Archive for Tuesday, July 5, 2011

Global warming pause linked to China sulfur

July 5, 2011

Advertisement

— Scientists have come up with a possible explanation for why the rise in Earth’s temperature paused for a bit during the 2000s, one of the hottest decades on record.

The answer seems counterintuitive. It’s all that sulfur pollution in the air from China’s massive coal-burning, according to a new study.

Sulfur particles in the air deflect the sun’s rays and can temporarily cool things down a bit. That can happen even as coal-burning produces the carbon dioxide that contributes to global warming.

“People normally just focus on the warming effect of CO2 (carbon dioxide), but during the Chinese economic expansion there was a huge increase in sulfur emissions,” which have a cooling effect, explained Robert K. Kaufmann of Boston University. He’s the lead author of the study published Monday in Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.

But sulfur’s cooling effect is only temporary, while the carbon dioxide from coal burning stays in Earth’s atmosphere a long time.

Chinese coal consumption doubled between 2003 and 2007, and that caused a 26 percent increase in global coal consumption, Kaufmann said.

Now, Chinese leaders have recognized the effects of that pollution on their environment and their citizens’ health and are installing equipment to scrub out the sulfur particles, Kaufmann said.

Sulfur quickly drops out of the air if it is not replenished, while carbon dioxide remains for a long time, so its warming effects are beginning to be visible again, he noted. The plateau in temperature growth disappeared in 2009 and 2010, when temperatures lurched upward.

Indeed, NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, have listed 2010 as tied for the warmest year on record, while the Hadley Center of the British Meteorological Office lists it as second warmest, after 1998.

Comments

Richard Heckler 4 years, 1 month ago

The Earth is warming and human activity is the primary cause. Climate disruptions put our food and water supply at risk, endanger our health, jeopardize our national security, and threaten other basic human needs. Some impacts—such as record high temperatures, melting glaciers, and severe flooding and droughts—are already becoming increasingly common across the country and around the world. So far, our national leaders are failing to act quickly to reduce heat-trapping emissions.

However, there is much we can do to protect the health and economic well-being of current and future generations from the consequences of the heat-trapping emissions caused when we burn coal, oil, and gas to generate electricity, drive our cars, and fuel our businesses.

Our country is at a crossroads: the United States can act responsibly and seize the opportunity to lead by developing new, innovative solutions, as well as immediately putting to use the many practical solutions we have at our disposal today; or we can choose to do nothing and deal with severe consequences later. At UCS we believe the choice is clear. It is time to push forward toward a brighter, cleaner future.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

Richard Heckler 4 years, 1 month ago

What is Global Warming?

When CO2 and other heat-trapping emissions are released into the air, they act like a blanket, holding heat in our atmosphere and warming the planet. Overloading our atmosphere with carbon has far-reaching effects for people everywhere. Learn more http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

Global Warming Science & Impacts What does the science say about global warming and what are the connections between climate data and the changes we see around us—and those we expect to see in the future? Learn more http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

TopJayhawk 4 years, 1 month ago

Yet during Roman times, they were growing grapes and making wine in either Iceland or Greenland. Was that due to a rise in CO2 from all of the Roman chariot horses out there then?

Bad science, bad politics.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 1 month ago

"Yet during Roman times, they were growing grapes and making wine in either Iceland or Greenland"

Got a link on that one? And which one is it?

jhawkinsf 4 years, 1 month ago

While the planet undergoes frequent climate change that is unrelated to human activity, there is convincing evidence that recent human activity is also causing climate change. Both are true.

beatrice 4 years, 1 month ago

Romans in Greenland growing grapes there?

Um ... I don't think so.

gkerr 4 years, 1 month ago

Merrill, How credible is the UCS, union of concerned Scientists? The data they canonize is trash data, garbage really. Monitoring stations are usually out of compliance with the standards those stations were supposed to comply with and thus are spuriously measuring temperature at many locations throughout the country and the world. The raw data is frequently hidden or surpressed. The computer modeling algorithms are hidden and codes are not available for comparison or criticism. A recent example one of many concerns Hansen's GISS data. GISS uses measured temperature data from lower latitudes and then extrapolates them to the Arctic. Using this method, any readings warmer than average in the lower latitudes are pushed into the Arctic by a smoothing technique. GISS uses a 1,200 kilometer smoothing for its data, meaning that the temperature reading for one thermometer is used as the temperature for a 1,200 kilometer box in all directions from that location. Where there are more thermometers, the boxes overlap, and the readings of one thermometer are averaged with others around them. This reduces the effect of each individual thermometer, but in data-sparse regions, the value of one thermometer takes on a much greater value, and the incredibly partisan and radicalized scientists like Hansen make assumptions that always paint the higher temperature to satisfy their own held special interest.

