Massive air pollution casts Asian haze over global climate

Space Daily ^ | December 12, 2004 | AFP

[colorado tanker]

This is obviously bad science. The Kyoto'ns have explained to us that American pollution is bad but Asian pollution is not.

[BenLurkin]

That's a lot of smoke. Could have an effect on the weather somewhere. Maybe more rain next year on America's west coast.

[Always Right]

Surface observations indicate that the planet warmed about 0.6 C in the 20th century, 0.8 C since 1850, and about 0.4 C since 1980.

If CO2 is the reason for all this change, what explains the global cooling which occured in the 1930's and 1940's. It is lame to cherry-pick dates to try to portray some rapid warming caused by man. There is a lot more going on that we don't understand. A real scientist would tell you there is no way of knowing what is caused by natural variation and what if any is caused by man. Globull warming is all speculation and fear-mongering to promote world governance and wealth distribution.

[Always Right]

If you're still interested in discussion of the differences between glacial-interglacial transitions and the current climate regime, I'm game. Are you really interested, or are you just going to blow off any scientific explanations that I offer?

You haven't offered one. But I am getting ready to leave and probably won't get much chance to really look at it for today.

[Fatalis]

Surface observations indicate that the planet warmed about 0.6 C in the 20th century, 0.8 C since 1850, and about 0.4 C since 1980.

Atmospheric observations don't, and 1850 is an arbirtary baseline anyway, let alone 1980.

What are the variance of normal mesoscale climatological fluctuations? No one knows.

The fairly-rapid warming since 1980 has been cited in numerous scientific studies as being at least partially caused by human (anthropogenic) factors, of which the most significant is greenhouse gas emissions from energy production.

There is grant money to be found by reaching poltically advantageous conclusions based on sketchy data.

We know even less about mesoscale solar weather patterns than we do about terrestrial systems. The Sun does not always burn with uniform intensity.

What is the effect of Earth's weakening magnetoshpere on our changing climate, if it's changing? No one knows.

What's the most prevalent greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, accounting for 70% of the total? Water vapor.

We don't "know" jack about human induced global warming, or if it exists at all.

[RightWhale]

This has been visible in the Tanana flats south of Fairbanks for over 20 years. The color ranges from yellow to brown, sometimes blue, and it is never clear anymore. The pollution moves through this area like it is directly funneled here from Asia.

[Spok]

The UN and the Left will quickly condemn this study, as it fails to fix the blame solely on America. Must be junk science. (sarc)

[Owl558]

Notice how the biggest clouds of pollution in the US hang over the Blue states - coincidence?? I think not.

[WilliamofCarmichael]

Not to worry.

When we agree to Kyoto and cut our emissions to 1492 levels there will be room for their emissions -- they are exempt from Kyoto. So it's our fault that their emissions have no where to go.

[Holicheese]

did you notice that the US pollution hot spots look exactly like the election map of Kerry counties?

[cogitator]

If CO2 is the reason for all this change, what explains the global cooling which occured in the 1930's and 1940's.

Primarily sulfate aerosols. Energy emissions were a lot dirtier in the 1930s and 1940s.

It is lame to cherry-pick dates to try to portray some rapid warming caused by man. There is a lot more going on that we don't understand. A real scientist would tell you there is no way of knowing what is caused by natural variation and what if any is caused by man.

You assert it's "lame", but you don't give a reason why. There's no doubt more remains to be learned and that there are uncertainties. In terms of what a "real scientist" would tell you, I think that they would more accurately say that there are a variety of methods that can be used to estimate natural and anthropogenic contributions to climate change, each with its own inherent uncertainty, and that by examining the results of these various methods, a coherent understanding of these contributions will begin to emerge.

[cogitator]

I'm copying this reply to "Smokin' Joe" from this week's Geology Picture of the Week thread, in which you participated.

It's more about the rate of change than the maximum temperature that might be achieved. It appears from the climate records that the main control of atmospheric CO2 concentrations on 1,000-10,000 year scales is the overall temperature of the ocean. Milankovitch forcing (orbital and rotational changes) influences the total insolation that the Earth receives, i.e. the energy input from the Sun. The climate "tends" toward an equilibrium, which is sensitive to the atmospheric CO2 concentration -- higher CO2 concentrations help to maintain warmer conditions, lower concentrations help to maintain colder conditions.

Milankovitch forcing pushes the Earth's climate into transitions, notably the glacial/interglacial transitions (the big peaks and valleys in the graph), but many of the minor changes are also related to the Milankovitch cycles.

The transitions alter the Earth's radiative balance, which in turn forces the climate system to adjust the equilibrium temperature. As the oceans cool or warm in the system, atmospheric CO2 will decrease (cooling oceans absorbs more CO2) or increase (warming oceans release CO2). It takes several hundred years for the new equilibrium to "hold" after a major transition. When equilibrium exists, temperatures generally only change 0.2 C per century or less.

