STRATOSPHERIC POLLUTER?: Eruptions like that of Soufriere Hill in Montserrat pictured here may be adding enough aerosols to the stratosphere recently to slow global warming--or coal burning in China may be the primary culprit.
Image: Courtesy of NASA
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Despite significant pyrotechnics and air travel disruption last year, the Icelandic volcano Eyjafjallajokull simply didn't put that many aerosols into the stratosphere. In contrast, the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991, put 10 cubic kilometers of ash, gas and other materials into the sky, and cooled the planet for a year. Now, research suggests that for the past decade, such stratospheric aerosols—injected into the atmosphere by either recent volcanic eruptions or human activities such as coal burning—are slowing down global warming.
"Aerosols acted to keep warming from being as big as it would have been," says atmospheric scientist John Daniel of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Earth System Research Laboratory, who helped lead the research published online in Science on July 21. "It's still warming, it's just not warming as much as it would have been."
Essentially, sulfur dioxide gets emitted near the surface, either by a coal-fired power plant's smokestack or a volcano. If that SO2 makes it to the stratosphere—the middle layer of the atmosphere 10 kilometers up—it forms droplets of diluted sulfuric acid, known as aerosols. These aerosols reflect sunlight away from the planet, shading the surface and cooling temperatures. And some can persist for a few years, prolonging that cooling.
By analyzing satellite data and other measures, Daniel and his colleagues found that such aerosols have been on the rise in Earth's atmosphere in the past decade, nearly doubling in concentration. That concentration has reflected roughly 0.1 watts per meter squared of sunlight away from the planet, enough to offset roughly one-third of the 0.28 watts per meter squared of extra heat trapped by rising atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. The researchers calculate that the aerosols prevented 0.07 degrees Celsius of warming in average temperatures since 2000.
The question is: why the increase in such aerosols? There have been plenty of smaller volcanic eruptions in recent years, such as the continuously erupting Soufriere Hills on Montserrat and Tavurvur on Papua New Guinea, which may have exploded enough SO2 into the atmosphere. And there has been plenty of coal burning in countries such as China, which now burns some 3 billion metric tons of the fuel rock per year, largely without the pollution controls that would scrub out the SO2, as is sometimes done in the U.S. In fact, a computer model study published July 5 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggested that such SO2 pollution in China has cancelled out the warming effects of rising greenhouse gas concentrations globally since 1998. Determining whether humans or volcanoes explain more of the increase in stratospheric aerosols is the focus of ongoing research, says PhD candidate Ryan Neely of the University of Colorado, who contributed to the NOAA research.
Combined with a decrease in atmospheric water vapor and a weaker sun due to the most recent solar cycle, the aerosol finding may explain why climate change has not been accelerating as fast as it did in the 1990s. The effect also illustrates one proposal for so-called geoengineering—the deliberate, large-scale manipulation of the planetary environment—that would use various means to create such sulfuric acid aerosols in the stratosphere to reflect sunlight and thereby hopefully forestall catastrophic climate change.
But that points up another potential problem: if aerosol levels, whether natural or human-made, decline in the future, climate change could accelerate—and China is adding scrubbing technology to its coal-fired power plants to reduce SO2 emissions and thereby minimize acid rain. In effect, fixing acid rain could end up exacerbating global warming. China "could cause some decreases [in stratospheric aerosols] if that is the source," Neely says, adding that growing SO2 emissions from India could also increase cooling if humans are the dominant cause of injecting aerosols into the atmosphere. On the other hand, "if some volcanoes that are large enough go off and if they are the dominant cause [of increasing aerosols], then we will probably see some increases" in cooling.
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
60 Comments
Add Commentburning coal is good?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is all getting 'sillier and sillier'
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou're dead wrong.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe computer models fit the overall temperature trend very well. So do back-of-envelope calculations. My atmospheric chemistry text book has calculus exercises for computing CO2 effects.
Arrhenius predicted increasing CO2 would warm the earth -- 100 years ago.
Climate cynics have major gaps in their theory of global non-warming. Perhaps you can explain:
(1) how we can calculate the greenhouse gas properties of CO2 from mathematical equations (quantum mechanics), confirm those properites in the laboratory, yet behave totally different in the atmosphere than in the laboratory.
(2) or how a 0.1% periodic fluctuation in the sun's output can cause a 4% jump in average global temperatures. (I know Fred Singer had some beautiful theories about that which crushed by actual evidence)
(3) or how come the last 2 times the average earth temperature became this warm was during the sunniest part of Milanovich cycle, while we are currently no where near the sunniest part. (Milanovich cycles are the variations in the Earth orbit and tilt that are linked to ice ages. Global temperatures tend to follow the Milanovich cycles, unless something unusual happens like massive transfers of greenhouse gases from within the earth by volcanos, or humans)
(4) Compare some honest graphs: it's a heck of a coincidence for temperatures to be rising virtually in lockstep with CO2, while there is an unknown mechanism counteracting warming from CO2, and while another unknown climate cycle warming the earth. (Especially considering that differences in the graphs are well explained by solar variations, volcanoes, and known climate cycles)
Common sense and common facts point to man-made climate change, and one really has to abuse both to argue otherwise.
