Numero 4 is good old realclimate:-

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled

QUOTE
the 40-70 cooling type period is readily explained, in that the GCMs are quite happy to reproduce it, as largely caused by sulphate aerosols
UNQUOTE

The link has links that show temperature graphs that seem to me to show a small dip then a wriggly plateau then up up and away (catchy tune that).

Think I'll pause there.


Hope I'm not stealing SteveM's thunder.

Real Primate about 1940's-70's.

quote:

There doesn't seem to be any cooling or warming over this time period! That's so counter to the belief that there definitely was some cooling I think I'll resurf.

Regardless, you still haven't explained why you would expect NO warming over this three decade period of rising man-made CO2. How does this still fit in with the theory of GW through man-made CO2?

quote:

Regardless, you still haven't explained why you would expect NO warming over this three decade period of rising man-made CO2. How does this still fit in with the theory of GW through man-made CO2?

M Batchelor, when you read about the "global cooling" scares of the 70's, they related to the realisation that anthropogenic aerosols were having an increasing cooling effect on the climate. While there were more scientific papers at the time on global warming, the global cooling is what caught the media attention.

Since the 70's, aerosol production in western countries has been cut back a lot through adoption of clean technologies. The increase in the east is small compared with the reductions made by the west.

Now we're in a situation where aerosol production will not go up much, CO2 emissions are higher than ever and we are still waiting for the warming to catch up with past CO2 emissions. Furthermore, the solar cycle is now at minimum and will increase to maximum in the next few years.

So based on what I've read here and there:

1. For at least half of the next 8 years to 2015, surface temperatures will be warmer than 1998 - you get a headstart on this because 2008 surface temperatures will be cooler due to the La Nina. Also the trend will continue to be upwards.

2. The ARGO network of ocean buoys will measure a steady increase in ocean heat content over the next few years. Currently, the latest two years' of data have shown no significant warming, but this will not continue.

3. The satellite measurements of sea-level will show a rise over the next few years.

4. The satellite and radiosonde temperature and humidity data, which up till recently have disagreed with models (mostly due to analysis errors), will finally show that the models were right all along.

Steve M,

quote:

Since the 70's, aerosol production in western countries has been cut back a lot through adoption of clean technologies. The increase in the east is small compared with the reductions made by the west.

What do you count as an aerosol? Because if you are talking about ozone for example, surely that was an increasing problem at the time (and some would say still is in large cities)? If you are talking about CFC's, surely they were only reduced in the late 80's.

Much of the sulphate aerosol in the atmosphere derives from the oxidation of sulphur dioxide produced in the combustion of fossil fuels. So when was the great sulphate clean-up in Eastern Europe, I must have missed that one. As I recall, Environmentalists in the 1980's and 90's were near hysterical at the time about all the acid rain in Europe caused by sulphates - destroying old monuments.

I do know enough about this topic to realise that both you and most AGW supporters are simply making a guess here in order to make your theory stand up under scrutiny.

quote:

I do know enough about this topic to realise that both you and most AGW supporters are simply making a guess here in order to make your theory stand up under scrutiny.

You are quite correct about the vagueness of my post, but you slightly missed my point. I was merely making it clear (to JLSF) that I don't think aerosol cooling is going to be an issue over the next decade, and therefore I am expecting that we will see warming due to CO2 continuing to outweigh other forcings.

Sulphate emissions I understand probably peaked in the 80's (related to the USSR economic problems??). But also they don't hang around for long and so don't build up like CO2 does. Data I dug out a while ago suggested that recent rises in Indian and Chinese emissions were reasonably small compared with drops in OECD countries, but I could only find data up to about 2002. Feel free to contribute better info.

Halocarbons and tropospheric ozone currently have a smaller effect than CO2 because of their lower concentrations. Strictly they're not aerosols (even though CFCs came out of aerosol cans ).

quote:

Originally posted by M Batchelor:

Regardless, you still haven't explained why you would expect NO warming over this three decade period of rising man-made CO2. How does this still fit in with the theory of GW through man-made CO2?

You accept that there was no overall cooling in the 1940's to 70's?

Guys, I'm going to 'SCREAM' again, and perhaps bring this thread back to subject.

If we are looking at the smoothed curve of 'global average near-surface temperatures' that are provided by the Hadley Centre, then 1940 shows an all time high temperature in the record since 1850 (I believe this must obviously be an 'unusual' atmospheric forcing of some kind). In the following decade this temperature dropped again to a level that was a lot nearer to the average of the time. The following half century seems to show nothing less than a continual increase in this temperature data.

I know that near surface temperatures are the temperatures that we are all most interested in because we live on the surface, but are near surface temperatures really that important when it comes to understanding how 'hot' the Earth really is?

