Environment” or a book of your choosing that explains the science behind global warming. Don’t shoot the messenger. Al Gore is a well informed non-scientist, not the one who uncovered this phenomena. Attend lectures and conferences where available. One doesn’t have to remain ignorant except by their own choosing.
14 July 2008 at 9:57
Newsbusters is not just a denialist site, they actively promote the idea that AGW is a fraud:
“Results 1 - 10 of about 5,730 from newsbusters.org for “global warming” fraud. (0.36 seconds)”
Simply put, they are conspiracy theorists of the most irrational stripe.
14 July 2008 at 10:20
Rod, don’t trust your memory about things you wish were true.
If you can’t grok this you can’t do or read science.
Yes, perhaps there’s a huge conspiracy out there altering all the records — people on all spokes of the political wheel do have this suspicion about what they think they remember seeing that they deeply believe but have never been able to document.
But go with the odds. If you can’t find it, you probably were fooled the first time and have been fooling yourself ever since — recalling that Republican press release cited above. Read Doonesbury instead, you’ll get a clearer picture of how the world works.
14 July 2008 at 10:49
All of you “took the initiative” proponents [edited] [that’s enough! No more comments from anyone on this please. -moderator]
14 July 2008 at 11:47
Please. Al Gore and the internet, however thrilling to some (yawn), has nothing to do with climatology.
Drop it, ok?
14 July 2008 at 12:23
To get back to the subject: If part of the recent European warming (past 25 years or so) is due to the decrease in aerosol loading, then the rate of warming may decrease when the aerosol loading starts to stabilize. That was the bottom line of an interesting presentation at the EGU this year (not published yet). It’s bound to raise a lot of questions, and the results are prone to be abused, but the analysis seems sound (if somewhat speculative and with large error bars).
14 July 2008 at 13:43
I think in your attempt to clarify the issues you have confused things a bit by over-simplifying.
Your statement that “aerosols are not smog” is not correct. Aerosols are an important component of photochemical smog, forming through similar reactions involving hydroxyl radicals, nitric oxides, ozone, VOCs, and sunlight that also produce the gaseous component of smog. These secondary aerosols have important impacts on visibility, health, and regional climate.
Also, stating that aerosols are “dominated by sulphate emissions from coal burning power plants” is overly simplistic and inaccurate. Yes, coal power plants are major sources of primary combustion aerosols (i.e. soot, coal fly ash) and also sulphur dioxide which can produce secondary sulphate aerosols. But sulphate aerosols are not the major aerosol component by particle mass or number. The lagest sources of aerosol mass are from sea salt and mineral dust. By number, it is typically a mix of sulphate, nitrate, ammonium, and a wide spectrum of carbonaceous (elemental and organic carbon) compounds. Most tropospheric aerosols are internal mixtures of these components, as opposed to pure single-component aerosols, which is how climate models frequently inaccurately represent them. This mis-representation and can have significant ramifications for estimating the direct and indirect effects of aerosols on climate.
Sorry to be nit-picky but I was surprised to see such inaccurate and simplistic statements made on this blog which typically goes to great lengths to be both detailed and accurate. These misconceptions regarding aerosols are commonly stated not just in the media but also in the atmospheric sciences community and are very troubling.
[Response: Always happy to have nitpicks - to be clear, I was talking about anthropogenic aerosols - for which sulphates are the biggest contribution. The EPA report was focused on ozone and that was the contrast I was highlighting. - gavin]
14 July 2008 at 15:05
European mean ground ozone levels are declining, not rising as could be expected from a possible warming trend. See here for my measurements in a semi-urban region (Diekirch, Luxembourg), and here for the US 8 hour air quality. BTW, I am not sure if the ozone health issue is not overstated. I spoke to several medicals (also lung experts) who never had a patient unwell of too high ozone levels. Usually the discomfort was a result of excessive heat and “bad air”, where O3 is only one of many factors.
14 July 2008 at 15:32
Hank, I was half-way with you — philosophically at least — until you wrapped your arms around Doonesbury!!!
14 July 2008 at 17:42
Rod, Doonesbury Sunday: 600? 600,000?
Beware the press, look to the original source in the science journals
14 July 2008 at 18:41
Thanks for your reply Gavin, I understand what you wanted to contrast with.
Sulphate is not typically the dominant anthropogenic aerosol component however, though many climate models treat it as such. The carbonaceous aerosol component typically dominants PM1 aerosol mass, see for example:
Zhang, Q. et al., Ubiquity and dominance of oxygenated species in organic aerosols in anthropogenically-influenced Northern Hemisphere midlatitudes, Geophysical Research Letters, 34 (13), doi:10.1029/2007GL029979, 2007.
This is a nice summary of many measurements of PM1 aerosol chemical composition. Though note that the instrument used cannot measure non-volatile aerosol components that don’t evaporate > 600 C or so. Thus they cannot measure soot, mineral dust, or some refractory organic carbon compounds.
14 July 2008 at 21:36
Hank, Yeah, but is it peer reviewed??
15 July 2008 at 3:29
Rod B Says:
Hank, Yeah, but is it peer reviewed??
Doonesbury is peer reviewed by the millions of readers who follow the strip. Can millions of readers possibly be wrong?
15 July 2008 at 5:59
Re #10, a very sobering account given by Dr James Hansen there, one which is undoubtably true and yet very people know it to be so. Ask any normal mortal about global warming and you get a whole host of opinions from its a left wing scam perpetrated by the left wing media and politicians who do not like capatalism to its a tax revenue raiser to its real but we can’t do a lot about it as we are heading for a recession.
It just seems to me that politicians and other vested interests want their cake and eat it to. I see no impact on fossil fuel production and use even if we do take up renewables and even go on a energy efficiency drive. The east id here and hungry for energy, if we reduce they will consume.
15 July 2008 at 9:08
Ryan, the Zhang et. al paper is at http://cires.colorado.edu/jimenez/Papers/GRL_Global_OA_Published.pdf It is about developing better methods of analyzing the organic aerosol fraction (hydrocarbons, etc.) which doesn’t say anything about the sulphate fraction. Their main point is that a large (dominant) fraction of the organic aerosols are partially oxidized. They didn’t measure anything but the organic species.
