“Arctic temps. Considering there are no temp measuring stations in important areas up there, any “arctic warming” is extrapolated from stations thousands of km away. That’s accurate, eh wot? And sat measurements don’t cover the Arctic well, where does that leave us for the so-called most rapid increase in temps?:

There are actually quite a few weather stations up there, some with up to 60 years of observations, Alert is a Canadian Military post and has daily data back to July 1950, Eureka goes back to 48, don’t really know about the rest. Even knowing that there could be issues with siting, observational bias, etc, they should show something close to the model output. I don’t see it when I look, but perhaps some else will.

http://www.climate.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/climateData/menu_e.html?timeframe=1&Prov=NU&StationID=9999&Year=2009&Month=4&Day=12

It is possible for a reduction in pollution to cause warming (See Shindell) and an increase in pollution to also cause warming (See wiki), and for these 2 states to co-exist simultaneously.

At first glance the Shindell study appears to contradict this wiki entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_haze which includes the following paragraph.

The pollutants are commonly thought to originate from coal-burning in northern mid-latitudes, especially from Asia. The aerosols contain about 90% sulfur and the rest is carbon, which makes the haze reddish in color. This pollution is helping the Arctic warm up faster than any other region on Earth, although increases in greenhouse gases are the main driver of this climatic change.[4]

But then I remembered the 3 basic laws of climate change physics.

1. When the world is warming then human pollution is causing the warming.
2. When the world is cooling then human pollution is causing the cooling.
3. The same pollutant can cause both warming and cooling.

Anthony,

Is there value in assisting Doug Hoyt to compile and publish his historic aerosol data?

How could this be best accomplished?

I do not have Hoyt’s email address but think you do, from a recent h/t on wattsup.

Please advise.

Thanks and regards, Allan

Kasitochi volcano in the Aleutian Island erupted over a million tons of sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the atmosphere over the Pacific Ocean
This DWARFS any aerosols produced by those MICROSCOPIC CREATURES WHO CALL THEMSELVES HUMANS

True, but the most problematic of aerosols is the blackest of soot from coal-fired industry, black carbon aerosol. It’s far blacker & more heat absorbent than other soot from wood fuel, forest fires or vulcanism. And SO2 reflects heat back into space whereas soot, in conjunction with SO2, retains heat from near-IR advection.

The effects of soot within brown clouds are variable, ranging from air heating to cloud seeding (when the brown clouds don’t cause drought downwind) but the effects of soot on snow are consistent and well known. The Nazis considered using soot to melt snow packs in N. America, hoping to cause flooding, etc.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,514715,00.html

The Galapagos National Park says La Cumbre volcano began spewing lava, gas and smoke on uninhabited Fernandina Island on Saturday after four years of inactivity.

Larry

“Though there are several types of aerosols, previous research indicates two in particular, sulfates and black carbon, play leading roles in climate. ”

Wouldn’t sulfates would be dealt with by FGD and black carbon by ESP?

I suspect it was fabricated. There should be a clear answer to this question.

If fabricated (or’inferred”, from industrial emissions) rather than measured, then don’t waste your time – just throw out this study.

Please see Douglas Hoyt’s post below. He is the same D.V. Hoyt who authored/co-authored the four papers referenced below.

Source:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=755

Douglas Hoyt:
July 22nd, 2006 at 5:37 am

Measurements of aerosols did not begin in the 1970s. There were measurements before then, but not so well organized. However, there were a number of pyrheliometric measurements made and it is possible to extract aerosol information from them by the method described in:
Hoyt, D. V., 1979. The apparent atmospheric transmission using the pyrheliometric ratioing techniques. Appl. Optics, 18, 2530-2531.

The pyrheliometric ratioing technique is very insensitive to any changes in calibration of the instruments and very sensitive to aerosol changes.

Here are three papers using the technique:

Hoyt, D. V. and C. Frohlich, 1983. Atmospheric transmission at Davos, Switzerland, 1909-1979. Climatic Change, 5, 61-72.

Hoyt, D. V., C. P. Turner, and R. D. Evans, 1980. Trends in atmospheric transmission at three locations in the United States from 1940 to 1977. Mon. Wea. Rev., 108, 1430-1439.

Hoyt, D. V., 1979. Pyrheliometric and circumsolar sky radiation measurements by the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory from 1923 to 1954. Tellus, 31, 217-229.

In none of these studies were any long-term trends found in aerosols, although volcanic events show up quite clearly. There are other studies from Belgium, Ireland, and Hawaii that reach the same conclusions. It is significant that Davos shows no trend whereas the IPCC models show it in the area where the greatest changes in aerosols were occurring.

There are earlier aerosol studies by Hand and in other in Monthly Weather Review going back to the 1880s and these studies also show no trends.

So when MacRae (#321) says: “I suspect that both the climate computer models and the input assumptions are not only inadequate, but in some cases key data is completely fabricated – for example, the alleged aerosol data that forces models to show cooling from ~1940 to ~1975. Isn’t it true that there was little or no quality aerosol data collected during 1940-1975, and the modelers simply invented data to force their models to history-match; then they claimed that their models actually reproduced past climate change quite well; and then they claimed they could therefore understand climate systems well enough to confidently predict future catastrophic warming?”, he close to the truth.

****************************************

This 2007 doc:

http://www.air.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/BF0CA3C9-69DD-4099-A2D2-D19258D999C3/0/V06053RBasis4507.pdf

suggests approx $50m retrofit cost of new ESP PM control system on an 800MW coal set.

Very rough and simple sum for illustration:

Not sure what the US avg. wholesale elec price is – UK is approx £50/MWh. Say allow $50/MWh in the US? This plant generates $40000/hr. So 1250 hours gives a revenue payback. Say profit is 10% ? 12500hrs = approx 18months profit. Life of the kit? Say 20years? So less than 1% impact on margin? Rough and quick sum but IMO the point is this plant is not costly in terms of the money going through the energy system and is a good illustration of the role of direct regulation instead of abstract derivative mechanisms. As you point out – US generatation is pretty clean and Clean Air regs are the reason. Please check figures in case I’ve made obvious booboo!

Observe, learn to see. ~snip~ ( aerosols ) are so obvious.

The Arctic ice will indeed be melted in order to loot the resources, while the rest of us in supposedly temperate zones will be freezing our butts off. Does anybody see something WRONG with the Arctic being warmer than those of us living 2000 miles SOUTH of there ?

It’s called geoengineering/terra forming/ENMOD ( environmental modification ) . Aerosols are being sprayed daily over our heads ( chemtrails ). ~snip~ The barium and aluminum in the aerosol sprays are dessicants – they absorb the atmospheric moisture – so expect widespread drought,

And, yes, NASA is well aware of this evil aerosol program. Why aren’t you ???