Scientists, in general, are not at fault. Saying scientists are at fault inherently implies you are condeming doctors, chemists, physicists, paleontologist, engineers, astronauts, computer scientists, mathematicians, Nero scientists and everyone else who has contributed to evolving your life style. It shows you little of "science", to condemn all "scientists" is to condemn all tech progress man has made and all knowledge. It's conditions in which they live, a society who's leaders desire to create weapons of mass destruction and care not about long term public welfare, rather maximizing profit at ever opportunity no matter what the cost to society in the long term. I still can't believe you view media coverage of global warming as "inciting panic". This article itself proves the contrary. We have known for decades that aerosols and fine particulates can, in fact, block light and counteract the effects of heating. We have known for years that CO2 and other GHGs absorb more IR radiation than normal air and, as a result, move faster which is observed as an increase in temperature. Water vapor itself has both properties in that it can block light and cool, yet it also absorbs more than air. These are facts. One area of uncertainty in studying man’s effects on the climate is that we do not know how much of what we are putting into the air. How much CO2, particulates, etc. This is why we have pushed so hard for pollution monitoring at plants; these systems are cheap in comparison to profits, i install them (and many other plant systems) for a living. As a result combined with the fact that atmospheric variables are non-linear and can only be studied via statistics over long timelines, no 100% definitive answer is possible. Thus, scientists only warn of the statistical dangers. An issue you are ignoring: Cancer is the second largest cause of human death. in 1950, 25% of people died of cancer and 60% of the public smoked. Today, 38% of people die of cancer and only 20% smoke. This has been studied in great detail and most of this, by far, is caused by air pollution from cars and plants. You need only look at the distribution of cancer statistics across the US. Do to the "danger" of GW and the "known" deaths caused by air pollution plus the fact that this technology is antiquated anyway, it is a no brainer, man should stop burning volatile organic compounds, we are not cave men whose only fuel source is burning, we have mastered the power of the atom and we are on the verge of mastering the power of the subatomic. It's time to evolve.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thismememine69
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo you have a repeat prescription?
Excellent comment, took the words out of my mouth. Also I'd like to point out to mememine and pokerplyer that it is the media, politicians, and scientists on the political payroll that are doing the so called "fear mongering", the true scientists behind these climate studies are simply reporting what they find in their observations. Furthermore, mememine, scientists are the ones who come up with the technology, to claim that the scientist is to blame for how corporations and individuals use that technology is absurd since 9 times out of 10, the scientist is given no say in how the technology they came up with is regulated or applied, the claim you make is on par with saying that the inventor of the wheel is responsible for the creation of the mobile machine gun turret, or that the person who first smelted metal from rock is responsible for the atomic bomb dropping on Hiroshima just because the bomb was housed in metal
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisdbtinc: "burning coal is good?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat's a social and economic question. It's good if you want to live in a society with electricity, metal use etc. when most people in the world turn on a light switch, the electricity starting to flow was coal generated.
In contrast 'Science' is not about good or bad. Thus why climate science is no longer much to do with 'science' but pushing agenda.
It is important to keep things in perspective. There is debate in the research community as to the cause of the warming slowdown over the last decade; some think it is primarily more aerosols reflecting more energy, and some think it in energy (heat) being drawn down to the deep ocean where we can't measure it. There may be other explanations. However, these are all debates about fine-tuning our understanding; none of the researchers in this debate question the larger overall upward temperature trend resulting from our increasing atmospheric CO2, and other GHGs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisdenswei,
Nice explanation. Thanks for putting in the time to write that.
pokerplyer, WRT, "We are still debating the different temperature records and trying to determine whether the quality is adequate and whether we observe a man-induced signature in the temperature record."
Who is "we"? Even Watts, in his paper on US surface stations, notes that the trend of poorly sited stations and well sited stations is nearly identical. Also, his estimate of the upward trend is slightly higher than the GISS trend over the same period. I don't think he has brought this out on his web site; what's up with that?
Watts says:
"...the overall mean temperature trends are nearly identical across site classifications."
"... no matter what CRN class is used, the estimated mean temperature trend for the period 1979-2008 is about 0.32ºC/decade."
You can download the GISS data, do a linear regression on it, and it shows 0.30ºC/decade.
"Thus why climate science is no longer much to do with 'science' but pushing agenda."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this-Really? I thought it was about early warning systems for environmental disasters, giving citizens weather predictions, determine the cycles of earth climit for economic reasons like better crops, studying why (all of a sudden) our rain is more acidic, predicting effects of volcanic europtions on plane travel and, ultimately, determine how our climit functions.
"All I'm saying is that there is no reason at all to trust scientists and science organizations as being so trustworthy"
-AGREED!!! All science should be approached with sceptism, even E=mc^2 which is turning to be only valid under certain conditions. That being said, there is a lot of truth in that equation and that equation is just a stepping stone to true understanding.
-You have to look at both sides of an agruement, at the evidence each side has, and determine, statistically, which is more likely to be accurate.
-98% of the scientific community says that the evidence is overwelming on the side of the terrible possibility that GW is a serious threat, and I agree, the evidence is overwelmingly on this side as the sceptics have presented no evidence at all.
-Facts:
--CO2, SO2, NO2, and other GHG become hotter when exposed to light than air (if you doubt this, simply fill a soda bottle with each, add a thermometer and put them in the sun)
-CO2 concentration in our atmosphere has slowly doubled since the indutrial revolution and no other source can account for this much buildup other than man.
Those two simple FACTS, which can be tested in your back yard if you challenge them, are the primary reason some of us are afraid for our planet. Being afraid for ones planet does not disquality someone as being "the real people who care about the planet", I would argue the converse to be true.
The issue is whether to modernize our fuel sources or not. In agrueing this decision, I ask that you look at all negative side effects of our current fuel sources rather than focusing on just the one that is most debated, don't be a product of the media. Fossil fuels are responsible for: increases in cancer, acid rain, reef bleaching from acid rain and CO2 content, oil spills (such as the one in YELLOWSTONE recently), toxic ground water from fracking, results in centralize power control thus making us energy dependant (renewables need not be centralized), increases in asthma, birth defects, when a coal plant is abandoned it becomes a superfun site, Kingston Ash Spill, etc, CANCER, CANCER, CANCER!!!