What is known is that many aerosol components have a highly variable spatial and temporal distribution, due to their low residence time in the atmosphere. For a very interesting look using airborne mass spec sampling, see here
Figure 2 there shows how variable aerosols can be, but sulphate is always a major component. The two graphs on the right show a city region in the morning and in the afternoon - there is quite a difference. In the morning, sulphate aerosols dominate; in the afternoon it is nitrate (probably from NOx production by automobiles).
This high variability means that the effects of aerosols on climate are not easy to work out. The general notion is that reflective aerosols at high levels tend to cool the atmosphere, while other light-absorbing aerosols at low tropospheric levels tend to warm the atmosphere. Sorting out the net effect is thus complex, and will vary from region to region. Take the infamous “Asian Brown Cloud”, for example (2007), which appears to have a net warming effect:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v448/n7153/abs/nature06019.html
The strategy used is pretty remarkable:
(http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/aug2007/2007-08-01-02.asp and also http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/08/02/1995217.htm )
This just goes to show the complex nature of this area of climate science. What has been clearly shown is that when volcanoes inject aerosols into the upper troposphere, it cools the climate for a few years. The net effect of human-generated aerosols is more complicated and regionally variable - for example, in contrast to the local warming effect of the Asian Brown Cloud, global shipping produces large amounts of cooling reflective sulphate aerosols: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/08/990820022710.htm
Thus, sulfur emissions from ship boiler fuel and and coal are why sulphates are thought to be the main anthropogenic aerosol.
15 July 2008 at 10:01
Here’s what governor Schwarzeneger had to say about that last Sunday:
I couldn’t have said it better myself.
15 July 2008 at 11:53
@ #42.
You make some interesting points, though my research involves single-particle mass spectrometry of atmospheric aerosols to study their chemical composition and mixing state as a function of particle size, so I’m well aware of these issues and they are important. I am at UCSD and well aware of Ramanathan’s work with UAVs, they are definitely providing important unique insights. Here is a recent paper of mine to give you an idea of what I do:
Sullivan, R. C., and Prather, K. A.: Investigations of the diurnal cycle and mixing state of oxalic acid in individual particles in Asian aerosol outflow, Environ. Sci. Technol., 41 (23), 8062-8069, 2007.
And a review article from a few years back:
Sullivan, R. C., and Prather, K. A.: Recent advances in our understanding of atmospheric chemistry and climate made possible by on-line aerosol analysis instrumentation, Anal. Chem., 77 (12), 3861-3885, 2005.
Your interpretation of the Zhang et al. paper is incorrect. In Figure 1 they show the fraction of non-refractory PM1 aerosol mass that was organics, nitrate, sulphate, chloride, or ammonium. The organic mass fraction dominates.
There are many other studies that show that organics are a major fraction of submicron aerosol mass, using filter measurements, the AMS, and also single-particle mass spectrometry and electron microscopy. This one was just to easiest way to show the chemical composition for a wide range of locations. While sulphate is an important aerosol component, it is typically NOT the dominant anthropogenic aerosol component. More importantly, pure (ammonium) sulphate particles are rarely found to exist in the lower troposphere via single-particle analysis. They are typically found to be internally mixed with other particles types including soot, organics, mineral dust, biomass smoke, etc.
Yes, ships emit a lot of sulphate and its precursors, but they also produce a lot of soot and some organics as well. It depends on the type of fuel they are burning. Military ships usually burn very low-sulphur fuel so that their emissions do not produce ship tracks.
15 July 2008 at 12:30
#41 Pete Best.
Re. Hansen. I think it is interesting to read his strong stance about coal plants…ie. To paraphrase him, close all of them down unless they do carbon sequestering (storing CO2).
15 July 2008 at 12:50
Re 42 & 44
I think it is reasonably well established that organics often dominate the aerosol composition by mass, but what is less known is what proportion of that organic aerosol is anthropogenic, and thus what is the dominant *anthropogenic* component. The anthropogenic fraction of sulfate is bound to be larger (at least over the continents) than that of organic aerosol. For climate models what matters is the anthopogenic enhancement. It is clear that any single species approximation has severe shortcomings.
15 July 2008 at 18:01
Re #45, ah yes coal, 1000 new stations almost certain to be build globally within 5 to 10 years. The US ones will be carried through by CCS sequestration ready logos assgigned to them. G8 etc will ush it through and CTL and more tar sands etc.
15 July 2008 at 20:05
Re: coal
This to me seams a more real wildcard on the negative (vs. current projections) side than most other worries.
If we don’t start really spinning up rational energy plans, then more, not less, coal will be burned.
Conservation, renewables, nukes and even more oil drilling would all be better than falling back on coal.
PS., a meta comment on the Gore debate. This is a simple example of how well media based progranda can win over reason. I think the OP really did believe he heard him say it.
16 July 2008 at 10:27
If the logic dictated by scientific insights, as outlined regularly here, were to be followed,then one might expect very substantial spending on research and development of alternative energy technologies. However, as many will know, forty percent of US taxes go on the military. A relatively tiny amount on science.
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/taxchart2008
which leads me to ponder why so, what’s the thinking ? I don’t know, but perhaps this piece suggests what the reasoning is, or was.
http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2008/07/02/the_end_of_civilization
Taken from a selection of opinions as to what the future has in store for us, here :
http://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/
16 July 2008 at 13:14
Ryan uses the word “component” and Gavin uses the word “contribution” for sulfates.
I’m guessing:
Does “component” refer to a total fraction of what’s in the air — weight, volume, length of hang time in the air? And does “contribution” refer to known radiative forcing effect?
Or do the other components have unknown forcings?
16 July 2008 at 14:49
Re#44 ., The IPCC 4th report has a very detailed section on aerosols and their effects, from both modeling and measurement perspectives (2.4.4):
For sulphate aerosols, the IPCC (2.4.4) reports that the main sources of sulphate aerosol are via SO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning (72%), biomass burning (2%), marine plankton (19%), and volcanic emissions (7%). They also describe organic carbon aerosols, black carbon aerosols, biomass burning aerosols, mineral and nitrate aerosols, and mixtures thereof - all backed up by detailed discussion and piles of studies and references.
Regarding the fact that aerosols are usually combinations of sub-types see also (2.4.4.)- “The role of nonlinear processes of aerosol dynamics in RF has been recently studied in global aerosol models that account for the internally mixed nature of aerosol particles.”
