[alochin]

The financial crisis will trigger an acceleration of global warming. The cause is a drastic reduction of oil consumption. Here is why:

Burning fossil fuel produces two forms of pollution: greenhouse gas, which result in global warming, and particulate emissions, which result in global dimming.

It takes years for greenhouse gases to reach the upper atmosphere and affect the climate.
On the other hand, particulate emissions affect the climate in a matter of days, as was measured in the 3 days following September 11.

The current climate change is the result of a tug-of-war between global warming and global dimming, with, as we know, global warming being the dominant effect.

There are questions related to the 2003 heat wave in Europe that killed 50,000 peoples, was that heat wave the first effect of emission restrictions implemented in Western Europe?
When emissions are reduced, global dimming recedes almost immediately, while global warming keeps increasing because the greenhouse gases affecting the climate today were emitted years ago. The tug-of-war turns more to the warming side for a while until greenhouse gases eventually recedes.

There has never been such a drastic reduction in fossil fuel consumption as we are seeing now, due to the financial crisis.

I think we should prepare for heat waves hitting the US in the coming years, to the point FEMA should be aware of this risk.

Air conditioners will put a heavy load on the grid, and disruption of the grid (regional blackouts) could produce casualties that would dwarf the 2003 heat wave.
Before 2003, in Western Europe, nobodies had air conditioners, because nobody lived in places requiring them. This is not the case in the Southern States.

I just hope I am wrong.
Andre.

[cipi604]

If this won't happen, that proves that we know shaite about climate change.

[essex]

Get ready for colder summers. More people die of cold than heat and world temperatures are declining - but the screaming skulls all knew that didn't they ?

[centralstump]

The financial crisis will trigger an acceleration of global warming. The cause is a drastic reduction of oil consumption. Here is why:

Burning fossil fuel produces two forms of pollution: greenhouse gas, which result in global warming, and particulate emissions, which result in global dimming.

It takes years for greenhouse gases to reach the upper atmosphere and affect the climate.
On the other hand, particulate emissions affect the climate in a matter of days, as was measured in the 3 days following September 11.

The current climate change is the result of a tug-of-war between global warming and global dimming, with, as we know, global warming being the dominant effect.

There are questions related to the 2003 heat wave in Europe that killed 50,000 peoples, was that heat wave the first effect of emission restrictions implemented in Western Europe?
When emissions are reduced, global dimming recedes almost immediately, while global warming keeps increasing because the greenhouse gases affecting the climate today were emitted years ago. The tug-of-war turns more to the warming side for a while until greenhouse gases eventually recedes.

There has never been such a drastic reduction in fossil fuel consumption as we are seeing now, due to the financial crisis.

I think we should prepare for heat waves hitting the US in the coming years, to the point FEMA should be aware of this risk.

Air conditioners will put a heavy load on the grid, and disruption of the grid (regional blackouts) could produce casualties that would dwarf the 2003 heat wave.
Before 2003, in Western Europe, nobodies had air conditioners, because nobody lived in places requiring them. This is not the case in the Southern States.

I just hope I am wrong.
Andre.

This is like doctors trying to agree on what can cause cancer. It illustrates the problems with modeling the effects of human caused global warming. We humans are only one variable in the equation. Every few months we see headlines like "Warming Researchers stunned by rate of Arctic Ice Melt" or "Scientists surprised by current cooling tends." We can talk all we want about possible tipping points, but we really don't know how, when or why. All scientists can really tell us with any certainty is that climate is changing and it is, in large part, caused by humans.

What if there is a methane release tipping point on Dec 18, 2008? All our current modeling would be nullified. There would instantly be a new reality. I guess what I am asking is: "What are the assumptions used to decide a methane release (or some other tipping point) will not happen tomorrow? More importantly, how many of those assumptions are wrong?"

Seems we are taking a whole bunch on faith.

[dorlomin]

On the other hand, particulate emissions affect the climate in a matter of days, as was measured in the 3 days following September 11.

No what happened after Sept 11 was a dearth of contrails in US airspace. This meant that the measured difference between the days high and low jumped by one degree celcius. In the day, contrails reflect back light at a high altitude and at night they help to warm the air by preventing the release of heat (witness a cloudy winter night vs a clear one). This is slightly differenct from particle pollution.