Oh yeah, forgot to mention mercury in our fish of levels 10 times higher than the legal limit set half a decade ago. And how does the government deal with the fact our fish contains dangerous levels of mercury, they simply raise the legal limit. Fish, what used to be the healthiest animal to eat, is now low grade poison.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thismeme says: "All I'm saying is that there is no reason at all to trust scientists and science organizations as being so trustworthy........Climate change is dead.."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this-------------
So in other words, you're here at SciAm just to spread your hyperbolic hatred of science and scientists, while spewing your endless DENIALISM about climate change.
You're truly a piece of work, just like a few others with their usual anti-science and anti-environmentalism rants and propaganda, and others with their pro-nuke or pro-fossil fuel agenda.
Just get used to warmer and warmer summers like this one, more extreme weather, and more melting snow and ice as sea level continues to climb, since you and your ilk are handing your kids more than piles of debt.
Exactly, the debate is absolutely NOT over whether GW is a valid scientific principle, the proof is overwelming here. The debate is how drastic are the effects of increased GHGs and how those affects will impact the planet (or humanity if your a person who only cares about a single species). Even George Bush, finally, admitted the theory is valid; his administration started pushing the term "climate change" instead of "global warming" when the evidence for the principles of GW became overwelming. Now, I do agree climate change is a better term to use, but I also beleive his decision to push it was largely based on downplaying the possible side effects, it is a less scary term.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe DANGER is 100% real. The true real world effects are still up for debate, but it could be a simple temperature rise with little harmful effects, it could result in a possive feedback effect in which the entire planet becomes uninhabitable, but most likely, statistically, it is going to be somewhere inbetween. But the primary factor in getting a better estimate is to start measuring plant chemical output, which is practically voluntary at the moment.
My arguement is why risk it? Our fuel is obsolete anyway, our fuel is killing people, our fuel is poisoning the oceans and dumping toxic componds into our drinking water, national parks, etc. Our mountain tops are being flattened for nothing more than a years worth of coal for a few sites, runoff ends up inside us. We all remember the food chain from elementary school, nothing changed, the food chain still flows up to us.
We have evolved beyond burning, we have mastered the atom. We have no need for it.
I mean, I'm working this one project now at a coal site. The site has these ponds of toxic chemicals, more like lakes, and they are trying to determine the cheapest way to dispose of it. Guess why, they want to send it back into the plant and burn it off. So, the EPA wont let them release these chemicals into the river, but pump them into the air, no probablem at all... we don't monitor stack emissions so burn what you like!
At first my brain hurt because I read that coal burning has helped counteract climate change. Next, my brain really hurt when I read some of the comments.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"At first my brain hurt because I read that coal burning has helped counteract climate change. Next, my brain really hurt when I read some of the comments."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this-agreed, the article is a terrible spin of good science to promote the false idea "look, pollution helps GW therefore we should pollute more". You know, the "good" part of pollution, the particulates and aerosals that are counteracting some of the warming, well, what happens when we do finally stop polluting? These aerosal and particulates are larger than the "bad" stuff, I speculate the cooling effect will dimish far more rapidly than the warming effect due to particle size and laws of gravity. I speculate we will finally see the full effects of our pollution fairly rapidly as soon as we stop polluting due to the parcipitation of the large particles which are currently somewhat counteracting the warming effects. I do not believe we should use this as justification to continue polluting as the article suggests, I believe its time we stopped sacrificing the future for the sake of the present, making matters worse for our children simply so we don't have to evolve.
Again, I ask you to post something like references for your various claims. I have requested this information repeatedly in the past and been met with nothing but personal attacks and unsupported propagandist blather.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile you're at it, please post the coordinates for your home planet.
"Thus why climate science is no longer much to do with 'science' but pushing agenda."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this-Really? I thought it was about early warning systems for environmental disasters, giving citizens weather predictions, determine the cycles of earth climit for economic reasons like better crops, studying why (all of a sudden) our rain is more acidic, predicting effects of volcanic europtions on plane travel and, ultimately, determine how our climit functions.
No your totally incorrect - It's about money and power for the reasearchers/promoters - just ask Al or look at his investments - well we really can't see his investments can we. Simple greed and / or desire for a large grant explain the motivation of some scientist - stupidly explains the rest. Why use a scientific method when going with the crowd is so much more profitable.
Please do post some references showing claims that your children will die some kind of unspeakable death due to carbon dioxide poisoning.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThese rants are getting farther and farther from reality. Do you need help with prescription costs?
"You write that the danger is 100% real--- that depends upon what danger you are writing about. Most of the dander written about are completely unsupported and are written about to create a fear and urgency for action."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this-This is why I said "danger" which implies a possibility of disaster and not the certainy of disaster, and you cannot by any means say these dangers are "completely" unsupported though you can say "partially" unsupported. I mean, rising oceans, acid rain, cancer and even temperature rise are fairly well supported by evidence, so completely is a completely inappropriate adjective to use.
"Did you know that regardless of US actions worldwide CO2 levels will undoubtedly continue to rise for several decades?"
-Yes I did. I have even read papers SPECULATING that the warming we started to experience in the 90s was just the effects of the pollution we put out at the beginning of the industrial revolution, implying it takes a while for some of this pollution to work its way up and start having an effect. I don't know if I beleive it, but yeah.
-Also, if we did stop polluting the large particulate content would drop rather fast but the small stuff, CO2, SO2, etc would presist much long, thus eliminating the counteracting effects discussed in the article.
"Did you know that after CO2 levels peak that it will take several more decades for atmospheric CO2 levels to fall?"
-I don't think this is fully accurate and its mistated, what do you mean by peak?
-Anyway, CO2, suprising, does deminish fairly quickly. Need only look at massive long power outages and atmospheric measurements duringthem to prove it. Also, need only look at measurments made after volcanic europtions...2 weeks the atmosphere is normal. The literature I read suggests that if every fossil fuel plant and vehicle just stopped, like in "the day the earth stood still", it would only take 2 weeks for CO2 to drop back to normal. Particulates, 90% or so would fall within a week. A lot would persist for decades though, partularly SOx, NOx, ozone and I forget the rest.