The Asian brown clouds seem to show these effects nicely - see www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/102/15/5326.pdf (Ramanthan et al 2005, modeling atmospheric brown clouds). There, the organic carbon aerosol content plays a major role. It also shows aerosol influence via both direct radiative forcing and indirect cloud-precipitation effects.
Regarding Zhang et al - their methods section is what I was looking at. What I was getting at was that they were not attempting to measure global distributions of aerosols and their compositions - their datasets and previous work focus on the fate of hydrocarbon-rich industrial aerosols after emission (see http://www.asrc.cestm.albany.edu/qz/Pittsburgh_HOAOOA.pdf for example). Their results seem to have some implications for how models treat aerosols, but they don’t change the overall picture or the IPCC summation. Regional variation matters - aerosols over California now are of the biomass burning variety, for example (is that anthropogenic or not?) - but the basic conclusions seem reliable.
How does all this affect the “clean coal” discussion? “Clean coal” is an oxymoron that means that the only emission products are carbon dioxide and water - all the mercury, arsenic, nitrogen and sulfur components of coal have been removed (to your local rivers and groundwater via coal slurry effluent runoff) either before or after combustion (and also the combustion is more complete - less partially oxidized hydrocarbons and particulates) - but not the CO2. With “clean coal” we’ll continue to reduce anthropogenic aerosol emissions while also increasing atmospheric CO2 - meaning that spending billions to retrofit coal plants with “clean coal technology” will do nothing to slow the rate of global warming. To do that, you’d want to replace coal plants with wind and solar generation systems.
Shipping is another major problem. Sulfur content of boiler fuel is at 4.5% (the proposed global cap) and some regions want lower 1.5% content. Cleaning up shipping along the “clean coal” lines will result in much higher tranportation costs, and no CO2 emission reduction - but figuring out how to do global transport of goods without access to fossil fuels? That’s a tough one. Wind-powered ships and camel caravans?
16 July 2008 at 15:42
Ike Solem wrote: “… figuring out how to do global transport of goods without access to fossil fuels? That’s a tough one. Wind-powered ships and camel caravans?”
Global transport of goods is dependent not only on access to fossil fuels, but on access to cheap, abundant fossil fuels. And the era of cheap, abundant fossil fuels is coming to its inevitable end, whether or not we voluntarily reduce fossil fuel use to address global warming. And the era of large-scale global transport of goods will end with it. In the future most material goods will be produced locally and regionally, for local and regional use. In my view, this new era of local and regional self-reliance — in which human societies will adapt living within the carrying capacity of the bioregion within which they exist — will be a good thing.
16 July 2008 at 16:05
One of the many things that impresses me about Hansen is his ability to maintain a publicly optimistic view that we will be able to divert from Business as Usual in time to avoid dangerous climate change. This is I think the key to his effectiveness.
But. But as he notes, with CO2 already at 386ppm and the safe level now identified as below 350ppm (probably 300) most countries will I believe simply join the stampede to build as much infrastructure as fast as they can to lever themselves up on the other guy’s shoulders so that when it all falls over they have an edge – their nose above water – so to speak. BAU was more of the same, while I see exponential growth of emissions until we hit the wall.
Simple things point this way – like Texas crude takes about 1.5 barrels of oil to yield a barrel of petrol, while shale oil takes almost 6. To produce petrol from coal China is building gassification plants – but they have to build another coal-fired power plant to provide the energy for the gasification plant. Goodness knows with the CO2 multiplier is on that deal! So even with a steady-state BAU we are seeing constant ramp up of emissions. Compound that with the development of the less-developed world – with giving every Indian and Chinese family a car and I’m sure that the only way CO2 is ever going to get back to below 350ppm will be by weathering of rocks in a post-human world.
The times of the Holocene were truly halcyon days, the Anthropocene will be short and brutal.
16 July 2008 at 17:01
Learn from the example of Greenpeace researchers Lonnie Dupre and Eric Larsen.
16 July 2008 at 18:06
Can the rate of melt of the Greenland Ice Sheet (GIS) be obtained?
Can this be used to extrapolate what the temperature rise rate is for the NH? And possible infer from it, what the expected accelerated temperature rise will be?
16 July 2008 at 22:50
RE: Shipping.
I know its somewhat counter-intuitive but ship transport is actually ridiculously energy efficient per mile per kilogram of good. Followed by rail. Then truck. The “last mile” of the suburban consumer driving to the store typically costs more energy per kilogram of good than the entire ocean transport. The problem of globalization is that America has exported its lifestyle to the rest of the world. Oops.
Robin
17 July 2008 at 0:42
Paulm, I doubt it and don’t see why you’d try. Why would one try to figure out a global temperature number from one local measurement of the current Greenland melt rate? The models (you can read at the Start Here link, top of page) are trying to work out these answers using an enormous variety of different pieces of information.
There are hints — look at the paleo work, read about past climate change. I noted one science newsletter comment about this kind of question a while back, here:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-06/uoca-gic061808.php
17 July 2008 at 0:58
NOAA: Warm June for U.S. with Wet and Dry Extremes,
Eighth Warmest June on Record for Globe
Can we expect extreme weather events to help moderate temperature rise due to dissipation of energy?
17 July 2008 at 8:23
SecularAnimist (52), No more international or intranational trade, very little intrastate exchange, folks in upper midwest and lower Canada are the only ones in the western hemisphere that can make and eat bread, e.g: how you visually this as a good thing per se is mind boggling.
Robin (56), interesting observation (efficiency of marine shipping) but it doesn’t answer the question. With diesel gone, would it still be efficient if every ship needs tons of batteries? Or is it conceivable (and still efficient) to refurbish all (large, at least??) ships with nuclear engines?
Anyone: is the two-word spam gate case sensitive?
17 July 2008 at 11:00
That cartoon is perfect… I would like to use it on my site!
17 July 2008 at 11:41
Perhaps its time for refresher on “scientific facts”:
http://www.acme.com/jef/singing_science/scientific_fact-160.mp3
From: Singing Science Records: http://www.acme.com/jef/singing_science/
17 July 2008 at 12:04
Rob B (59)
Well. Diesel engines don’t have to run on petroleum diesel - so obviously “biologically-derived” diesel fuel would certainly work.
Modern sailing ships which can go faster than most rust-bucket freighters might be an interesting alternative for certain goods - particularly those with high value to weigh ratios. It would require a specialized port for automated loading and unloading (perfectly feasible).