What is happening now is that atmospheric CO2 is increasing without any external forcing, a very unusual situation in a relatively stable climate regime (which was the point of the first graph). The climate system will respond to this, and the questions that need to be answered are by how much and how fast. Ecosystems can adjust to change, but there are limits to how quickly then can respond, and the alternate to responding is collapsing. Rapid changes are always the most difficult to mitigate (which seems obvious, but that's the core of the issue).

And I'd like to add after re-reading: another control atmospheric CO2 on 1,000-10,000 year time scales is the amount of carbon sequestered in wetlands, like peat bogs. In a warming climate, peat bogs and other wetland systems will also release CO2 as biomass respiration accelerates.

[cogitator]

The pollution moves through this area like it is directly funneled here from Asia.

It frequently is.

[cogitator]

Atmospheric observations don't, and 1850 is an arbirtary baseline anyway, let alone 1980.

The most common graphs I've seen refer to an average 1960-1990 baseline. This incorporates a cooler period (60s and 70s) and a slighly warmer period in the 1980s. The graph below is small but shows what I mean:

As for atmospheric observations, presumably you mean satellite measurements since 1979? I suggest getting updated on the subject: several reanalyses of this data are showing increasingly large warming trends.

We know even less about mesoscale solar weather patterns than we do about terrestrial systems. The Sun does not always burn with uniform intensity.

You should peruse this Web page:

The role of the Sun in 20th century climate change

What's the most prevalent greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, accounting for 70% of the total? Water vapor.

That's correct, but water vapor fluxes are dependent on climate. The most significant variable that affects Earth's radiative balance is atmospheric CO2 concentrations, followed by the lesser greenhouse gases.

We don't "know" jack about human induced global warming, or if it exists at all.

Because I have a scientific background, it's hard for me to challenge a viewpoint that has little regard for the value of scientific knowledge. Scientists know a lot about this subject, but they'd always like to know more and be more certain. Even so, they know enough to be reasonably certain about most of the major aspects of current climate change.

[cogitator]

By the way, you don't have to take my word for this. Here are some links to look at:

Astronomical Theory of Climate Change

The Paleoclimate Record and Climate Models (long but comprehensive)

Milankovitch Theory Supported

And if you really, really want to get into this heavily: AS235/OBEE238: Ocean Biogeochemical Dynamics and Climate has a smorgasbord of links, including a link to the online book "Ocean Biogeochemical Dynamics"

You might find subchapter 10.4 of interest.

[Fatalis]

The most common graphs I've seen refer to an average 1960-1990 baseline. This incorporates a cooler period (60s and 70s) and a slighly warmer period in the 1980s. The graph below is small but shows what I mean:

What a coincidence, your baseline coincides with the advent of weather satellites.

As for atmospheric observations, presumably you mean satellite measurements since 1979? I suggest getting updated on the subject: several reanalyses of this data are showing increasingly large warming trends.

Again, within a monumentally small data set.

You should peruse this Web page:

The role of the Sun in 20th century climate change

From your "Global Warming" page:

"Before 1979, there are no direct measures of solar irradiance."

"The figure shows that sunspot numbers rose in the first half of the 20th century, along with temperatures. The rise in solar activity in the early part of the century is though to be connected with an 80 year cycle of solar activity known as the Gleissman cycle. The temperature increase in the second half of the twentieth century does not seem to linked with sunspot numbers." Etc.

Hardly compelling.

Let's also note that all of the baselines on that page start at 1860. It's remarkable how the baselines you cite coincide with technological and methodological developments, yet only offer a small fraction of the Earth's climatological history.

That's correct, but water vapor fluxes are dependent on climate. The most significant variable that affects Earth's radiative balance is atmospheric CO2 concentrations, followed by the lesser greenhouse gases.

Interdependent, not dependent. Funny how the inadvertent dropping of a prefix can get a major variable tossed out.

Because I have a scientific background, it's hard for me to challenge a viewpoint that has little regard for the value of scientific knowledge. Scientists know a lot about this subject, but they'd always like to know more and be more certain. Even so, they know enough to be reasonably certain about most of the major aspects of current climate change.

I see your appeal to authority, and raise you an appeal to healthy skepticism:

Ambitious politicians have an affinity for crises, real or imagined, because getting on the advantageous side of a real or imagined crisis confers great leverage to a a crafty politician. Politicians who control pursestrings, therefore, are not necessarily disinclined to fund scientists who can deliver ready made crises to them.

[denydenydeny]

I would have more faith in the piece if it had mentioned that the Kyoto treaty would do nothing about reducing emissions from China and India.

[Myrddin]

Check out Ice Age Now. Robert Felix has done some pretty good research in that book.

[MonroeDNA]

Nuclear energy.