Further, Basic assumptions are flawed such as the touted theory driving much of the hysteria that for every molecule of CO2 liberated there are three molecules of H2O mobilized to multiply or amplify the direct warming effect of CO2. This theory is proven to be wrong, yet is still touted to be true by concerned scientists and their fellow ideologues who push this theory for reasons having nothing to do with science or climate but everything to do with funding the welfare state and global government run by elitist's who earn their living by ordering others about.

Stop being duped by these charlatans.
Gkerr

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 1 month ago

"Stop being duped by these charlatans. "

You mean the ones at Exxon that paid for all the BS talking points you parrot so faithfully?

Flap Doodle 4 years, 1 month ago

Psst, merrill, global warming seems to have halted for the last decade. You should keep up with the current news better.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 1 month ago

Did you even read the article? Or did you just see a post from merrill and salivate all over yourself?

Crazy_Larry 4 years, 1 month ago

WRONG! Complete and total disinformation. Why don't you try researching an issue before spouting off the first thing Rush Limbowel said that comes into your mind? GEEEEZUS! The world will be a better place, some day....when you, and idiots like you, die off.

"NASA’s announcement this year – that 2010 ties 2005 as the warmest year in the 131-year instrumental record – made headlines."

"Meanwhile, the third warmest year -- 2009 -- is so close to 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, and 2007, with the maximum difference between the years being a mere 0.03°C, that all six years are virtually tied."

For example, while GISS previously ranked 2005 warmest, the Met Office listed 1998 warmest. The discrepancy helped fuel the misperception that findings from the three groups vary sharply or contain large amounts of uncertainty. It also fueled the misperception that global warming stopped in 1998.

“In reality, nothing could be further from the truth,” said Hansen. Global temperatures have continued to rise steadily.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2010-climate-records.html

gkerr 4 years, 1 month ago

Hansen is a fraud. NOAA and GISS are complicit in the whole warmest scheme. The models put forth by Warmers have fallen apart. People know it is a spurious ideology driven theory using false science, corrupt data with predetermined findings. Look at the crooks, Medicine Men and midway wizards who lead and promote the cause including the UN's corrupt IPCC and the world crier Nobel Lauerate Albert Gore who flys about the world in his twelve passenger private jet hyping his pet projects and trying to pump up the value of his now worthless carbon credits. He is such a believer he's abandoned or been dumped by his dear wife Tipper and lives in a gazillion square foot beach front estate frolicking with Hollywood wives who are fellow travelling deceived and deceivers all. Few who look at the data and the models believe the clearly pressed and bogus theory built on pencil titrated data for ideological purposes from the outset.
Gkerr

Crazy_Larry 4 years, 1 month ago

Got anything to back up those statements, or should I just believe you because you wouldn't lie to us, right? Idiot?

Scientific societies and scientists have released statements and studies showing the growing consensus on climate change science. A common objection to taking action to reduce our heat-trapping emissions has been uncertainty within the scientific community on whether or not global warming is happening and if it is caused by humans. However, there is now an overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming is indeed happening and humans are contributing to it. Below are links to documents and statements attesting to this consensus.

http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/scientific-consensus-on.html

gkerr 4 years, 1 month ago

Crazy Larry, We had heard from the same tired fabricated data sources funded by Governments seeking a new lease on the plundering of citizens pocketbooks that this past decade is the warmest in thermometer temperature taking history. NOAA, GISS, NASA, UN'S IPCC, have been running up the same flags using flawed data- messaged and manipulated, hidden and extrapolated by complex computer models using unpublished algorythms. When raw data was pursued under the freedom of information acts of various countries it was fought and stonewalled and when the tedious legal proceedings ended in judges demands that data be published it was announced that due to space limitations the temp raw data that served as the formulating data for the Warmists hypothesis that CO2 forcing was causing catclysmic global warming GUESS WHAT? The raw data used to form the hypothesis was lost. Deleted as it was taking up too much space and wasn't important enough to save.