17 July 2008 at 13:41
Read about Beluga Shipping for wind assisted diesel ships. About 10% from wind.
17 July 2008 at 14:33
Paulm:
Locally, obviously yes. A nice thunderstorm can break up a heat wave for a while.
Globally, I doubt it. Can you think of an extreme weather event that would transfer of heat energy away from the planet? Weather doesn’t reach that high.
Are you basing your question on something you read, or do you have a theory?
17 July 2008 at 16:48
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/upload/july08.pdf
Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered
Conclusion
Even if temperature had risen above natural variability, the recent solar Grand Maximum may have been chiefly responsible.
Even if the sun were not chiefly to blame for the past half-century’s warming, the IPCC has not demonstrated that, since CO2 occupies only one-ten-thousandth part more of the atmosphere that it did in 1750, it has contributed more than a small fraction of the warming. Even if carbon dioxide were chiefly responsible for the warming that ceased in 1998 and may not resume until 2015, the distinctive, projected fingerprint
of anthropogenic “greenhouse-gas” warming is entirely absent from the observed record. Even if the fingerprint were present, computer models are long proven to be inherently incapable of providing projections of the future state of the climate that are sound enough for policymaking. Even if per impossibile the models could ever become reliable, the present paper demonstrates that it is not at all likely that the world will warm as much as the IPCC imagines. Even if the world were to warm that much, the overwhelming majority of the scientific, peer-reviewed literature does not predict that catastrophe would ensue. Even if catastrophe might ensue, even the most drastic proposals to mitigate future climate change by reducing emissions of carbon dioxide would make very little difference to the climate. Even if mitigation were likely to be effective, it would do more harm than good: already
millions face starvation as the dash for biofuels takes agricultural land out of essential food production: a warning that taking precautions, “just in case”, can do untold harm unless there is a sound, scientific basis for them. Finally, even if mitigation might do more good than harm, adaptation as (and if) necessary would be far more cost-effective and less likely to be harmful.
In short, we must get the science right, or we shall get the policy wrong. If the concluding equation in this analysis (Eqn. 30) is correct, the IPCC’s estimates of climate sensitivity must have been very much exaggerated. There may, therefore, be a good reason why, contrary to the projections of the models on which the IPCC relies, temperatures have not risen for a decade and have been falling since the phase-transition in global temperature trends that occurred in late 2001. Perhaps real-world climate sensitivity is very much below the IPCC’s estimates. Perhaps, therefore, there is no “climate crisis” at all. At present, then, in policy terms there is no case for doing anything. The correct policy approach to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing.
17 July 2008 at 22:49
Hank Roberts:
If snow falls on dark ground, and covers it, the albedo of that part of the Earth greatly increases. Until the snow melts, the snow will be reflecting energy, thus transferring it away from the planet. Similar thinking applies to the formation of sea ice. This is in part why some people are concerned about shrinking snow cover, shrinking sea ice, and so forth. So there are weather events that transfer heat energy way from the planet. But they become either less common or less effective, or both, as the Earth gets warmer.
18 July 2008 at 0:13
Hank Roberts,
Ok, NH temperature rise.
If the rate of melt occurring across the whole of green land can be estimated then then we have much more than a local measurement.
This could give us more idea on the inertia of the temperature rise in the NH. It could be one more approach in the variety used in the models.
It is also a very direct indication of the rate of average temperature rise, like the melting of the permafrost. Seasonal and yearly temp variations don’t influence it to any extent.
18 July 2008 at 0:21
Hank Roberts:
Are you basing your question on something you read, or do you have a theory?
No theory. Just brain storming.
We are having more than average strong storms and extreme precipitation across the globe. Presumably more clouds and dust too. I am just wondering about the energy dynamics and the effect on temperatures.
18 July 2008 at 2:51
Shorter Monckton:
Even IF the science is right, the policy is right, everything is right, right on down the line…
YOU ARE STILL WRONG.
18 July 2008 at 5:38
Richard Wakefield posts:
The Solar constant has not gone appreciably up or down for 50 years. A flat level of illumination can’t account for the sharp upturn in global warming of the past 30 years.
It isn’t.
That much extra carbon dioxide represents 1600 grams for every square meter of Earth’s surface, more than enough to make a difference. 100 ppm may not seem like much to you, but 0.1 ppm of fluorine will kill you. Small proportions aren’t always relevant, and certainly they aren’t in this case.
It didn’t:
Why Tim Ball is Wrong
Why Tilo Reber is Wrong
The rest of your screed being based on the above mistakes, your conclusions do not follow.
18 July 2008 at 6:17
Re: 65. In other words, Monckton doesn’t want us to do anything. Clearly he doesn’t understand risk management! I’m also intrigued to know why he doesn’t publish this in the peer-reviewed literature if he thinks he’s right.
18 July 2008 at 8:00
Re 65: Wow! Monckton manages to cycle through the standard loop without skipping a beat:
It’s not happening.
And if it is, it’s the sun doing it.
And if it isn’t the sun, it’s not CO2.
And if it is CO2, it’s not happening anyway.
And if it is happening, computer models are stupid.
And if they’re not stupid, it doesn’t matter because it’s not happening.
And if it is happening, it’s not a big deal.
And if it is a big deal, there’s nothing can be done.
And if anything can be done, it will destroy civilization.
And if it won’t destroy civilization, it still doesn’t matter.
And besides, it’s not happening.
(repeat)
18 July 2008 at 10:22
Gavin:
I think that since APS has decided to give airtime to Monckton, and since this is getting a lot of play in the denialosphere, it would be well worth the effort to compose a proper reply.
And by “proper,” I mean a complete expose not only of how Monckton is dead wrong, but how utterly infantile his analysis is and how utterly foolish it was to allow it on APS in the first place. His “paper” should be squashed — Bambi meets Godzilla. In fact, the right response will put an end to this malarkey from APS once and for all.
And the right person to do it is: you.
I know it’s work, I know you’re busy — but your planet needs you.
18 July 2008 at 11:15
http://www.aps.org/
APS Climate Change Statement
APS Position Remains Unchanged
The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007:
“Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate.”
An article at odds with this statement recently appeared in an online newsletter of the APS Forum on Physics and Society, one of 39 units of APS. The header of this newsletter carries the statement that “Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum.” This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed.
