Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Global Dimming Thread (merged)

Re: THE Global Dimming Thread (merged)

Unread postby Subjectivist » Sat 14 Nov 2015, 20:48:19

careinke wrote:Tanada,

I was under the impression the over all difference from the US grounding of planes after 911, was a gain of about 2 degrees F.

Another study that took advantage of the grounding gave striking evidence of what contrails can do. David Travis of the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater and two colleagues measured the difference, over those three contrail-free days, between the highest daytime temperature and the lowest nighttime temperature across the continental U.S. They compared those data with the average range in day-night temperatures for the period 1971-2000, again across the contiguous 48 states. Travis's team discovered that from roughly midday September 11 to midday September 14, the days had become warmer and the nights cooler, with the overall range greater by about two degrees Fahrenheit.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/space/contrail-effect.html

The article above say the science is still unclear on how much effect contrails actually have. Hansen thinks the CO2 emission is much worse than the contrail effect.

I can certainly see the argument that contrails may be a "net warmer" though.


Aren't global warming effects the ones you feel when the sun isn't shining at night?
II Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
Subjectivist
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 4701
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 07:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: THE Global Dimming Thread (merged)

Unread postby Tanada » Sat 14 Nov 2015, 23:56:05

careinke wrote:Tanada,

I was under the impression the over all difference from the US grounding of planes after 911, was a gain of about 2 degrees F.

Another study that took advantage of the grounding gave striking evidence of what contrails can do. David Travis of the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater and two colleagues measured the difference, over those three contrail-free days, between the highest daytime temperature and the lowest nighttime temperature across the continental U.S. They compared those data with the average range in day-night temperatures for the period 1971-2000, again across the contiguous 48 states. Travis's team discovered that from roughly midday September 11 to midday September 14, the days had become warmer and the nights cooler, with the overall range greater by about two degrees Fahrenheit.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/space/contrail-effect.html

The article above say the science is still unclear on how much effect contrails actually have. Hansen thinks the CO2 emission is much worse than the contrail effect.

I can certainly see the argument that contrails may be a "net warmer" though.


It wasn't a 2 C gain, it was a 2 C increase in the difference between the daylight high and the overnight low. The night time temperatures dropped over 1 C despite the fact that the daytime temperatures went up about 0.5 C. The increase by day was the result of less dimming from contrail cirrus effect, the cooler nighttime lows was because there was less contrail cirrus reflecting IR radiation back to the surface.

Global warming is most obvious at night and during winter, in other words the periods when the sun is not directly adding thermal energy to the local environment. Under those conditions the IR emitted from the ground layer is reflected more by anything causing a greenhouse effect including all sorts of clouds, not just the cirrus or contrail cirrus.

It has been known for as long as people paid attention that cloudy nights are much warmer than clear nights. We can't do much at all to influence low altitude clouds, but for the last 60 years we have been putting more and more contrails in the 26,000-39,000 foot layer of the atmosphere.

At first people viewed contrails as a sign of technological progress, almost all of them came from jet aircraft which people thought of as the latest greatest thing ever. Over the last decade I have grown to hate the dang things. They cause a slight cooling by day and a modest warming by night and thus make the weather more pleasant for the average person. I don't object to people being more comfortable, but to the extent that the comfort masks global warming and helps people ignore the physics that shape weather and climate contrails are a "bad thing".
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17050
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Global Dimming Thread (merged)

Unread postby Subjectivist » Wed 24 Feb 2016, 17:05:54

As China closes more of their oldest dirtiest coal burning plants there has been a little bit of reporting on clearer skies in Japan and islands in the Pacific. They used to have more high altitude haze which is gradually lessening, meaning the global dimming is being alleviated.

Does anyone have any solid reports about this? I couldn't find anything online the American news media is politics obsessed for the last several years.
II Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
Subjectivist
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 4701
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 07:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: THE Global Dimming Thread (merged)

Unread postby dohboi » Thu 25 Feb 2016, 12:20:34

wrt radiative forcing of contrails, T, as usual is right. The RF charts on pages 8-105 and 8-107 on the link below show contrails as a small but significant positive (warming) forcing.