This is all just theoretical, but I ask why risk it when we have fair better technology and energy sources to exploit. Why suffer the seriously negative health side effects of fossil fuels?
I agree, we need better infrastructure. That doesn't mean powerlines, it means power plants and national power grid controls. The latter is cheap and improvements occur yearly. power plants & fuel for vehicals is where the debate is.
Pokerplyer,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe topic is currently atmospheric temperature. Why are you bringing in sea surface temperature? There is a tight correlation, but why did you go to a SST record to back up your claim when we are talking about an atmospheric effect?
Most of your line of argument can be summarized as, "We don't know everything; therefore, we know nothing."
Interesting that you have entirely discounted Milankovitch cycles. Please do let the rest of us know where you have published these findings.
Or, did you really mean 'Milanovich'? I have not heard much about 'Milanovich'.
Could you identify which data set supports your position that the observed upward trend is in any real debate? I smoothed over 11 years because in case solar cycles have an effect.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:132/plot/hadsst2gl/mean:132/plot/gistemp/mean:132/plot/uah/mean:132/plot/rss/mean:132
WoodForTrees does not (yet) have HadSST3 temp data; so, here is a link which compares the two:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2011/07/11/a-introduction-to-the-hadley-centres-new-hadsst3-sea-surface-temperature-data/
I'm not seeing a difference worth getting excited about. Although I did notice that the year around which _3 is most above _2 is near 1950; so, I'm wondering why you choose 1950 as your start year if not to accentuate a difference that isn't really very important.
BTW, again, who is "we"? Or, was that just a baseless assertion?
"No your totally incorrect - It's about money and power for the reasearchers/promoters - just ask Al or look at his investments - well we really can't see his investments can we. Simple greed and / or desire for a large grant explain the motivation of some scientist - stupidly explains the rest. Why use a scientific method when going with the crowd is so much more profitable."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this-You gotta be kidding. Al Gore is not a climit scientists, he's a politician, so your example isn't applicable to your statement. Your saying a politician wants money and power, WOW what a SUPRISE! How about I point the finger at George Bush and say "look at all the tax breaks and deregultation for oil companies, look how he got elected with funds from ENRON, therefore all pipe fitters on oil rigs want money and power and do not care about quality of work". It doesn't back up the claim that "scientists", not politicians, want money and power. Trust me, a far larger grant would be awarded if you can come up with science that contradicts GW, if anyone could do it it would be as big as overturning general relativity.
So you are honestly under the impression that the scientific community is only out for money and power while the oil community (pretty much OPEC) is simply looking out for the good of humanity. Really? You really think that? You do realize grant money into this kind of research mainly goes to university programs and not businesses right? It goes to professors (who are usually already tenured) and students who CANNOT pocket the money, the money is used for lab materials and such though they may very well get a small bonus. Did you go to college? I mean seriously, can you name one person who has been succeful in this attempt to gain fame by falsifying environemntal evidence? Not Al GOre, he simply used his existing fame to spread the science he was told by real researchs.
-Either way, even if GW were a completely false theory, why would you still tollerate all the other negative effects of this antiquated fuel source. I was at a site a year ago when 3 workers were covered under a pile of hot ash, they suffered terrible burns and tumors formed on there skin. Now, lord knows every scrap and bruse at a nuclear site is spread throughout the media... why such lax policy for coal? Because these accidents happen constantly. Fossil fuels are an extremely primitive fuel source.
No Poker, you are dead wrong. Aerosols stay resident for years at most (see Pinatubo or Krakatoa). It takes hundreds to thousands of years for the earth system to draw down CO2 levels.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI see your wiki link and raise you an actual research article.
http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0812/full/climate.2008.122.html
and a FAQ put out by an actual scientific body.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/faq.html
Poker,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre you daft? You agree that it is getting warmer and will continue to do so, and then you say that polar ice will continue to melt at the current rate for the next century. Please explain why you think an increase in temperature will not be associated with an increase in melt rate.
pokerplyer, I suspect your right, I was mistaken about the aerosols, but I think I was accurate regarding large particulates which have a similar effect.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for the second post in response, I can't completely disagree, a lot is still not known.
"Cancer Not a AGW issue at all"
-I know that, that is my point. When did the argument about switching our fuel source change from a real advantage/disadvantage comparison into an argument of only ONE of many side effects of pollution. Never forget that, GW is only one of many side effects of pollution. Say tomorrow GW is proven 100% and we know 100% what is going to happen and it is bad, the result if allowed would be to modernize our fuel sources. Say tomorrow GW is proven 100% false; we still need to modernize our fuel source before the cancer rate reaches 50%. If trends continue, within 50 years 50% of the public will die of cancer passing heart disease... if the last 50 year trend continues. Even heart disease itself, depending also on genetics, can seriously be worsened by pollution; you need only look at the distribution of cancer and heart disease which is clustered around the most polluted air regions.
SO yes, I’m not arguing that the effects of GW will be devastating, I'm arguing that they very well could be and that all other less discussed effects of fossil fuels ARE ALREADY DEVESTATING ENOUGH.
I find it rather annoying each time I read that someone or some institution arrives at a conclusion about the state of the earth atmosphere. One group sighting accusations about the other’s previous conclusions as to whether the earth is heating up or not.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe evidence is plain to see we have the fossilise evidence out there for the swings and turns this planet has experienced over last 2 billon years. I think I read not so long ago (S.A.) that the oldest rocks still in existence on the surface of the earth are no older than 2.8 billion years old, so we can go back to at least half the age of the earth. So whoever you talk to one thing is evident, the earth has been very flexible with regards to the atmosphere with temperature, CO2, and SO2. The only consideration we humans need to consider is, whichever way the atmosphere is drifting in terms of concentration and temperature we don’t speed up that process beyond the point which can sustain life as we know it.