18 July 2008 at 12:21
The Monckton paper is hysterical. On the first page he states, “The models heavily relied upon by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had not projected this multidecadal stasis in “global warming”;
Then, he shows figure 2, which shows scenario B from Dr. Hansen’s 1988 model runs. It clearly shows a 7 year period from 2010 to 2017 with stable and even declinging temperatures! The bozo contradicts himself in one page.
Go to the denialist websites and they’re hyping this paper as the end of the global warming consensus. The lack of scientific understanding and the ability to read critically is their biggest problem.
18 July 2008 at 17:07
Magically, this has appeared as a preface to Monckton’s paper:
I’d guess that the editor, who invited Monckton and two physicists to post opposing viewpoints, while coyly stating “we need to stick to the science”, has been informed by the APS leadership that Monckton’s crap doesn’t quite fit that ground rule …
Editor gone wild! Embarrassing the APS. I’d say that’s the best read on it, at the moment.
18 July 2008 at 18:28
mr sheppard has generated quite a scathing rebuttal to this article.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/07/17/nasa-climate-alarmist-attacks-newsbusters-sheppard#comment-664086
my apologies for not using my real name on this comment. i disagree with the writers at NEWSBUSTERS.ORG on a regular basis, i am bullied regularly and have been threatened in the past by its users. (they can be a nasty lot.) you will be able to identify my comments by my pseudonym: a beautiful person.
[Response: Thanks for stepping in. If you go back you might want to point out the irony of a journalist not actually recognising what the source material for his original post was. A little fact checking might go a long way. - gavin]
18 July 2008 at 21:06
regarding “fossil fuels”. Everyone here needs to take a freshmen chemistry class over again. It has been proven that you can take inorganic materials and make organic alkanes other than methane using heat and pressure. A thorough analysis of phase diagrams would be in order. Sandia National Labs has a method to generate methane using inorganic materials and a solar concentrator. Changing conditons yields other products. All from INORGANIC MATERIALS. This confirms previous experiments and theory (backed by the laws of physics and thermodynamics)and published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Belief that fossil fuels derive from plants and dinosaurs is for stupid people. The only thing you can generate from decaying plant matter, even under anerobic conditions within 200 feet of the earths surface is…Methane. Wise up, folks.
18 July 2008 at 21:15
Hi a beautiful person,
I tried to join Newsbusters last week and they have not let me in. I suspect they do not accept folks from here in order to maintain the illusion of an honest debate over there.
18 July 2008 at 22:27
Follow-up to the post above…
I am a long time member of News Busters and can assure you that ‘a beautiful person’ has never been threatened. The problem is that whenever abp is asked a question, we only get insults as a reply. But I will admit, once a person like abp starts with the insults we are sure to do likewise. It’s only natural that people will defend themself and we are no different than you in that regard.
Anyone willing to debate the science of, or the media response to AGW is welcomed, but keep in mind that NB’s focus is bias in the media.
As an aside, NB has a wonderful archive, and if you really want to question Noel Sheppards arguments I suggest you review the archives because he has written a mountains worth of info. The only reason people don’t like his findings is they go against the present day alarmism that is AGW, Climate Crisis, or whatever the heck it’s called nowadays.
Thanks for listening.
[Response: Umm…as the target for the latest smear, I’ll withhold comment on your site’s penchant for character assassination in lieu of fact-based argument. But on the off chance you are serious, stick around here and see how discussions can actually evolve without people resorting to ad homs. - gavin]
19 July 2008 at 0:57
Clear thinker,
the entire tone of that article is to bash Gavin and play semantical games when science says “smog” and “aerosols” mean different things. Given that we have to scroll half way down the page to find any semblance of a scientific point, you should reconsider who is dedicated to truth, and who to ad homs.
19 July 2008 at 1:33
re: #76
This stuff didn’t just start with the July 2008 issue, as mixed in with quite reasonable articles are others:
The April issue has an article by Gerald Marsh (retired Argonne (nuclear?) physicist:
Climate Stability and Policy, which says:
“In this essay, however, I will argue that humanity faces a much greater danger from the glaciation associated with the next Ice Age, and that the carbon dioxide increases that we have seen during the past two hundred years are not sufficient to avert such glaciation and its associated disruptions to the biosphere and civilization as we know it.”
“Thus, while an enduring temperature rise of similar magnitude over the next century would cause humanity to face some changes that would undoubtedly be within our spectrum of adaptability (we have done so in the past), entering a new ice age would be catastrophic for the preservation of modern civilization.”
====
It will be interesting to see what happens to that Forum, as it is certainly clear that the APS powers-that-be are well aware of the issue.
19 July 2008 at 2:28
#78
You must be reading the most incredibly selective selection of papers to be still going with this model. You are implying you have more than freshman chemistry? Then I suggest you try modern papers on oil generation - google for Braun and Burnham for instance. I build computer models for oil and gas generation from organic source rock, based solidly on laboratory experiments for kerogen kinetics kilometers down in the earth’s crust. Also make use of biomarkers for sorting out the types of source - eg various coal type versus planktonic ooze. While an inorganic source is possible for methane, so far it appears to be very very small.
19 July 2008 at 5:07
Newsbusters is an atrocious site. How does calling people names or an “if you insult me, Ill insult you back” attitude further any understanding of global warming or bias in the media about it?
19 July 2008 at 5:42
Does multidecadel not mean “spanning more than one decade”. Am I wrong or is 10, 20, 30 yeras etc not more than 7? Check my math on this but I am prety sure that 7 years is not “multidecadel”
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, er, insult, er … well read before you post
[Response: Yes. But that is the term used by Monckton - gavin]
19 July 2008 at 8:22
Sorry for off-topic question.
And sorry for bringing up a topic that should be dead and buried by now..
Regarding the correlation between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and air temperature determined from the Vostok Antarctica ice core, Caillon et al. 2003 stated that:
“the radiative forcing due to CO2 may serve as an amplifier of initial orbital forcing, which is then further amplified by fast atmospheric feedbacks that are also at work for the present day and future climate”
The data shows that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend (the infamous lag).
The data are tightly correlated together. In other words, one on top of the other, horizontally and vertically, they fit nicely, with max r value after 800 year shift.
So where is the initial warming without CO2? There’s no difference in the vertical (between CO2 and temp)
The feedback mechanism best explains my question, however, I was expecting at least some difference in the vertical.