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-repo ... _Final.pdf

ETA: Ah, I found a transportable (I hope) copy of that chart:

Image
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19990
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Re: THE Global Dimming Thread (merged)

Unread postby dohboi » Thu 25 Feb 2016, 12:30:04

Good question, S. Besides the El Nino and just the underlying ongoing GW, the loss of aerosols from these plants could be part of the reason we're seeing such a bump in the rates of GW over the past few months. And apparently much more to come:

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/ ... -shut-down


The World's Biggest Climate Culprit Will Shut Down 1,000 Coal Mines This Year:
With deeper cuts to follow.


The good news is that this may mean that China's carbon emissions peak well before 2030.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19990
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Re: THE Global Dimming Thread (merged)

Unread postby Tanada » Thu 03 Mar 2016, 13:47:47

interesting report came out a couple weeks ago, in Italian. I don't speak, write or read Italian but this being the 21st Century I used Google Translate and here is what they have to say.

HOW MUCH MORE SHALL THE CHEMICAL ACTIVITIES, EVEN MORE DROUGHT IN THE FUTURE, AND ALWAYS LESS RAIN FALLS fall.

The data to support this claim is undisputed, but the media hide. No rain for months, is drought globally, pollution skyrocketing. In fact, given the continuing drought and wind shortage, the situation of air pollution in urban centers has become very serious.

The traffic restriction measures prove pitiful lies to divert public opinion, likely to hit the cause less pollution to leave the field open to major causes: factories and clandestine geoengineering.

Thousands of citizens will suffer respiratory problems, if not worse. No newspaper says that next summer will be hot and more disastrous than the last. No one says that the groundwater will further become poor, that the price of fruit and vegetables will quadruple, while the drinking water will double.

In our opinion, these are precisely the objectives of chemical activities in our skies, it is as if the aim is to project a depletion of our water resources.

The strategic aims?

Mainly three: to weaken the Euro; promote the privatization of water; pave the way for super GMOs that will be born cabbage from the desert ...

DATA TO SUPPORT THIS STATEMENT are undisputed, REGARDING THE EFFECTS ON ENVIRONMENT OF SATURATED BY NOW nanoparticles HYGROSCOPIC.

Precipitation decreased a bit 'all over the world. Among other things, the excessive amount of condensation nuclei of very small size prevents the water vapor to form fairly large drops and heavy such as to fall as drops of rain. The imbrifere clouds are swept away by the nanoparticles dispersed by aircraft and replaced by large, compact and dirty artificial blankets extending over the territories of several states.

In addition to drought due to the excessive number of small condensation nuclei, we must consider the problem of reducing the phenomenon known as evapotranspiration, due to the lower radiation related to stratospheric geoengineering and management of solar radiation. Let's not forget the wind dropped, a phenomenon that has a negative effect on the rate of evaporation.

Comparing current satellite photographs of the Earth with the images taken from space, from the first half of the 70s of the twentieth century, there is a shocking difference. You do not see larger areas of clear sky. Now there are few terse surfaces while chemical veils now occupy most of the regions.

ACCORDING TO THE LATEST SCIENTIFIC EVALUATION OF THE 30% OF THE RAYS OF THE SUN DOES NOT REACH THE SURFACE OF THE PLANET, compared to a few decades ago.

This scenario is called "global dimming" or "global dimming." This fact is not disputed by the international scientific community, but is not shown the true genesis.

So why do we continue to trust the media and the regime meteorologists?

The few researchers who have had the courage to denounce geoengineering have been marginalized by the same propaganda system that plagia the public about an endless list of problems. The others are silent. It would seem that their salary is far more important than truth.

Meanwhile, the atmospheric degradation, alteration of atmospheric processes and pollution of the biomes are still restless.


http://www.ecplanet.com/node/4932
https://translate.google.com/#auto/en/
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17050
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Global Dimming Thread (merged)

Unread postby vox_mundi » Mon 14 Mar 2016, 13:01:51

How cleaner air could actually make global warming worse

A significant amount of the climate change caused by greenhouse gas emissions in the past century has been hidden from us, scientists say — by another type of pollution that actually cools the climate and temporarily cancels out some of the warming. Two new studies, both released today in the journal Nature Geoscience, address the powerful influence of aerosols — fine particles or drops of liquid often released by industrial activity — on the climate, and suggest that as nations around the world work to reduce this type of air pollution, we will begin to see more rapid warming than expected. And that could hurt our ability to meet the climate goals set in last year’s Paris Agreement.