This is fraud. Deceit. Wizardry intended to promote a political cause of more power to the Elites, those who know better than the rest, those who will lead the way to liberty, equality and fraternity, love and a chicken in every pot, pot in every pipe, a chick in every bed, a pony under every christmas tree and Kwanza bush.

Along comes todays publication by Kaufman in a peer reviewed journal that whoa on second thought despite higher than predicted CO2 release into the atmosphere over the years in question there has been no temperature increase between 1998 and 2008- yet the hypothesized devil driver CO2 had gone up at a much higher rate than expected. Not to worry though, evil Chinese Sulfur particles had forced cooling upon the underlying hypothesized warming that did not happen. This even though data shows world wide particulates in the altogether have not gone up over the time period. We are assured that though the hypothesis was not sustained it was not disproved either because of this new sulfur hypothesis of cooling particulates that certainly Must have overrode the warming that should have happened based upon the CO2 hypothesis built on tortured and manipulated fabricated data-Hide the decline don't ya know. In other words make more stuff up as long as man is the culprit for warming or cooling and nature as in the decline of solar radiance has nothing to do with the earths climate. Gkerr

Crazy_Larry 4 years, 1 month ago

You keep yappin' and fail to provide even one shred of evidence of what you say is true. Can't you at least link to one credible article? Kaufman, who? Sorry, but I won't just take your word on it...I'm from Missouri--show me.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-basic.htm

Did global warming stop in 1998? No, it hasn't been cooling since 1998. Even if we ignore long term trends and just look at the record-breakers, that wasn't the hottest year ever. Different reports show that, overall, 2005 was hotter than 1998. What's more, globally, the hottest 12-month period ever recorded was from June 2009 to May 2010.

There's also a tendency for some people just to concentrate on air temperatures when there are other, more useful, indicators that can perhaps give us a better idea how rapidly the world is warming. Oceans for instance -- due to their immense size and heat storing capability (called 'thermal mass') -- tend to give a much more 'steady' indication of the warming that is happening. Here records show that the Earth has been warming at a steady rate before and since 1998 and there's no signs of it slowing any time soon.

To claim global warming stopped in 1998 overlooks one simple physical reality - the land and atmosphere are just a small fraction of the Earth's climate (albeit the part we inhabit). The entire planet is accumulating heat due to an energy imbalance. The atmosphere is warming. Oceans are accumulating energy. Land absorbs energy and ice absorbs heat to melt. To get the full picture on global warming, you need to view the Earth's entire heat content.

Robert Kaufmann is in no doubt that temperatures will pick up if greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise.

"People can choose not to believe in [man-made] climate change - but the correct term here is 'belief' - believing is an act of faith, whereas science is a testing of hypotheses and seeing whether they hold up against real world data.

"Even before this paper there wasn't much scientific evidence for denying climate change, and now I don't see any credible scientific contradiction - if people don't believe it, it'll be because they choose not to believe it."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14002264

Liberty275 4 years, 1 month ago

To make matters worse, even as the "chinese Sulfur" was cooling the global climate, the cheerleaders for anthropogenic global warming were busy beavers pointing out the detrimental effects they swore were happening. The glaciers were receding faster than ever, the sea was rising, hurricanes were more common. (disregard that last one, I just put it in for effect. They knew they were busted on that one). You can fake a receding glacier in Africa with camera tricks, but you can't fake the lack of storms that killed Americans or destroyed property in recent years..

You call them the pretty names. I'll call them what they are, hypocrites and liars.

Crazy_Larry 4 years, 1 month ago

R.E.A.D. T.H.E. A.R.T.C.L.E. I.D.I.O.T.

gkerr 4 years, 1 month ago

CrazyLarry, And I repeat.... We had heard from the same tired fabricated data sources funded by Governments seeking a new lease on the plundering of citizens pocketbooks that this past decade is the warmest in thermometer temperature taking history. noaa, giss, nasa, un's ipcc, have been running up the same flags using flawed data- messaged and manipulated, hidden and extrapolated by complex computer models using unpublished algorythms. When raw data was pursued under the freedom of information acts of various countries it was fought and stonewalled and when the tedious legal proceedings ended in judges demands that data be published it was announced that due to space limitations the temp raw data that served as the formulating data for the Warmists hypothesis that CO2 forcing was causing catclysmic global warming guess what? The raw data used to form the hypothesis was lost. Deleted as it was taking up too much space and wasn't important enough to save.