The planet will do what it has always done; it is still evolving and will no doubt be doing the same when our sun becomes a red giant. Our volcanoes and other, beyond human control events will send the atmosphere to extreme levels which will tip the balance outside our comfort zone. The magic bit is we don't do things to speed that process.
For the first 2.5 billon years of this planets history all the toxic gases were absorbed by the evolution of plant and vegetation growth, and from that time until now the earth has been burying the plant grown in the ground along with all that CO2 etc etc. It took 2 billion years to bring the level of gases down to a level where life could evolve. Now to my point in the blink of an eye in earth's life span, we have in the last hundred and fifty years since the discovery of oil gas and coal we are burning and releasing those same said gases back ito the atmosphere. so you don’t need to be a scientist to realise that all that fossil energy we are putting it back into the atmosphere will eventually turn the clock back on the planet earth to pre-animals... plant life will once again rule the earth... but this time we won’t be here to see it.
I would like to append your discussion of our future energy needs and potential sources.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe are running out of transportable fuels. Oil will go first - natural gas (methane) will last much longer, but at increasing environmental costs of extraction - and as oil availability becomes increasingly limited, we will spend more and more resources on securing our supply. (How did our oil get under their sand?)
We must, in the near future, invest heavily in research and development in the fields of efficiency and conservation of transportable (transportation) fuels (read: Manhattan and Apollo projects), while at the same time aggressively pursuing new, carbon-free sources of stationary energy generation to support the energy grid.
Unfortunately the material requirements of 'alternative', distributed sources of electricity - wind, solar, wave, even geothermal - are prohibitive. I'm talking rare earth metals, cement, steel and land (space) here.
This leaves us with - and I never thought I'd hear myself say this - nuclear power. The Fukoshima Dai ichi station was gen II (1960s technology). China is currently building a slew of gen III modular nuclear plants; simplified fail safer units built at centralized locations according to standardized blue prints and assembled on site. Gen IV reactors, such as have been developed at Oak Ridge Nat'l Lab actually 'burn' what gen II reactors leave as waste.
Then there are the U hydride and U nitride self regulating, modular reactors developed originally at Los Alamos NL and currently in production under private license.
Please look this stuff up before coming back with anti-nuclear, anti-science (this isn't really science BTW, it's economics and engineering) rants. We've painted ourselves into a corner and the way out ain't easy.
The article is nothing more that political bunk to try and come up with a reason to explain why the earth temperture has not increased since 1998. That fact stands in the way of the left's hanging their political hat on the dreaded. dangerous pollutent CO2. After the slaughter in the 2012 elections I hope the republicans have the cahonees to stop funding these phoney political grants that produce this BS.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSome global temperature plots from the lefties over at NASA:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
It would appear that global temperature has continued to rise...
Still and all, they all produce a warming of the global average.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere's this quirk about averages - if you take the averages of +1 and -1, and +10 and -10 you get the same result - zero. Averages fail to account for extremes. The high northern latitudes are warming much faster than the low latitudes. Some regions are experiencing wild temperature extremes, both hot and cold. All this gets lost in the averaging process.
I don’t like to breath dirty, polluted air. That is simple and easy for most people to understand. Please don’t get sucked into endless arguments about climate change; arguments that waste research dollars, feed political opposition and impede government action. Keep it simple and keep repeating it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScientists are people too. And when they got paid off by big money, they sing different tunes than the more honest ones. The weather is an extremely complex system involving many many factors. Some we understand and others we don't. Some have greater influences on things and others more minor. Methane for example is also a greenhouse gas and in fact is over 100 times stronger than CO2. But these gasses trap heat they receive, so if something else blocks the heat, they don't receive it and won't have anything to keep Earth warm. The sun changes in intensity. The Earth changes in orientation to the sun. The oceanic currents distribute heat around the planet. They all play into the greater system. When you look at the global temperature average, what you see is that they always oscillate up and down. What's been happening in the last 100 years is that they are oscillating more wildly up and down and the mid-line of these oscillations are getting higher and higher. The biggest fear from paleontological data is that when temperatures rise to a certain point, it triggers other events. Not that the heat of the rising CO2 will kill us. It's the if it keeps on going, at some point, the heat will cause something really bad to happen. When the permafrost melts, we will get sudden boosts of greenhouse gases that we are not seeing right now. When ocean water warms to a point to melt frozen methane deep in the ocean, we will get sudden influx of a greenhouse gas that's far worse than CO2. Will those kill us? Not directly. They in turn cause other potential problems. One possible outcome is that the rapid melting of polar ice halts the ocean currents that distribute heat. The poles will refreeze as there is no more warm water from the equatorial region coming in and the ice will just keep on growing. That's what caused the last ice age. One such ice ages long ago almost covered the whole planet and it took a major wide spread volcanic eruptions to thaw out earth. Another problem is the heat will cause crop failure and millions of people will starve to death. There are too many things that CAN go wrong if we don't do anything. As the saying goes, better safe than sorry. But all of a sudden when billions of lives are on the stake, you can't be bothered to be careful?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRe: "Aerosols acted to keep warming from being as big as it would have been...It's still warming, it's just not warming as much as it would have been."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere's an interesting piece of information: “Because methane, the major component in natural gas, is many times more effective as a greenhouse gas warmer than CO2, any escape of methane into the atmosphere can exact a relatively large global warming price.”
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-shale-quandary&WT.mc_id=SA_DD_20110414
Poker,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are so confused; please stop posting until you are less so.
You call a writeup in Nature by a guy (David Archer) who actually does climate research and has published numerous articles and a couple of books on the subject a 'puff piece', while siting a wiki article written by some unknown author.
From the link you say agrees with you:
"For CO2 the specification of an atmospheric lifetime is complicated by the numerous removal processes involved, which necessitate complex modeling of the decay curve. Because the decay curve depends on the model used and the assumptions incorporated therein, it is difficult to specify an exact atmospheric lifetime for CO2. Accepted values range around 100 years."