... This effect is already having a significant impact on certain parts of the world, as one of the new Nature Geoscience studies points out. That paper examines the impact of European reductions in aerosol emissions on warming in the Arctic, which is proceeding at a faster rate than other parts of the world. Out of all the regions of the world, Europe has reduced its aerosol loading the most in the past several decades, which means its policies have likely had the biggest effect on recent aerosol-related climate changes.

Using simulations from a climate model, which took changes in aerosol loading into account, the authors conclude that as much as 0.5 degrees Celsius of the warming that took place in the Arctic between 1980 and 2005 can be explained by aerosol reductions in Europe during that time. In other words, as the aerosol “mask” is being pulled away, researchers are seeing an enhanced regional warming as a result.

... other analysis suggests that about a third of the continental warming that occurred between 1964 and 2010 was masked by the cooling effect caused by aerosols. In other words, greenhouse gas emissions during that period had a bigger effect on the climate than they actually appeared to at the time. Taking this into account, the researchers then calculated Earth’s transient climate sensitivity and found that at the time of carbon dioxide doubling — whenever that occurs — we should see a temperature increase of about 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels. (... equilibrium climate sensitivity will be higher - >3.0)

“Obviously, [our study] has the implication that we can’t allow for carbon dioxide doubling to happen if we care deeply about these warming limits,” Storelvmo said. “And so it has really implications in the sense that the higher the transient climate sensitivity is, the more fossil fuels will have to stay in the ground.”
“There are three classes of people: those who see. Those who see when they are shown. Those who do not see.” ― Leonardo da Vinci

Insensible before the wave so soon released by callous fate. Affected most, they understand the least, and understanding, when it comes, invariably arrives too late.
User avatar
vox_mundi
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3939
Joined: Wed 27 Sep 2006, 03:00:00

Re: THE Global Dimming Thread (merged)

Unread postby Tanada » Wed 31 Jan 2018, 11:45:21

The idea of spraying a haze of sun-dimming chemicals high above the Earth as a quick way to slow global warming faces so many obstacles that it may not be feasible, a leaked draft U.N. report says.

The U.N. review of a planetary sunshade, mimicking how a big volcanic eruption can cool the planet with a veil of debris, is part of a broad study of climate technologies ordered by almost 200 nations in the 2015 Paris Agreement.

Proposals by some scientists to spray chemicals such as sulphur high in the atmosphere from aeroplanes have won more attention since Paris as a relatively cheap fix, costing perhaps $1 billion to $10 billion a year.

But such geo-engineering may be 'economically, socially and institutionally infeasible,' according to a draft obtained by Reuters covering hundreds of pages on risks of droughts, floods, heat waves and more powerful storms.

The draft, by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) about ways to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial times, is due for publication in October.

It could still change substantially, the IPCC said.

Problems involved with 'solar radiation management' include testing and working out rules for a technology that could be deployed by a single nation, or even a company, and might disrupt global weather patterns.

And it 'would result in an 'addiction problem'; once started, it's hard to stop,' the draft says.

A halt after several years could lead to a jump in temperatures because greenhouse gases would continue to build up in the atmosphere.

David Keith, faculty director of Harvard University's Solar Geoengineering Research Program which is working for a tiny outdoor experiment to dim sunshine, said there was a misguided 'taboo' against examining the technology.

'We need a serious research effort to understand its risks and potential benefits. Then we will be able to write informed assessments,' he wrote in an e-mail.

But many scientists are sceptical.

'To deploy it safely ... would take many decades,' said Myles Allen, a professor of geosystem science at Oxford University.

Afforestation: This technique would irrigate deserts, such as those in Australia and North Africa, to plant millions of trees that could absorb carbon dioxide.

Drawback: This vegetation would also draw in sunlight that the deserts currently reflect back into space, and so contribute to global warming.

Artificial ocean upwelling: Engineers would use long pipes to pump cold, nutrient-rich water upward to cool ocean-surface waters.

Drawback: If this process ever stopped it could cause oceans to rebalance their heat levels and rapidly change the climate.

Ocean alkalinisation: This involves heaping lime into the ocean to chemically increase the absorption of carbon dioxide.

Drawback: Study suggests it will have of little use in reducing global temperatures.