This is fraud. Deceit. Wizardry intended to promote a political cause of more power to the Elites, those who know better than the rest, those who will lead the way to liberty, equality and fraternity, love and a chicken in every pot, pot in every pipe, a chick in every bed, a pony under every christmas tree and Kwanza bush.

Along comes todays publication by Kaufman in a peer reviewed journal that whoa on second thought despite higher than predicted CO2 release into the atmosphere over the years in question there has been no temperature increase between 1998 and 2008- yet the hypothesized devil driver CO2 had gone up at a much higher rate than expected. Not to worry though, evil Chinese Sulfur particles had forced cooling upon the underlying hypothesized warming that did not happen. This even though data shows world wide particulates in the altogether have not gone up over the time period. We are assured that though the hypothesis was not sustained it was not disproved either because of this new sulfur hypothesis of cooling particulates that certainly Must have overrode the warming that should have happened based upon the CO2 hypothesis built on tortured and manipulated fabricated data-Hide the decline don't ya know. In other words make more stuff up as long as man is the culprit for warming or cooling and nature as in the decline of solar radiance has nothing to do with the earths climate. Gkerr

Chris Golledge 4 years, 1 month ago

Umm, no; you've been misinformed.
For instance: "The raw data used to form the hypothesis was lost. Deleted as it was taking up too much space and wasn't important enough to save. This is fraud."

I assume you are talking about some of the data used by the CRU team, though, your post is lacking any specifics. In that case, the data that they deleted was not theirs; they had gotten it from somewhere else. If you apply to the foreign governments or other services as they had, maybe you can get your own copy.

devobrun 4 years, 1 month ago

Modern entrails reading. http://www.worldwidewords.org/weirdwords/ww-har1.htm Let us consult the haruspex who have computers. What a joke science has become.

gkerr 4 years, 1 month ago

Please, please stop fooling yourself with corrupt climate science motivated by thirst for political power and new taxes to fund the Ponzi schemes of the Governing elites pushing their New World Order.

The data is corrupt and has been corrupted by planned deception. Catastrophic man caused global warming was never a consensus and has now collapsed as a legitimate meme among contending models of climate science. Codes for forming computer models have been hidden, data has been dumped or surpressed raw data has been deleted, rules for operation of weather stations have been universally ignored and in many cases heat island effect has been intentionally enhanced to distort true data. Al Gores carbon credit securities are now as worthless as a bucket of dead Dutch Tulips from the 17th century.

Please study the science, vet the data, use your head not your heart to navigate the propaganda.
Gkerr

Chris Golledge 4 years, 1 month ago

Let's put recent temperatures, CO2 content, and total solar irradiance in perspective.

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/plot/esrl-co2/normalise/plot/pmod/scale:0.2/offset:-273.6/plot/gistemp/from:1978/trend/plot/pmod/scale:0.2/offset:-273.6/trend/plot/gistemp/mean:396

The astute will notice I used GISS temp data, and some of those will say that those are based on US data which is biased. So, I'll preemptively remind you that Watts was driving the assertion that the US surface stations were biased, he conducted a study looking at lots of stations and their data, and that assertion is missing from the conclusion of his paper.

Lest we forget, the emissions from China and others are very much like the US and others emissions which instigated the idea of global cooling amongst a handful of researchers in the 1970s.

Here is a interesting juxtaposition I came across recently: A group of modelers theorized that warming oceans would undercut ice sheet outlets.

Warming Ocean Layers Will Undermine Polar Ice Sheets, Climate Models Show http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110703133838.htm

and here are some field researchers, who found that one of the two major outlet glaciers for the WAIS is being undermined.

Ocean Currents Speed Melting of Antarctic Ice: A Major Glacier Is Undermined from Below http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110626145308.htm

Let's see, model, based on theory, and observed reality, match. Hmm..

Nope, nothing to see here folks, move along. Those wacky climate scientists are just trying to take over the world again. The next thing you'll know, they'll be melting the arctic ocean, lowering the pH of the ocean, and changing the timing of the seasons.

Liberty275 4 years, 1 month ago

"and here are some field researchers, who found that one of the two major outlet glaciers for the WAIS is being undermined."

You are now our resident expert on glaciers.