19 July 2008 at 8:50
“But I will admit, once a person like abp starts with the insults we are sure to do likewise.”
The latest Newsbusters thread is filled with insults and juvenile comments about people’s appearence. The commenters remind me of junior high school children both in their demeanor and in their understanding of science and the scientific method. One key difference: I have hope that the junior high schoolers will one day grow up.
19 July 2008 at 9:06
Gavin, can you show me where Noel used the word ‘Photochemical’ in his post.
[Response: I, unlike, Mr. Sheppard read the EPA report that the media piece was based on (linked above). It is a report about about ozone and photochemical smog. I would advise you and Mr. Sheppard to check your sources before pontificating. - gavin]
19 July 2008 at 9:12
Mr. News Buster believes ‘any publicity is good publicity’ and is claiming that he was cited by RC and Dot Earth so he’s now serious news.
Eschew! http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=NewsBusters
19 July 2008 at 9:19
David, “orbital forcing” +Vostok +”ice core” are the search terms you might find useful. Try a few of these and see if it helps:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22orbital+forcing%22+%2BVostok+%2B%22ice+core%22&hl=en&lr=&scoring=r&as_ylo=2003
19 July 2008 at 10:46
Everyone here needs to take a freshmen chemistry class over again. It has been proven that you can take inorganic materials and make organic alkanes other than methane using heat and pressure.
So you think that carbon bearing materials can be synthesized from non carbon bearing materials, outside of stellar nucleosynthesis. That would be a neat trick.
The renaissance era awaits you!
19 July 2008 at 11:27
David (#86) The initial warming is from orbital changes which bring the earth a bit closer to the sun and/or change the tilt. These are called Milankovich cycles
19 July 2008 at 11:29
Rob (#78) you would be hard pressed to explain the generation of methane in garbage dumps and from mulch piles. People are actually using this for heating and transportation fuel.
19 July 2008 at 11:58
Hansen mentioned in Soros Foundation 2006 Annual Report
http://www.soros.org/resources/articles_publications/publications/annual_20070731/a_complete.pdf
Scientist Protests NASA’s Censorship Attempts James E. Hansen, the director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at NASA, protested attempts to silence him after officials at NASA ordered him to refer press inquiries to the public affairs office and required the presence of a public affairs representative at any interview. The Government Accountability Project, a whistleblower protection organization and OSI grantee, came to Hansen’s defense by providing legal and media advice. The campaign on Hansen’s behalf resulted in a decision by NASA to revisit its media policy.
[Response: Your point? If you want more details about Jim Hansen, see here, but I fail to see how relevant this is to Noel Sheppard’s inability to tell the troposphere from the stratosphere or my pointing out of the fact. - gavin]
19 July 2008 at 12:42
I too am a member of NewsBusters. My principal goal in belonging is to probe conservative thought processes and come to understand why people on the far right—and that’s what NewsBusters represents—work so hard to deny global warming.
One observation: Anything that suggests that humans may be having an adverse impact on the environment threatens the extreme free-market worship that these people engage in. After all, free markets are supposed to lead to POSITIVE outcomes, so suggesting that market choices can sometimes do otherwise is a sacrilege.
A second observation: these people lack self awareness. Commentators there self-righteously bash liberal sites for nasty comments, but they can be incredibly nasty themselves.
As for Noel Sheppard, he is an extreme idealogue who is determined to hold onto his preconceptions no matter what. Having determined in his own mind that global warming is just a bunch of hooey cooked up by Al Gore and other leftists, he’ll go to ridiculous lengths to highlight some quote or factoid that seems to call the whole thing into question. He reminds me a cult member in serious need of deprogramming.
19 July 2008 at 14:18
David (86) — In somewhat more detail, marine cores from the Pacific Warm Pool show that the temperature rise from LGM to HCO, ending the last ‘ice age’, was initiated by temperature increases in the deep ocean. Later the surface waters warmed and then the CO2 concentration began to rise.
The warming of the deep ocean is not yet fully understood, but is hypothesised to be from orbital forcing in Antarctica.
19 July 2008 at 15:22
In his July 18 rebuttal to this topic, Noel Sheppard places himself in the company of George Will,a pundit, James Inhofe, a Senator, Michael Crichton, a sci fi writer, and Fox News, a news orgaization,among others Noble professions all, but are they in the sciences?
He quotes Roger Pielke Jr. as follows:
“The site’s(RealClimate) focus has been exclusively on attacking those who invoke science as the basis for their opposition to action on climate change, folks such as George Will, Senator James Inhofe, Michael Crichton, McIntyre and McKitrick, Fox News, and Myron Ebell. Whether intended or not, the site has clearly aligned itself squarely with one political position on climate change.”
He then goes on to say that that puts him in good company.
What can one say.Birds of a feather deny together.
19 July 2008 at 16:48
I’ve learnt a huge amount from rc and I can feel your frustration with the nonsense/misinformation spouted by the likes of monckton and sheppard. But I think most right-headed individuals that are likely to look at rc and listen will already have made their own judgements about a site with a tagline ‘exposing & combating the liberal media bias’ (for a start I don’t see much in the mainstream US media I would call liberal….libertarian maybe). I’ve just read the predictable response from sheppard and engaging with them only seems to force them to the next level of nonsense and mendacity.
19 July 2008 at 18:41
Gavin, you seem to be confused with the multiple definitions of some words. By admitting aerosols are pollution then you are admitting that when aerosols are present in the air and restrict light they can be defined as smog as defined by NOAA:
Smog: “Originally smog meant a mixture of smoke and fog. Now, it means air that has restricted visibility due to pollution…” - NOAA.
Thus your statement that “Aerosols are not smog” is not truthful.
[Response: I’m sure you are holding NB to as high a definitional standard. But literally you are confused. Aerosols are any atmospheric particle - sulphates, nitrates, dust, pollen, organics, sea salt etc. - they are not exclusive to anthropogenic sources and for the most part are not pollution (sea salt in the southern ocean? dust in the Atlantic?), though of course they can be (especially in Beijing now, Pittsburgh in the 1950s etc). Smog, as all the definitions state, is an amorphous mix but it isn’t specifically aerosols and in the context of the original press report referred specifically to ozone. The confusion is not mine but Sheppard’s who took a paper about sulphate reductions in Europe and a report about ozone in the US and thought they were the same thing. My statement is literally true - Sheppard’s very confused. How about acknowledging that before accusing me of lying? - gavin]
19 July 2008 at 20:29
Re #80 Clear Thinker
First, what is your real name? Do you work for NB in any way shape or form? If so at least have the integrity of honor and use your real name. Even if you don’t work for them, I’d like to know who you are.