Ocean iron fertilisation: The method involves dumping iron into the oceans to improve the growth of photosynthetic organisms that can absorb carbon dioxide.

Drawback: Study suggests it will have of little use in reducing global temperatures.

Solar radiation management: This would reduce the amount of sunlight Earth receives, by shooting reflective sulphate-based aerosols into the atmosphere.

Drawback: Carbon dioxide would still build up in the atmosphere.


He said it was 'completely misleading' to suggest it could be an easy short-cut to slow warming.

Given the long time needed for research, it would be better to focus on ways to limit greenhouse emissions, he said.

Allen said he was giving his personal views, not of the IPCC draft of which he is an author.

The draft also says rising temperatures could breach 1.5C by mid-century unless governments take unprecedented action.

The Paris Agreement has been weakened by U.S. President Donald Trump's plan to withdraw.


LINK
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17050
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Global Dimming Thread (merged)

Unread postby GHung » Wed 31 Jan 2018, 12:11:40

Artificial ocean upwelling: Engineers would use long pipes to pump cold, nutrient-rich water upward to cool ocean-surface waters.


I had an idea of using floating or buoyed solar arrays that either pump air to depths below the top thermal layer to create an upwelling current, or use electrolysis to create a stream of oxygen bubbles from the sea water. The hydrogen could be used in a balloon to suspend the solar arrays above the ocean surface 8O . If storms were imminent, the hydrogen could be released, submerging the arrays below the surface until the storm passed. A small desal system could be used on board to periodically spray the system down for cleaning.

Offshore wind farms could also divert surplus production to similar purposes.
Blessed are the Meek, for they shall inherit nothing but their Souls. - Anonymous Ghung Person
User avatar
GHung
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3093
Joined: Tue 08 Sep 2009, 16:06:11
Location: Moksha, Nearvana

Re: THE Global Dimming Thread (merged)

Unread postby Tanada » Wed 31 Jan 2018, 13:48:32

GHung wrote:
Artificial ocean upwelling: Engineers would use long pipes to pump cold, nutrient-rich water upward to cool ocean-surface waters.


I had an idea of using floating or buoyed solar arrays that either pump air to depths below the top thermal layer to create an upwelling current, or use electrolysis to create a stream of oxygen bubbles from the sea water. The hydrogen could be used in a balloon to suspend the solar arrays above the ocean surface 8O . If storms were imminent, the hydrogen could be released, submerging the arrays below the surface until the storm passed. A small desal system could be used on board to periodically spray the system down for cleaning.

Offshore wind farms could also divert surplus production to similar purposes.



The did an experiment about a decade ago where they fitted a buoy with a long flexible weighted hose. The hose arrangement had a one way flapper valve on the top so as the buoy rode up a wave crest it would pull the hose up the water column then as it rode down the water in the hose would pour out the top as the hose was lowered back down, the flap would close at the bottom of the wave cycle and repeat with every wave moving the buoy up and down in a pumping action. IOW it was a wave powered pump. They deployed it in a nutrient desert area of the Pacific where there were no materials to support the plankton layer and after two weeks the nutrients pumped up from the depths had created a plankton bloom and a ecosystem community based around that bloom. The problem they ran into was storms were very rough on the hose arrangement the test article broke after just a couple weeks.

When I saw that demonstration I thought, why not use an old SPAR platform that isn't producing oil or gas any more? You could tow it out to one of the ocean 'plankton deserts' and anchor it, then attach windmill powered pumps to the ballast tank system on the bottom to pull up nutrient rich deep sea water spray it over the side to aerate it. Alternatively you could hook the windmills to air compressors and release compressed air at great depth where it would rise to the surface creating an upwelling and bringing the cold bottom water up with it. Either system works though the water pumping system is much simpler because you simply pump water out of the top of an open pipe only having to raise it a few meters, natural pressure at the bottom of the pipe will force bottom water up to replace what you remove from the top.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17050
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Global Dimming Thread (merged)

Unread postby ozcad » Sun 04 Feb 2018, 14:09:51

Neat trick, a single technology pump. No electronics or nukes req'd. Worth pursuing. Somebody should definitely do something about something.
Tanada said
...storms were very rough on the hose arrangement