The IPCC radiation budget gives us an understanding of what comes in and what goes out so we can better understand our radiative status of 'warming' or 'cooling', but what of Earth's true temperature? What about Earth's direct electromagnetic 'dynamo' connection to the Sun and what of solar wind interaction? All these questions remain unanswered mostly because of scientific disinterest in these climate subjects and mostly because of empirical disinterest leading to, what could be seen as, falsification of the subject by an 'outsider' looking in at the process.

Perhaps we need to 'rethink' our modi operandi.

Best regards, suricat.

Steve M,

quote:

Sulphate emissions I understand probably peaked in the 80's (related to the USSR economic problems??).

So why did they not balance out warming, then? I am sure that the USSR/ Eastern Europe did not get around to reducing sulphates, if they have, until the 90's. The second problem you have with your theory is that China and India are still not exactly known for their clean air. So being such large economies emerging in the 90's, how do explain the corresponding tempertarue increase in the 90's and/or supposedly in recent years?

quote:

You accept that there was no overall cooling in the 1940's to 70's?

I never said I did, but you seem to believe it. Therefore, the challenge was given to you on the basis that you have not explained away this period, if indeed you are correct.

M Batchelor.

Don't know if you read my last post before your last post, but the recent low temperatures in China are probably due to the aerosols above the place!

There is a lot of sulphur above the area which cools. There is a lot of ozone above the area which heats. Sunspot count is at a low, which means that UV is at a minimum.

On balance, the sulphur still cools, but the ozone doesn't have the UV to excite it into its 'heating mode'!

Best regards, suricat.

Suricat,

quote:

Don't know if you read my last post before your last post, but the recent low temperatures in China are probably due to the aerosols above the place!

So what caused the record low temperatures in Canada and the US? Your aerosol theory within the AGW theory sounds implausible to me.

M Bachelor.

This is Son of Mulder's theory in actual fact, so it's probably better to address this to Son of Mulder! However, the forcings from insolation are mostly recieved by the Earth due to the atmospheric constituents that are prevalent at the time of insolation in accord with the forcings that are applied!

CO₂ heats, atmospheric sulphur cools, ozone heats (when UVb is around) and I think we all know the current state of the 'solar cycle'.

Best regards, suricat.

M Batchelor

quote:

So what caused the record low temperatures in Canada and the US? Your aerosol theory within the AGW theory sounds implausible to me.

The idea is that as the centre of aerosol production moved from west to east so it would cause some change in the global climate. There would be lags involved etc but as the climate is chaotic, why should not these changes, combined with oscillations etc shift the jet stream. This could keep warm air away from the regions that became colder this year.

Also if colder in many regions that are usually fairly cold then it may have been warmer in areas that are usually warm. This in turn could increase Boltzman radiation from the earth as it is proportional to T^4 at each point so less in the colder areas but extra more in the hotter areas. At the same time average T dropped - see Hadcrut3. And of course the opposite in earlier times. Why not?

quote:

The second problem you have with your theory is that China and India are still not exactly known for their clean air. So being such large economies emerging in the 90's, how do explain the corresponding tempertarue increase in the 90's and/or supposedly in recent years?

My "theory" doesn't have the problem you suggest yet because my post above said this:

"Sulphate emissions I understand probably peaked in the 80's (related to the USSR economic problems??). But also they don't hang around for long and so don't build up like CO2 does. Data I dug out a while ago suggested that recent rises in Indian and Chinese emissions were reasonably small compared with drops in OECD countries, but I could only find data up to about 2002. Feel free to contribute better info."

Steve_M.

quote:

"Sulphate emissions I understand probably peaked in the 80's (related to the USSR economic problems??). But also they don't hang around for long and so don't build up like CO2 does. Data I dug out a while ago suggested that recent rises in Indian and Chinese emissions were reasonably small compared with drops in OECD countries, but I could only find data up to about 2002. Feel free to contribute better info."

I'm afraid I need to take issue with this, because China (alone) has now been declared a greater 'polluter' than the USA. I think a more 'up to date' reference is needed. Any suggestions RP?


There is also another issue that I feel needs to be addressed. The decay of atmospheric 'forcing agents'.

The IPCC (supposedly the world body dealing with climate issues) has taken upon itself to accept the 'average life span' of a 'pollutant' and not the degree to which it is likely to 'pollute' following its introduction to the climate. However, after a period amounting to twice its 'life span' it can continue to make its effect felt to a lesser degree in the atmosphere!

The true decay pattern of any substance in the atmosphere is one of a 'natural logarithmic decay' and its 'half life' is the only way that it can be represented in a practical way. This holds true for anything from 'atomic nuclear decay' to 'electrical charge decay' in a capacitor within an electrical circuit, or 'diffusion' between gasses for 'mixing' to 'catalytic actions' between material components. This could be important should one consider, for example, the 'take-up' of CO₂ isotopes from the atmosphere by flora.