Pinatubo and Krakatoa put massive amounts of aerosols into the atmosphere and the effects of those only lasted a few years.
So, how is it that you say that these facts agree with what you said about aerosols lasting longer than CO2? I thought you said you were good at math, but I'm pretty sure 2-4 years is less than something around 100 years. If the draw-down of atmosphere CO2 were as fast or faster than that of aerosols, how is it that it continues to accumulate in the atmosphere while massive eruptions have only a short-term effect and installing scrubbers on power plants also sees a rapid reduction in aerosols?
Another confusion you have introduced:
"Polar ice" includes the arctic sea ice, but since sea ice has no effect on sea levels, obviously, that does not pertain to a discussion of rising sea levels. Yeap, arctic sea ice is running just below the level it was in 2007, the record holder for minimum extent in recorded history. In 2007, it was possible sail clear around the north pole via the NE and NW passages unobstructed by ice flows. Let's see, outside of the last decade, when has that been possible? Oh, never in recorded history. Nope, nothing to see there, folks. Doh.
So, again, how would you reconcile your admission that it will continue to get warmer with your assertion that the ice in the polar regions will maintain a constant rate of melt?
BTW, again, which temperature record do you think is in question? You asserted that the records were in question in your first comment, but you haven't identified any in particular, or shown any that are not in general agreement on the trend.
There are a lot of learned men (and women) in various academic disciplines that will tell you that they understand their field as well as it can be currently understood so you should implicitly believe what they say on the subject. This is more akin to scholasticism than science. Every passing year shows that the "experts" in the field of climatolgy in fact know less than they claimed to. Whether it's possible effects of Chinese coal burning or the effects of cosmic rays (see the current cover up at CERN) the whole thing has more the flavor of fraud than certainty.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere, for your edification and amusement, is an analysis (with links to data and explanations of the process) of the HADSST3 model projections through 2006:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadsst3/
Please not the trend for the last few decades.
Poker,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhich chart on which link are you reading from?
Nothing I linked shows anything remotely like what you are saying. If you are referring to
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html
That shows gases only; aerosols are not on that chart.
Again, which temperature records do you think are in question?
Also, what about your assertion that the melt rate of polar ice will remain the same even as temperatures rise?
Poker,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour response to Le Spaz continues to show that you are confused. A model which attempts to account for changes in methodology and instruments used to collect sea surface temperature (SST) data has nothing to do with general circulation models (GCMs).
Opening up a debate over GCMs would be a change of topic from the ones you have raised earlier and might be considered to be an abandonment of your previous assertions. Is that your intent?
It is common knowledge in science that, more often than not, the more you learn the more you realize how much more there is to learn.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat does not mean that what you've already learned is therefore wrong, let alone fraudulent.
Any one know how human-kind caused the earlier climate change eposiodes -- ice ages and global heating ... ?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think if you read the article closely and review the graph again, you will see that not only were the old sea surface temperature models pretty good, but that the new model (v.III) is even better.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile you're at it, have a look at:
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/04/hansen-has-been-wrong-before.php
Keep a sharp eye on scenario 'B' in the graph and also on how these data were presented to Congress by a disinformationalist 'scientist'.
Consider also that, for all their flaws, if you remove the numbers for anthropogenic CO2 forcing from the GCM models, they fail miserably; grossly UNDER estimating temperature rise as recorded in the instrumental record.
Current GCM projections aren't perfect, and they never will be, but something's going on and to date they're all we've got - unless you've got something better to offer...
What initiated previous global thermal maximums is an interesting problem that we may someday be able to unravel, but in today's context it is a moot point.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCurrent CO2 levels (~388 ppm) match those of the Paleocene / Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) when there were hippos and such like roaming the Arctic. That climatic situation took millions of years to develop. We have arrived at the same level of atmospheric CO2 in 100 years.
Given that there is an estimated 40 year lag in global average temperature relative to CO2 concentration and that the Arctic is already running 3 degrees to 7 degrees Celsius hotter than the rest of us, I'd say we're in for some interesting (as in the old Chinese curse) times.
Just found this. Might be of interest -
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHuman Activities Emit Way More Carbon Dioxide Than Do Volcanoes
<http://www.agu.org/news/press/pr_archives/2011/2011-22.shtml>
Caution: This report was drafted by those left wing, grifting, hippie, "scientists" over at the American Geophysical Union. Reading this article may threaten preconceived beliefs.
Le Spaz d'Argent,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRe: http://www.agu.org/news/press/pr_archives/2011/2011-22.shtml
Following the url you provided leads to a "download" hyperlink which in turn leads to:
"Their study (Marty and Tolstikhin [1998])—an evaluation of CO2 emissions from divergent plate (spreading center), intraplate (plume), and convergent plate (arc) volcanism—is the most comprehensive and probably the most cited of the global estimate studies, and its broad range of plausible estimates reflects a realistic assessment of uncertainties."
http://www.agu.org/pubs/pdf/2011EO240001.pdf
What are the uncertainties?
Bill,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUncertainties? Well, let's hazard a guess that it is difficult to get an exact measure of how much CO2 is coming off of the various volcanoes and oceanic rift zones. Do the uncertainties matter?
CO2 is increasing. For the source of the increase to be volcanic activity, there would have to be on the order of 700 more Mt. Pinatubos erupting every year than there were before the increase started. Or, about 8 supervolcanoes or flood basalt events. Look around the globe; see anything like that?
I suggest you refer to Fig. 1 of the report.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is stated that
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Combined with a decrease in atmospheric water vapor and a weaker sun due to the most recent solar cycle, the aerosol finding may explain why climate change has not been accelerating as fast as it did in the 1990s."
I think that that actually should be ...