Damage should be reducible by making the top few metres of pipe from a corrugated material or of a telescoping design. This should soften the blow during reversals of pumping pressure. The bottom 99.9% of the tube would be almost stationary vertically.
Useful - a self-cleaning method, a radio beeper, flashing hazard light. Any thoughts?
User avatar
ozcad
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 81
Joined: Fri 03 Jul 2015, 13:26:35
Location: Australia

Re: THE Global Dimming Thread (merged)

Unread postby onlooker » Fri 09 Feb 2018, 14:21:33

https://grist.org/article/geoengineerin ... ve-planet/
But there’s a catch. Our surplus of aerosols is a huge problem for those of us who like to breathe air. At high concentrations, these tiny particles are one of the deadliest substances in existence, burrowing deep into our bodies where they can damage hearts and lungs.


According to a new study, we might be locked in this deadly embrace. Research by an international team of scientists recently published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters says that the cooling effect of aerosols is so large that it has masked as much as half of the warming effect from greenhouse gases. So aerosols can’t be wiped out. Take them away and temperatures would soar overnight.

Damned if we don't
Damned if we do, :cry:
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 10957
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 13:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 20

Unread postby dohboi » Tue 11 Sep 2018, 16:02:14

The linked reference provides evidence that CMIP5 model projections 'have underestimated the cooling effect that aerosol particles have had on climate in recent decades"; which 'suggests that the models are not sensitive enough to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere'. In other words, this reference finds that the CMIP5 models (as a group) underestimate both TCR & ECS:


Trude Storelvmo et al. (29 August 2018), "Lethargic response to aerosol emissions in current climate models", Geophysical Research Letters, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL078298

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com ... 18GL078298

"Abstract
The global temperature trend observed over the last century is largely the result of two opposing effects – cooling from aerosol particles and greenhouse gas (GHG) warming. While the effect of increasing GHG concentrations on Earth's radiation budget is well‐constrained, that due to anthropogenic aerosols is not, partly due to a lack of observations. However, long‐term surface measurements of changes in downward solar radiation (SDSR), an often‐used proxy for aerosol radiative impact, are available worldwide over the last half‐century. We compare SDSR changes from ∼1,400 stations to those from the CMIP5 global climate simulations over the period 1961‐2005. The observed SDSR shows a strong early downward trend followed by a weaker trend‐reversal, broadly consistent with historical aerosol emissions. However, despite considerable changes to known aerosol emissions over time, the models show negligible SDSR trends, revealing a lethargic response to aerosol emissions, and casting doubt on the accuracy of their future climate projections.

Plain Language Summary
Observations of incoming solar radiation, as measured at approximately 1400 surface stations worldwide, show a strong downward trend from the 1960s to the 1980s, followed by a weaker trend reversal thereafter. These trends are thought to be due to changes in the amount of aerosol particles in the atmosphere, and we find support for that here in the temporal evolution of anthropogenic aerosol emissions. This is expected because aerosol particles reflect and/or absorb sunlight back to space, and have a net cooling effect on Earth's climate.

However, we find that the current generation of climate models simulate negligible solar radiation trends over the last half‐century, suggesting that they have underestimated the cooling effect that aerosol particles have had on climate in recent decades.

Despite this, climate models tend to reproduce surface air temperature over the time period in question reasonably well. This, in turn, suggests that the models are not sensitive enough to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, with important implications for their ability to simulate future climate."

Thanks to aslr at asif for text and link
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19990
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 20

Unread postby Plantagenet » Tue 11 Sep 2018, 17:34:03

dohboi wrote: the current generation of climate models simulate negligible solar radiation trends over the last half‐century, suggesting that they have underestimated the cooling effect that aerosol particles have had on climate in recent decades.

Despite this, climate models tend to reproduce surface air temperature over the time period in question reasonably well. This, in turn, suggests that the models are not sensitive enough to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, with important implications for their ability to simulate future climate."


The numbers I've seen suggest the aerosols are reducing sunlight enough to counteract about a third of global warming.

That means that instead of ca. 1.5°C of global warming due to CO2, we'd be at about 2.0° C right now---if not for the effect of aerosols.

And the aerosols are mainly from coal, diesel and other fossil fuels. If we could instantly stop using fossil fuels global temps would jump up by ca. 0.5° C in a few years as aerosol levels in the atmosphere dropped.

The main thing counteracting global warming due to fossil fuels is aerosols due to fossil fuels.