I watched news buster a couple of times and the overall tone is designed to be comedy while degrading something someone said or in the case of AGW a scientifically sound point. This is done by saying the point is wrong and typically in an insulting manner. Sort of Rodney Dangerfield like I suppose, but to represent it in any way shape or form as a news site is an insult to truth.
Newsbusters is the last place anyone should go to debate science. It is obviously not interested in science. It is a specific type of media that targets a particular type of base to espouse pontificated malarky in the name of truth. Rush Limbaugh and many others do this. You market to your base and you get to make money, the more specifically targeted, the more you solidify the audience. Truth has nothing to do with such efforts, it’s about the money and the malarky generally speaking.
NB is a political attack site on liberals and while I don’t agree with many policies born of political inbred policy formation that come from either side of the aisle that cater to special interests, I disagree with the method of attack NB uses which is derogatory.
“We are under attack!” - A Primer on Political Spin
http://www.uscentrist.org/news/2006/under-attack-political-spin/
Does hot air from politicians contribute to global warming?
http://www.uscentrist.org/news/2006/hot-air-politicians/
Hot Air in the Media Contributes to Global Warming!
http://www.uscentrist.org/news/2007/hot-air-in-media/
If someone actually believes things that you have not fact checked, well, that’s just naivete or ignorance, meaning to ignore the relevant context and data. The best defense NB can use is to just say hey we’re not news, were comedy. That’s supposed to get them off the hook for not representing the science in context. No, this is serious stuff and they are part of a the disinformation campaign now, probably by their own choosing.
Misleading the public on the science of global warming is easily understood as unethical when all ramifications are considered. I would add that it is also immoral. Conservatives have long claimed to have the moral high ground, and while that is arguable, they have no moral ground whatsoever on the science of global warming.
I say this as a conservative. And when I say conservative I mean the kind of conservative my father was in that he raised us all to always shut of the water, close the door, to not waste energy etc. He was a die hard republican all the way. I am a centrist, but that does not mean I am not a conservative. it’s not a political word to me, it’s an ideal.
If you want to debate science you have to have some science first to debate. The news busters site pertaining to the AGW argument simply doesn’t have any science. No surprise though.
You are stating that NB’s focus in bias in the media. That is funny, you are not a news site and you are using bias to make your points. It is not possible to be more obtuse or contradictory in your statement.
The very first sentence in the NB about page is
So the NB focus is not ‘bias in the media’, it is bias against liberal media. If you are unable to differentiate that then you are likely overly biased in the sense that you are conservative and don’t like liberal bias ,but prefer conservative bias. That is a silly argument.
Your idea of a wonderful archive is a subjective claim. If you are saying there is a wonderful archive of attempts to be comedic while espousing disinformation without fact checking that is biased against liberals or liberal thinking, that is a different argument. Or, if you don’t think it is disinformation, then espousing incorrect information and representing it as truth; then I may very well agree with you that NB has a wonderful archive of incorrect information and are representing it as truth.
If you are saying that the archive is full of relevant contextual well founded stories that have been fact checked and are accurate and fair in their presentation… Well, if you believe that… I’ve got some lovely stable ice sheets in the Arctic I’d like to sell you. Wonderful ice flow views and they will be there for a long, long time so you don’t have to worry about any house you might build up there falling into the ocean.
Taking little shards of truth and purposefully spinning them out of context or claiming that what is scientifically known and well understood about global warming is ‘not the truth of the matter’…, especially while catering to a specific base or supporting political bias over truth is dishonest. It does not matter if you call it entertainment or not.
19 July 2008 at 20:48
Re. #95 johninoregon
You bring up an interesting point that I will try to shed some context on. Current conservatives are not really conservatives. They are ideologues that believe profit is more important than value. This also exposes the misnomer that profit is money. There are many ways to understand this though.
I believe in objective value which supposedly has a component of reason. What people like, Larry Kudlow, on MSNBC talk about, is free market. Free markets rule!
They are all missing one critical point.
We don’t exist in a free market.
[edit - I’m not going to go down the gold standard road - please stay approximately on topic]
We exist in a mixed market that is subject not only to regulation to ensure stability by the world banking system and the Basel conventions, but one that is also, courtesy of Buckley v. Valeo and other laws and legislation, to special interest influence over our political system.
That is the reason to be religiously conservative in the modern definition. One must protect ones profits.
But real profit is something tangible. something you can hang on to. So temporary profits that will go away as the economic system is strained by global warming and the overuse of fossil fuels and other resources is not profit at all. It is a fallacy even an temporal illusion to think that that is profit. Because it is degrading the entire system.
People live in illusions because they are convenient and take little thought. No one wants to think. no one wants to work to earn money. Entitlement has taken over the republican party and while it has they are claiming that the democrats are the ones that are pushing the entitlement agenda. In truth, both parties are committing the same heinous crime of supporting entitlement over work and value.
It didn’t happen overnight, it snuck up on us. But it did happen and now we need to fix overwhelming problems. In the mean time, people like ‘Clear Thinker’ above try to get us to believe they know how to think clearly while selling us their own particular brand of snake oil.
Don’t buy it, the markets are not free and at this point in time it is not possible for them to be free. This is actually, and arguably the reason that while we are supposed to be cooler on the planet, and be heading in to our next ice age, it is no longer possible. We have abused value to such an extent through entitlement, that we have altered our climate system, and all those pretend dollars that people think they are earning in this regulated system will come under the influence of factors that will soon be difficult, if not impossible to control.
What a tangled web we weave.
19 July 2008 at 22:11
Does smoke from increased wildfires due to drier conditions in some areas because of global warming have a similar cooling effect as volcanoes? Is there any kind of feedback loop there? Or is it marginal? Does the soot and CO2 output from a wildfire overbalance any cooling effect in the long run?