A 'longer lived' element is usually 'longer lived' because it is less accessible to an annihilation (or integration) factor. Thus, the last vestige of charge is difficult to remove from an electrical capacitor because the 'voltage' isn't there to overcome the resistance, and the last photons to release from a material in atomic decay find difficulty achieving the excitation needed to release these photons. However, these factors rate as 'material memory' and have a biasing effect when a 'top up' is received.

It's no different with atmospheric pollutants, so why the 'average life' approach? Is this just to offer more 'credibility' and 'programming ease' to computer models?

Best regards, suricat.

fair point suricat, can't you feel all WW1's CO2 dropping out of the warming game

mufcdiver.

quote:

fair point suricat, can't you feel all WW1's CO2 dropping out of the warming game

Frankly, no. CO₂ has a long 'half life' in the atmosphere!

Best regards, suricat.

Once again, quibbling with phraseology is diverting from the thread.

It is my understanding that rises in CO2 will outweigh changes in aerosols over the next few years. Therefore I expect to see continued warming once the current La Nina gets out of the way and once solar cycle 24 gets going.

If you have some figures for sulphates then by all means give them.

"Half-life" and "average life" are both (pedantically) incorrect and you'll notice I did not use either phrase (I hope I didn't anyway).

Both CO2 and sulphates are removed from the atmosphere and added to the atmosphere by a range of processes with differing time scales. Currently about half of the extra CO2 appears to be removed from the atmosphere as quick as it is being added, but the other half is going nowhere quickly (ignoring the "normal" carbon cycle). But sulphates disappear a lot quicker - for example their contribution to cooling by seeding clouds is part of their destruction.

In constructing a scenario for future emissions and levels of certain pollutants, some approximations and guesses will necessarily be made. Some models will take the inputs and assume they are correct. More complex models will include physics and chemistry to assess them in more detail. In constructing a model it's not about what is easy and credible, but what is possible.

quote:

Originally posted by suricat:
Steve_M.

quote:

"Sulphate emissions I understand probably ... but I could only find data up to about 2002. Feel free to contribute better info."

I'm afraid I need to take issue with this, because China (alone) has now been declared a greater 'polluter' than the USA. I think a more 'up to date' reference is needed. Any suggestions RP?
:

Best regards, suricat.

I'll have a look. From memory The Japanese are TEN times more efficient with their use of energy compared to the Chinese. (America FOUR times). I'll look for refs.

Those coal fired power stations in China are awsomely inefficient.

Steve_M.

quote:

Once again, quibbling with phraseology is diverting from the thread.

Sorry Steve, but I thought this thread was about 'empirical falsification'.

quote:

"Half-life" and "average life" are both (pedantically) incorrect and you'll notice I did not use either phrase (I hope I didn't anyway).

I didn't notice you use either terminology Steve. I referred to the IPCC's use of 'average life'. The term may well be used with reference to weather, but surely with reference to climate it can be misleading. 'Average life' suggests that 'on average' the aerosol can be assumed non existent after its allotted time span. I wish this were true, then aerosols wouldn't exist in the stratosphere causing havoc with ozone!

Carbon dioxide isn't the only compound to escape the troposphere.

Best regards, suricat.

BTW. There seems to be a dispute about recent aerosol levels, so I doubt we'll find any recent data.

No problemo. Just goes to show you can remember what you want to remember. (Just ask any denialist!)

"Japan is still the leader in the field. To put the situation in economic terms, Japan uses only one-ninth as much energy as China to produce one unit of GDP. It uses one-third as much energy as the United States to produce that same economic unit."

realprimate.

Sorry RP. I just recently (today) uncovered some of the dispute for myself.

quote:

Japan is still the leader in the field.

Is this because they 'out-source' production to a distant shore? I can well remember when Nissan produced in the UK, so is this type of 'leader board' really valid?

Best regards, suricat.

quote:

Originally posted by suricat:
realprimate.

Sorry RP. I just recently (today) uncovered some of the dispute for myself.

quote:

Japan is still the leader in the field.

Is this because they 'out-source' production to a distant shore? I can well remember when Nissan produced in the UK, so is this type of 'leader board' really valid?

Best regards, suricat.

Er no to put it simply. They're just more and more efficient.

Best read the whole "Voice of America" article suricat.

Japan Sets Asian Benchmarck for Energy Efficiency
By Naomi Martig
Hong Kong
26 November 2007



http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2007-11/2007-11-...053&CFTOKEN=89936068

realprimate

Thanks for this affirmation RP. All I can say is "W