"Combined with a decrease in STRATOSPHERIC atmospheric water vapor and a weaker sun due to the most recent solar cycle, the aerosol finding may explain why climate change has not been accelerating as fast as it did in the 1990s."
The notion of a decrease of water vapor sounds strange, as an increase in water vapor - at least in the lower part of the atmosphere - is central to the hypothesis that the radiative effect of added CO2 would result in global warming that is significant in terms of effects on society, as is mentioned here.
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/07/25/comments-on-the-article-stratospheric-pollution-helps-slow-global-warming-by-david-biello/
On the other hand, a decrease in stratospheric water vapor of about 10% sincd 2000 - as published least year by Susan Solomon as well, could result in some cooling - or slower warming.
Would be good to correct that.
Cheers, Jos.
Chris G (comment 54),
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAllow me to suggest, if the uncertainties didn't matter there should be no reason to make mention of them.
Regarding the dogmatic certainty of an increase in CO2, please consider this:
...[O]ne of the reasons paleontologists today believe one of the reasons dinosaurs grew so large, was that they weren’t cold-blooded like today’s lizards; they were lukewarm-blooded....But another reason for their size may have been the sweltering oxygen-rich
environment that came to dominate the dinosaur era; an environment triggered by volcanism....It was global warming gone wild; CO2 levels increased over 500 percent and temperatures soared. In the greenhouse conditions this created, huge tropical forests spread over many of the continents....Many scientists believe that evolving for millions of years, in this warm, oxygen-rich world, allowed the lukewarm-blooded dinosaurs to reach their enormous sizes. Huge dinosaurs may have been a biological response to a volcanically over-active planet....65 million years ago. The planet was lush. Vegetation was thick on the surface. Living things were prospering like never before."
[2007 DVD. How the Earth was Made. London: Pioneer Productions for the History Channel, 55 min., ff.]
Le Spaz d'Argent (comment 55),
Fig. 1 has a similar appearance to the discredited hockey stick graph:
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2005/03/03/hockey-stick-1998-2005-rip/
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11646-climate-myths-the-hockey-stick-graph-has-been-proven-wrong.html
http://climateprogress.org/2008/09/03/sorry-deniers-hockey-stick-gets-longer-stronger-earth-hotter-now-than-in-past-2000-years/
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/3332616/that-famous-consensus.thtml
http://www.icecap.us/images/uploads/MANNDEBUNKING.doc
Bill -
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWith reference to 2007 DVD. How the Earth was Made. London: Pioneer Productions for the History Channel, 55 min., ff., I cannot comment. I watch the History Channel as much for shows like Finding Bigfoot as anything else.
As for a 500% increase in CO2 levels here on Planet Earth, that would make us something of a vacation spot for all those Venusian UFOs.
Bill -
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe seem to be caught in that old problem of 'my expert can beat your expert'
Please review:
Academy affirms hockey-stick graph
<http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v441/n7097/full/4411032a.html>
Novel Analysis Confirms Climate "Hockey Stick" Graph
<http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=still-hotter-than-ever>
http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm
Myth vs. Fact Regarding the "Hockey Stick"
<http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/myths-vs-fact-regarding-the-hockey-stick/>
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?s=hockey+team&submit=Search&qt=&q=hockey+team+site%3Awww.realclimate.org&cx=009744842749537478185%3Ahwbuiarvsbo&client=google-coop-np&cof=GALT%3A808080%3BGL%3A1%3BDIV%3A34374A%3BVLC%3AAA8610%3BAH%3Aleft%3BBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BLBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BALC%3A66AA55%3BLC%3A66AA55%3BT%3A000000%3BGFNT%3A66A\%0D%0AA55%3BGIMP%3A66AA55%3BFORID%3A11%3B&searchdatabase=site#828
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/10/hockey-sticks-round-27/
Or if you prefer graphs that bend the other way:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/sea.ice.anomaly.timeseries.jpg
Le Spaz d'Argent,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs entertaining as your comment on Venusian UFOs may be, it completely misses the point. Either the information presented in the video is true or it isn't. If it is, the producers have made the claim that a 500% increase in CO2 level generated the opposite effect as that currently being presented by climate scientists. One assertion or the other is wrong. As for your experts vs. my experts, why would you expect me to be any more convinced by yours than you are by mine?
I wish your article would have made the point more clearly that once particles in the stratosphere fall out, warming jumps to the level it would have achieved had the particles not been present. The fundamentals for increased warming (increasing concentration of GHGs) force warming right away. So this effect merely *masks* warming for a time. It does not push back the timeline for increased warming. There's not much benefit, therefore, unless an effort is made to continously maintain concentrations of particulates in the stratosphere.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"...CO2 levels increased over 500 percent and temperatures soared."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this500% over what starting point? Without some kind of a baseline - there may be something elsewhere in the program? - that assertion doesn't mean much. I'm thinking that if CO2 were to increase by 500% over current concentrations we'd be dealing with pretty serious toxicity issues, but that's beside the point.
"...a 500% increase in CO2 level generated the opposite effect as that currently being presented by climate scientists."
I don't get that at all from the quote you offer. It clearly states that: "It was global warming gone wild; ... temperatures soared. In the greenhouse conditions this created, huge tropical forests spread over many of the continents."
In the final analysis, I'm not at all sure an (apparently) poorly edited piece from The History Channel is a particularly good source of information, unless you're looking for bigfoot or Ancient Aliens.
As for the experts vs experts problem, I can only say that I try - the now ubiquitous paywalls notwithstanding - I try to limit my sources to references that are based on hard data. Numbers, trends and the analyses of same.
Le Spaz d'Argent,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt would seem to me, "500% over what starting point?" is not the heart of the issue. If the alleged condition was indeed, "global warming gone wild," the starting point could be inferred as normal (whatever that may have been). As for the viability of the
information presented, you may wish to contact the producers of the film, taking them to task for a poor presentation.