I only have one question: If a person stood on Mt Oread and looked northeast 700,000 years ago, could they see the last glacier that infringed on Kansas?

Two, two questions: How did the cavemen kansans fight back that glacier?

Three, thee questions: Did the cavemen use dinosaurs in their struggle against the mighty glacier?

Cardinal Fang! Fetch...THE COMFY CHAIR!

Chris Golledge 4 years, 1 month ago

"You are now our resident expert on glaciers. "

No, but I can read.
As a bonus, I can comprehend things like, there were forest fires before people invented matches.

Liberty275 4 years, 1 month ago

"No, but I can read."

A third grader can read. Your problem isn't that you can't read, you just can't tell when people are lying to you. I don't have that problem.

"As a bonus, I can comprehend things like, there were forest fires before people invented matches."

So what caused forest fires before matches? (that question is rhetorical and only serves to segway into the next one).

What caused the last glacier that hoovered over Lawrence to recede thousands of miles? Do you comprehend that?

Liberty275 4 years, 1 month ago

And no, you don't have to point out I used the wrong word in that post. It is obvious enough.

Liberty275 4 years, 1 month ago

OK. From now on we add .001 parts of sulfur to all gasoline and encourage people to drive. anthropogenic global warming (which is a lie) can be called "solved" and we can re-purpose half the scientist to solving real problems like naivety and al gore's chronic lying.

Crazy_Larry 4 years, 1 month ago

Mmmmmm, more acid rain! That will certainly help the situation.

Liberty275 4 years, 1 month ago

Do you have a problem with chinese abortions? Maybe you would prefer more regulation on their version of our abortion-industrial-complex? Is that it? Or do you believe fewer humans would be better for the plant?

devobrun 4 years, 1 month ago

Judith Curry's response: http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/04/an-explanation-for-lack-of-warming-since-1998/ Who Judith Curry is: http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/currycv.html

Following the PNA report, we should take sulfur strippers off our coal-fired power plants. The feedback infused climate model says that CO2 starts a process that warms the atmosphere. A warmer atmosphere holds more water vapor. The water in the air is an even more effective greenhouse gas, so the atmosphere heats up even more.

So stop the cycle. Dump sulfur into the atmosphere, lower the atmospheric temperature. This will reduce the water vapor in the atmosphere and the whole process goes back to earlier levels.

But since there are many feedback mechanisms, and each is poorly modeled, and none of this is testable, we are left with the same result that we always have.

We don't know. Given that testing of the sulfur connection is out of the question, then what is this? It isn't science. What do we call it?

Chris Golledge 4 years, 1 month ago

Hmm, well, I noticed that Curry did not argue against AGW, just proposed an alternate explanation for a decline in the rate of warming. Yes, it is still warming; at least, the slope is positive. There certainly is no cooling since 1998.

So, what you are saying is that we should fix GW be dumping sulfur into the air, even though your blog source says that sulfur is not having an effect. What?

If Curry really wants to offer a counter, she should do so as one scientist to another, get off her blog for a while, and submit a countering paper in the peer-reviewed literature.

Liberty275 4 years, 1 month ago

You sound like Chavez following Dubya at the UN with his socialist dictator's version of a stand-up routine.

Chris Golledge 4 years, 1 month ago

gkerr, "...and in many cases heat island effect has been intentionally enhanced to distort true data."

Anthony Watts was making that assertion; is that who/what you are referring to?

I read his paper. Instead of finding that there was a systemic upward bias in the temperature record, he found that the diurnal changes in the US surface stations were not as predicted for the global trend. That's a little like a magician saying, "Watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat." right before he produces, a bouquet of flowers. Are we supposed to be impressed?

Further, it contains, "...the overall mean temperature trends are nearly identical across site classifications." In other words, there are nearly identical trends between poorly sited stations and well-sited stations. He didn't bring that to your attention on his web site, did he?

Liberty275, Let me ask you, what makes you so sure you are not the one being lied to?

Chris Golledge 4 years, 1 month ago

More on the Watts paper: "... no matter what CRN class is used, the estimated mean temperature trend for the period 1979-2008 is about 0.32ºC/decade."

The trend over the same period for GISS global land temperature data is only ~0.2ºC/decade. I thought Watts used to say that the GISS temp data were exaggerating the upward trend. I don't follow Watts' site; has he talked much about how his estimate of the upward trend is higher than GISS's?

Commenting has been disabled for this item.