Cheers!
Never underestimate the ability of Joe Biden to f#@% things up---Barack Obama
-----------------------------------------------------------
Keep running between the raindrops.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26616
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 20

Unread postby Sys1 » Tue 11 Sep 2018, 19:35:22

Plantagenet : That's known for a while, it's called global dimming and Guy McPherson often warned about it. Even the BBC made a report about it back in... 2005.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0BMyT4RCzY

On the other hand, the claim that global dimming accounts for 0.5°C is an hypothesis.
What will be quite funny is when big coal or Donald Trump will say we must throw fossil fuels dust in the atmosphere faster "to save the planet" (tm) from GW.
User avatar
Sys1
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 983
Joined: Fri 25 Feb 2005, 04:00:00

Re: THE Global Dimming Thread (merged)

Unread postby dissident » Wed 19 Sep 2018, 11:25:43

Global dimming is induced by sulfate aerosols that increase the number of cloud droplets (clouds are basically activated aerosols) which makes clouds whiter and scatters more visible radiation back into space. But this is not the only effect of aerosols. They also act to trap more IR in the troposphere by inducing low opacity haze and cloud formation in the upper troposphere. So global dimming is not a systematic effect. Less visible radiation reaching the surface is coupled with more IR being trapped.

Smug conclusions about how much warming is being hidden are dubious since the whole radiative transfer impact has not been quantified. The IPCC has not done this and there is no literature that accounts for all effects. Modelling aerosols is challenging because of the complex microphysics and chemistry (e.g. organic chemistry) and lack of detailed observations of the aerosol characteristics around the globe. The radiative tranfer impact of aerosols is very sensitive to their composition.

However, more forest fires and surface ablation by increased wind action, together with warming will act to increase the aerosol loading of the troposphere. This is a net positive feedback on the warming. Even if black carbon can locally result in surface cooling in forest fire regions, globally smoke acts to increase IR trapping haze. Increased dust emissions can act to change the lifetime of clouds by inducing more ice nucleation and hence precipitation. So whitened clouds can have less persistence and thus net cooling impact.

The physics is complex and there is no indication of any magic offset to warming.
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6458
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00

Re: THE Global Dimming Thread (merged)

Unread postby Tanada » Thu 14 Feb 2019, 10:05:01

How having a PhD in Biology, Conservation Biology, Climate Science, or anything else really doesn't necessarily qualify you to speak on energy issues. Having actual expertise on energy issues is more important as without the prerequisite 10,000 hours of study you just won't know what you don't know.

On a Facebook page called the Arctic News I got into an argument with some Guy McPherson (a conservation biologist) fan club boys about global dimming. The thrust of their position was that because of global dimming caused by aerosols put into the atmosphere by dirty power plants (all kinds including mobile ones) it would not do us any good to try doing anything about global warming.

The thrust of their argument is that based upon a 2001 study of planet warming caused by the suspension of air traffic in the United States following the terrorist attacks of 9/11/2001 means that if we were to eliminate air pollution from dirty global warming sources the planet would warm up an additional 1 degree Celsius to 1.5 degrees in the matter of a few weeks. The couple week lag is for the time it takes for particulate matter to fall out of the air basically.

https://youtu.be/SUev0yAUGNc

None of this proven in any prima fascia way mind you, it is just extrapolated from data gathered from one incident of involving one event in the United States lasting a few days in the year 2001.

While studying this event is useful and it is something we need to do it doesn’t mean we should make the conjectural leap to the idea that society at large should not bother even trying to combat climate change by installing renewable energy, switching to electric drive vehicles, or improving energy storage and efficiency. It is my position this idea is just wrong regardless of if the foundational premise is true.

Later I ran across a James Lovelock (another biologist) You Tube Video where he was talking about how human numbers need to be reduced to less than one billion people for our civilization to have any chance to being sustainable. This is a position I have held for quite a while based upon the historical evidence we have. Mysteriously Lovelock says it is a waste of time for humanity to try to reduce their carbon emissions by switching to renewable resources also. Somehow magically if there were less than one billion humans all would be fine (presumably even if we all were still using fossil fuels?) but reducing carbon emissions now while we are in population overshoot would be a waste of time.

https://youtu.be/dBUvZDSY2D0

What gives here, am I missing something or am I witnessing a Podsnap flourish? I think what Lovelock is really saying is that given the context of population overshoot (by a factor of 10X) that renewables, and carbon emission reduction schemes won’t save us. That has been my position also, but that doesn’t mean these things are worthless efforts, or that we should not do them. It is all about the context, and in this instance the context is unstated.