Certainly no one can legitimately fault you for your reliance on hard data. In fact, here's a peer-reviewed example:
Though Prof. Mann did not define the term, “proxy climate indicators,” he did provide a description: ‘”Multiproxy” methods exploit the complementary strengths of each of these proxies to reconstruct large-scale climate changes in past centuries.’ [2]
Yet, he admitted the proxies used—-tree-ring data, coral data, ice core data and historical documentary climate records—-each has limitations.
[1] Michael E. Mann, Raymond S. Bradley and Malcolm K. Hughes. 1998. Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries. NATURE, Vol. 392, 23 April, pp. 770-787.
[2] Michael E. Mann. 2002. The Value of Multiple Proxies. SCIENCE, vol 297, 30 August, pp. 1481-1482.
That does not seem to me to provide a significant level of confidence.
Bill -
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do not, and would never, cite the History Channel as a source in any kind of debate. I cannot accept The History Channel as a reliable source. Period. I didn't submit them as evidence. They're your baby, please deal with your own diapers.
I find your infatuation with Dr. Mann's work interesting, if not telling. There is a great deal of disinformist propaganda readily available on the internets, and that's fine as far as it goes, but you never address the refutations of your 'arguments' against Mann's work. The 'hockey stick' graph has been repudiated time and again - see comment # 59 - yet you continue with the same old red herrings that have been shown to be bogus repeatedly.
BTW - I see that your posts are made almost exclusively during normal business hours. Does your employer know you're spending all this time on politically motivated disputation?
Le Spaz d'Argent,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou've convinced me to discontinue using the History Channel information since we agree that it's of no particular value beyond entertainment.
Infatuation with Prof. Mann doesn't correctly describe my motivation. Rather, it's my long-standing practice to use the commentary of the experts as part of my argument. Hopefully you noticed that the Mann material was not obtained from the internet. Regarding your
comment on repudiation (comment # 59), see comment 60.
BTW - What is politically motivated about quoting Prof. Mann? Since retirement in August 2003, my "employer" has not expressed any particular concern for the time of day my comments are posted. However, it's good to know that you're attempting to keep me
honest.
"...my long-standing practice to use the commentary of the experts as part of my argument."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI view the continued infatuation with Dr. Mann's work as political because, despite the repeated validation of said work even with the removal of the tree ring data, certain politically motivated factions continue to try to use thoroughly refuted arguments to try to discredit all of climate change science (while ignoring the huge body of supporting evidence from many other branches of science) by claiming his work is invalid. More over, if a data plot even resembles a hockey stick it is judged guilty of invalidity by association, whatever it's derivation.
This is the same mindset that keeps throwing up Al Gore, who is irrelevant to the discussion, as some kind of refutation of climate science. He may be over weight and over paid, and he may not have gotten all of the facts right in his movie, but he's no more than a messenger; a reporter if you will and he got a lot more facts right than say, Joe Bash of the Heritage Foundation who continually cherry-picks papers and deliberately misinterprets data to contrive admittedly politically motivated points.
Br'er Gore did get a Nobel prize though and Dubya didn't. I think that's the fundamental issue; knee-jerk reactionary spin doctors are jealous.
Please review the links in my comment #59.
Here's another hockey stick, totally independent of Mann's work:
A South American hockey stick
http://www.skepticalscience.com/South-American-hockey-stick.html
Le Spaz d'Argent,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour view is precisely that; the same admonition applies to me.
My "infatuation" with Prof. Mann's work is no such thing. My original motivation to read his papers was his elevation in the peer-reviewed literature as arguably the father of the agw movement.
Mr. Gore certainly was a messenger. Neither he nor Dubya has ever impressed me as any more than two of a growing number of political puppets. As for my alleged political motivations, they can be summed up rather succinctly in my refusal to accept the labels
"Republican, Democrat, conservative or liberal."
There is no way my self-imposed schedule will permit me to review the 6 links in your comment #59. However, if you will to pick the one link you consider the most
persuasive, you have my agreement to review it.
Regarding the South American hockey stick, the similarity to all the other hockey stick graphs amazes me; perhaps that's because by definition it has to have the appearance it does. However, the following sentence from that web page sums up the situation far
better than any comment of mine:
"Of course, the usual caveat applies when looking at a single proxy record - this is a temperature record for a single location. To get a better feel for past climate, you need to look at proxy records from a range of locations."
I am just sick right now. Unregulated geoengineering involving the release of reflective particles/aerosols into the stratosphere by high flying jets has been ongoing for the past 10 years! NASA states persistant plane contrails cause an atmospheric warming effect. Aluminun oxide is the aerosol/particulate used. Aluminum is an accelerant. (is this connected to record wild fires past 10 years?)Aluminum is a neurotoxin. (is this connected to cognitive disease, aka, "alzheimers"; which has gone up 300% in the past 10 years? And on this site there is a poll asking if we should allow resources to be exploited in the artic!!! Hello! we are purposely warming our planet with geoengineering so we can exploit those resources. Bill Gates is the #1 donator for geoengineering experiments. He needs resources and precious metals. This is all too obvious to me and I am sick and saddened. Please research for yourself. Rosalind Peterson, former dept. of agriculture employee is a good source. NOAA has a geoengineering home page.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI enjoyed this article. I had come to the same conclusion in a paper I wrote
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.modelsw.com/papers/gwarm/ConsideringTheSource.html I was trying to understand the temperatures during 1890-1930. The flat temperatures this last decade fit well into this same picture.
One has to admire pokerplayer's consistency in spouting the same old debunked talking points, again and again. We know where he or she stands on the issue, whether that is supported by the facts or not. Wait a minute, that's not admirable at all...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe poster's handle is "gunslingor", not "Gunslinger" as you responded more than once. It's right there on the page. That doesn't say much for the credibility of your 'research'.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this