19 July 2008 at 22:33
Gavin, you seem to be contradicting yourself:
“First they confuse aerosols with photochemical smog. Both are pollutants”
“Aerosols are any atmospheric particle - sulphates, nitrates, dust, pollen, organics, sea salt etc. - they are not exclusive to anthropogenic sources and for the most part are not pollution”
First you define them as pollution and then for the most part not. So which is it? It is clear from the many and varying definitions of smog, it can be composed of Aerosols.
“Smog, as all the definitions state, is an amorphous mix…”
Actually all the definitions do not state this…
Smog - “a mixture of fog and smoke or other airborne pollutants such as exhaust fumes” (Encarta)
Smog - “fog or haze intensified by smoke or other atmospheric pollutants.” - Compact Oxford English Dictionary
Smog - “air pollution, especially in cities, that is caused by a mixture of smoke, gases and chemicals” - Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary
Smog - “a haze caused by the effect of sunlight on foggy air that has been polluted by vehicle exhaust gases and industrial smoke” - Wordsmyth
Smog - “Mixture of particulate matter and chemical pollutants in the lower atmosphere, usually over urban areas.” - American Geography Glossary
Smog - “Originally smog meant a mixture of smoke and fog. Now, it means air that has restricted visibility due to pollution.” - NOAA.
You are correct your post is confusing because it states that Aerosols are not smog but are a pollutant, yet the definition of the word smog allows for it to be defined as composed of Aerosols and you then change your mind and claim it is not really pollution. This sort of inaccurate information coupled with links to an unreliable source such as Wikipedia makes one question the scientific integrity of this site. Someone reading you post would come to believe that smog cannot be composed of Aerosols which is not true.
[Response: You seem to be under the impression that all words must define single things that must either be exactly equal to or exactly orthogonal to all other words. Aerosols can be pollutants, they can be part of smog, they can also be natural. However they are not the same as smog - you cannot use the two words interchangeably. The two studies that were being discussed were related to sulphates (mainly) in Europe and tropospheric ozone in the US. Ozone is not an aerosol, though it does create photochemical smog and is also a pollutant. I’m sorry if this is confusing to you, but keep reading around and maybe it will get clearer. Meanwhile, I am still waiting for your acknowledgment that the equating of aerosols and smog was incorrect in the NB piece. - gavin]
19 July 2008 at 23:27
Wow, where to start. So much love from so many people makes a guy tear up. Let me first address the non-scientific stuff.
Someone asked me my real name, which I thought was a little odd because I see other people here using their net nicks without question…. Anyway, I am retired now so the only name I answer to is Pa-Paw by my lovely Granddaughter. You can just call me Clear for short. And no, I do not work for NB, but I am a long time poster and a long time advocate for the site. One of you seems confused about News Busters because you have only seen the once a week posting of what’s called News Busted which is our version of political satire and comedy. News Busters as a site covers bias in the media on a daily basis. I hope that clears up the confusion. One last note on News Busters… we* are a loving, humble group of people that love the opportunity to debate others, and can be the most genteel and polite folks you ever want to converse with. Unless you start attacking people, then at least in my case, I grow fangs.
*The ‘we’ I speak of are the posters and I am in no way trying to speak for the management of News Busters.
The other issue that I take issue with, is someone (actually more than one someone) trying to express what they think Conservatism is. I can clear this up very easily. A Conservative is someone that belives in the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense. Now when it comes to AGW, or Climate Change, or whatever it’s called, most Conservatives do not believe that the end of the world is here. Most of us are still waiting for science to step in and settle the argument once and for all. Presently, all we have is some consensus by some experts, and some non-consensus by lot’s of other experts. So in the meantime, we see no reason to scare the hell out of people, and we see no need to bankrupt this nation just to satisfy some experts consensus. Besides, the last five years have shown a cooling cycle not a warming one. Before you go off on my last sentence I would like to ask a question of Mr. Schmidt.
I have been following some of your arguments and it has raised a few Q’s…
Could you reply to Sheppard’s contention that your arithmetic was flawed concerning temperatures rising in Europe due to cleaner air not having an impact on global warming? Since average temperatures are a collection of data-points from around the world, if one continent’s temperatures are rising, doesn’t this impact the average? Isn’t this basic arithmetic?
I truly hope we can continue our little conversation over many polite and civil postings. Once again, thank you for your time.
20 July 2008 at 5:18
OFF TOPIC - TGGWS, Offcom ruling.
Dear RC, http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/jul/19/channel4.climatechange
Its just another unbelieveable ruling by humanities students who understand nowt about science but lots about the media.
20 July 2008 at 6:22
Gavin, In response to #6 you state “the sum total of the connection was a letter offering legal help which was not accepted. - gavin]”
With all due respects; Is this letter from Mr Hansen?
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20070927_Lawlessness.pdf
In it it states “I received a call from the President of the Government Accountability Project
(GAP) telling me that I had won the Ridenaur Award’ … “and offering pro bono legal advice. I agreed to accept the latter (temporarily), signing something to let them represent me (which had an escape clause that I later exercised).”
There is also a letter from Thomas Devine of the Government Accountability Project to Dr Michael Griffin, stating “The Governmental Accountability Project represents Dr James Hansen.
I would like to know if this is actually Mr Hansen’s letter.
[Response: yes. - gavin]
20 July 2008 at 10:19
Re#73 (tamino) “I think that since APS has decided to give airtime to Monckton, and since this is getting a lot of play in the denialosphere, it would be well worth the effort to compose a proper reply.”
That is probably not the best idea as it will merely serve to elevate another nonsensical issue. Rather than debunking drivel, the authors of this site should do what they do best - explain complex scientific topics related to climate change to the public.
In any case, the APS already published this statement on their website regarding the “paper”:
It’s a mistake to give the likes of Christopher Monckton and Michael Crichton any air time. They’re not interested in honest debate, just in manipulating public opinion - and to do that, they need to put themselves in the spotlight, which is what their silly “papers” are intended to accomplish.
Climate Science (the Roger Pielke Sr. website) has been doing their part to promote Monckton as a climate scientist - see their April 08 “guest scientist post”. They state that “Other climate scientists are encouraged to submit guest weblogs which support or seek to refute the analysis presented below.” Monckton is of course a newspaper editor who worked in the Thatcher administration.
This is actually good news - it means that the supply of Richard Lindzens has dried up, and that the holdouts in the fossil fuel lobby are now having to turn to third rate hacks to cook up their “scientific arguments against global warming” for them.
If you want to discuss how Monc