This kind of advice is not only bad advice; it is poorly articulated to be charitable about it. Guy McPherson stayed at our house once in preparation for giving one of his talks for the ASLC in town here. While he was here I showed him a LED light bulb and explained to him that it was literally thousands of time more efficient at producing light then a kerosene lantern. He seemed unimpressed in a Rumsfeldian kind of way.

https://youtu.be/HC8-b29xGz0

In other words he didn’t know what he didn’t know. Neither Guy McPherson nor James Lovelock are experts in the field of energy matters. Having a PHD in another field and general scientific knowledge may lead them to think they are expert enough to speak on matters they don’t have expertise in really. If I were to trust a climate change scientist (not a conservation biologist or a biologist) in energy matters I would be more inclined to trust Kevin Anderson of the Tyndale Center in England who really seems to know his stuff about current energy issues

https://youtu.be/ZF1zNpzf8RM

Who am I to judge this you may well ask? I have been interested in energy issues since the early 1980’s. I was the Vice President of an energy efficiency company called Negawatts Inc. for 10 years. I also worked at power plant for over 24 years at NMSU operating boilers, chillers, and a jet turbine that generated 4.2 megawatts of power for the campus. This a long with my abiding interest in energy issues qualifies me more than a PHD who just thinks they know about a field they really have never studied or experienced in any depth.

I heard this kind of talk from “Doomers or Collapsitarians (parroting the Guy McPherson line) all the time. While the word “Hubris” doesn’t normally apply to this kind of speech it helps to think of it that way.

So called experts making broad stroke assertions about Near Term Human Extinction and the uselessness of any steps to even try to address climate change are just way out over their skis in the mental ski jumps they are making.

In the first place the climate system has proven to be astonishingly complex and over the last thirty years has thrown lots of curve balls at the climate scientist studying the issue. While we do know it is being caused by human activities we do not know in any great detail about how it will play out over the next fifty years, if we have that long? Anyone who claims they do know is either oblivious to their ignorance on the matter, suffering from their own form of hubris, or both. Giving advice to society at large not to act is foolish in the same way it is foolish to tell a young person not to bother with automobile insurance because they likely will not get into an accident.

Since renewable energy sources like solar and wind are now cheaper than fossil fuels such advice runs counter to what society is now likely to do anyway for least cost decisions. Electric drive for example uses one third less energy per mile, so why would you advise people to throw away money on petro cars when they have a better option. It is the same all down the line as the advice runs completely counter to the best economic decisions people make if they were acting on the best enlightened self-interest.

There is one last caveat, so what if we are all going to die soon, that doesn’t make a prima fascia case for wasting money or resources. I will be 69 years old this year and I can guarantee you I am not going to be throwing away money needlessly. Even without NTHE (Near Term Human Extinction) I will probably die of natural causes in twenty years. Even so, I am advising my children to buy efficiencies and electric drive for their next car purchase. I don’t know enough to tell them it is a waste of time and they shouldn’t bother trying. We have grandchildren and if these efforts buy them years, or even just a day the effort is justifiable in my mind.

What is on display here with our PHD friends and fan boy followers, is not their knowledge or insight, it is the poverty of their ignorance about energy matters generally, and their inability to imagine a world not being run on fossil fuels. They just don’t know what they don’t know, or seem appreciate the fact that there are unknown unknowns. A little humility in the face of their and our collective ignore-rance is what is called for here. Such arrogance about ignorance is the very root cause and meaning of the word “Hubris”.


LINK
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17050
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Global Dimming Thread (merged)

Unread postby Newfie » Thu 14 Feb 2019, 10:39:12

Went to the link, didn’t find a name or CV or anything.

Sorta sounds like a lot/kettle argument to me.

IMHO It’s unlikely any success will come about, one should prepare for bad outcomes. Yet one should also keep an ear to the door in case it cracks open.

I thought I heard it creak on the GND, but alas!
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 18458
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Previous

Return to Environment, Weather & Climate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 85 guests