Particle pollution is the major driver in global dimming, the steady drop in the amount of light reaching the ground. This is caused (largely) by particles in the upper atmosphere helping to form clouds of smaller droplets of water with a larger number of droplets per cloud. These are more reflective of light back into space. Also particles, specificaly sulphates, in the stratosphere or upper troposhere also reflect light back into space.

[This is increadibly uncontroversial science. I would really like to see who has the courage to publicaly dispute this. ]

Global dimming most likely contributes to a cooling of the earth. It also has an affect of water evaporation as insolation (sun light) is the strongest single factor in 'pan evaportation' (evaportation of water). The reason to pay attention is that sulphates and other particles have a much shorter lifespan in the atmosphere than CO2 (or even methane). So over a couple of years the impact of the total mass of sulphates and other particles will diminish very quickly.

I have said this is all very uncontrovesial as the effects of global dimming have been measured independently with different teams using different methodologies who were not looking for it. It is also just about the oldest piece of theoretical atmospherics still going, its effects were first hypothisised by Ben Franklin after the erruption of Laki in Iceland. Its impacts have been very clearly noted after both Tamobora and Krakatoa and subsiquently very large erruptions in the tropics have been predicted to cause temporary cooling, these predictions have been bourne out.

Worth noting, the lattitude of the volcano is kind of important. The closer to the euqator the greater the impact (for a given ejected mass).

Global dimming has been noted to be somewhat receding in the past few years, this is largely due to strong laws on pollution in the west, that and the 'dash to gas' away from coal.

I would assume that the Eastern Pacific is the area most likely to show the results of global slow down as China, India, Indonesia and so on have all been increasingly heavy polluters with limited or no regulation on scrubbing the pollutants.

The impact of a massive slowdown will not be noticed for a while, months to perhaps a year and even then we will only remove a portion (probibly less than 10%) of the sulphates. If there is a notable increase in temprature (0.05 or greater) then this in itself will not prove that CO2 has been the main cause of warming over the past centuary, all it will do is affirm that sulphates and particle pollutants cause a dimming and cooling. That we already know. But it will warn us that we may be underestimating the current heating, whatever you believe it to be caused by.

[mos6507]

Then what do we do about it? We obviously don't want to keep outputting CO2 just to maintain the dimming. I think we have to just take our lumps and be done with it.

[frankthetank]

I like it hot and sticky...

[GoghGoner]

This is like doctors trying to agree on what can cause cancer. It illustrates the problems with modeling the effects of human caused global warming. We humans are only one variable in the equation. Every few months we see headlines like "Warming Researchers stunned by rate of Arctic Ice Melt" or "Scientists surprised by current cooling tends." We can talk all we want about possible tipping points, but we really don't know how, when or why. All scientists can really tell us with any certainty is that climate is changing and it is, in large part, caused by humans.

What if there is a methane release tipping point on Dec 18, 2008? All our current modeling would be nullified. There would instantly be a new reality. I guess what I am asking is: "What are the assumptions used to decide a methane release (or some other tipping point) will not happen tomorrow? More importantly, how many of those assumptions are wrong?"

Seems we are taking a whole bunch on faith.

Much like we know that cigarettes contribute to cancer, we know GHGs contribute and aerosols contribute to climate change. Climate change will contribute to deaths much like cancer, too. Although we cannot prevent all cancer by stopping smoking, we cannot prevent climate change by lowering emissions -- we can only mitigate the probabilities. The world is like a smoker -- if the world gets lung cancer then we will be sorry like them smokers who get it.

[alokin]

If you are lucky enough to live in a house then you can plant fast growing trees and understorey plants. This keeps your house cool. An there is some carbon sequestration as well. Plant your public space and don't ask too much.
It's so hot here down under I hope for an afternoon storm.
The main problem with the heat is that you can't work outside for most of the day and the evaporation rates are just gigantic.
And yes, I think this is a good point: GD2 by next summer and heat waves. How is rainfall linked to global dimming??