From the University of Manchester
Organic vapors affect clouds leading to previously unidentified climate cooling
University of Manchester scientists, writing in the journal Nature Geoscience, have shown that natural emissions and manmade pollutants can both have an unexpected cooling effect on the world’s climate by making clouds brighter.
Clouds are made of water droplets, condensed on to tiny particles suspended in the air. When the air is humid enough, the particles swell into cloud droplets. It has been known for some decades that the number of these particles and their size control how bright the clouds appear from the top, controlling the efficiency with which clouds scatter sunlight back into space. A major challenge for climate science is to understand and quantify these effects which have a major impact in polluted regions.
The tiny seed particles can either be natural (for example, sea spray or dust) or manmade pollutants (from vehicle exhausts or industrial activity). These particles often contain a large amount of organic material and these compounds are quite volatile, so in warm conditions exist as a vapour (in much the same way as a perfume is liquid but gives off an aroma when it evaporates on warm skin).
The researchers found that the effect acts in reverse in the atmosphere as volatile organic compounds from pollution or from the biosphere evaporate and give off characteristic aromas, such as the pine smells from forest, but under moist cooler conditions where clouds form, the molecules prefer to be liquid and make larger particles that are more effective seeds for cloud droplets.
“We discovered that organic compounds such as those formed from forest emissions or from vehicle exhaust, affect the number of droplets in a cloud and hence its brightness, so affecting climate,” said study author Professor Gordon McFiggans, from the University of Manchester’s School of Earth, Atmospheric and Environmental Sciences.
“We developed a model and made predictions of a substantially enhanced number of cloud droplets from an atmospherically reasonable amount of organic gases.
“More cloud droplets lead to brighter cloud when viewed from above, reflecting more incoming sunlight. We did some calculations of the effects on climate and found that the cooling effect on global climate of the increase in cloud seed effectiveness is at least as great as the previously found entire uncertainty in the effect of pollution on clouds.”
The paper:
Nature Geoscience paper, ‘Cloud droplet number enhanced by co-condensation of organic papers,’ by Gordon McFiggans et al,
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
In the present infantile state of climatology, scientists cannot say with any high degree of probability, let alone certainty, whether the net sign of human effect on climate is cooling or warming. But in either case, negligible to trivial.
I still find it bewildering how modern “scientists” can make a living from the largely speculative crap that is climate “science”!
“Nature Geoscience paper, ‘Cloud droplet number enhanced by co-condensation of organic papers,’ by Gordon McFiggans et al” – think this should read “…organic vapours”?
It seems that clouds are where a lot of the real action is for understanding climate and energy balance, etc. yet we are very early on in the study of clouds. Did any of the CAGW hysterics of the past two decades predict this:
Interesting that clouds are admitted to be an important factor, yet they *STILL* haven’t been able to successfully incorporate clouds [into] their ‘models.’
Of course, if the pollution-induced changes in albedo are greater than previously thought, more of the CO2-induced warming has been masked, and you can kiss goodbye to your low climate sensitivity.
Clouds are still described in the IPCC Reports as an area “poorly understood”.
Yet some two thirds of the supposed CO2 warming in the AGW paradigm involves the formation and behaviour of clouds from water vapour.
It seems I remember reading that the smoky mountians were smoky because of the haze created by the trees. This haze kep the mountains shrouded in clouds and thus cooler and more moist due to little if any direct sunlight Sounds like the same principle here only I learned this in grade school.
Thoughts?
Matt
Matthew R. Epp, P.E.:
At May 6, 2013 at 12:32 pm you ask
Indeed, as you say, this old stuff. However, they have modeled it.
Assuming the model is correct, then it can assist parametrisation of cloud behaviour in climate models. Which, of course, does not mean the models will then be any good. But it does mean one of their faults will have been reduced.
Richard
As long it is man made, it warms, it cools, it helps peer review publishing, it justifies salary and if lucky brings in grant for a further research, in short it’s a ticket to board the climate gravy train.
No, no, no! You got it all wrong. What we need to do is to add back in the calculated cooling so that we can compensate for the effects of this pollution and arrive at the real global temperature that can not be properly measured by thermometers.
/sarc (just to be safe)
BTW, I read a NASA study in (~)2006 where the researcher did exactly this! It was at this time that I realized that NASA was completely off the rails.
Vukcevic says:
” … a ticket to board the climate gravy train.”
Yes, that’s the whole argument in a nut-shell. Eisenhower was spot-on about the need to be “wary of the scientific elite” … especially those armed with computers.
This seems to be a new hot topic for grant seeking climate researchers. This is at least the third post in the last couple of weeks on studies claiming an influence for non human parts of nature on the climate. It is a welcome, if seriously belated, recognition of what should have been almost intuitively obvious from the beginning.
It also is another piece of evidence that the entire anti carbon edifice that has been deployed has been a colossal waste. For what would amount to the merest pittance in relation to the hundreds of billions squandered on carbon taxes, biofuels, wind and solar, etc., the problem ( if it actually could be shown to exist) could be completely addressed by simply planting more trees.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-009-9626-y
Irrigated afforestation of the Sahara and Australian Outback to end global warming
Abstract
Each year, irrigated Saharan- and Australian-desert forests could sequester amounts of atmospheric CO2 at least equal to that from burning fossil fuels. Without any rain, to capture CO2 produced from gasoline requires adding about $1 to the per-gallon pump-price to cover irrigation costs, using reverse osmosis (RO), desalinated, sea water. Such mature technology is economically competitive with the currently favored, untested, power-plant Carbon Capture (and deep underground, or under-ocean) Sequestration (CCS). Afforestation sequesters CO2, mostly as easily stored wood, both from distributed sources (automotive, aviation, etc., that CCS cannot address) and from power plants. Climatological feasibility and sustainability of such irrigated forests, and their potential global impacts are explored using a general circulation model (GCM). Biogeophysical feedback is shown to stimulate considerable rainfall over these forests, reducing desalination and irrigation costs; economic value of marketed, renewable, forest biomass, further reduces costs; and separately, energy conservation also reduces the size of the required forests and therefore their total capital and operating costs. The few negative climate impacts outside of the forests are discussed, with caveats. If confirmed with other GCMs, such irrigated, subtropical afforestation probably provides the best, near-term route to complete control of green-house-gas-induced, global warming.
These folks suggest using desalination to provide the needed water, but I think it could be accomplished even more economically by towing icebergs to desert adjacent coastal areas, beaching them, and using the resulting melt water to provide for the irrigation. Instead of all the futile and failing carbon exchanges we could have an iceberg exchange, which would likely bring a rapidly declining price for icebergs delivered. Of course the climate crisis establishment would have little interest in such a plan as it provides almost no possibility for expanding what they have always been most concerned with i.e. more power and control over all the rest of us.
Of course with recent speculations that CO2 is the only thing keeping us from from a steep decline in global temps, it might not be the best time to pursue this, but the upside of removing every remaining justification for the whole carbon demonization program along with with the many local improvements it could provide make it worth consideration.
Questions I have: Can anyone point to data showing a general global rise in cloud cover? Can anyone point to data explaining the global rise in temperatures in the presence of this increasing cloud cover? Do we actually want perpetually cloudy conditions? Scientists have long known about cloud cover/water vapor. After all, water vapor is the major greenhouse gas. However, water vapor does not have a long half life as does CO2, and cycles much more rapidly. Yes the global warming increases and decreases (at least goes flat for times), for many reasons. The point is to explain the overall increase and how/why cloud cover affects it. Since the general trend is up and cloud cover cools, what is the relationship?
Jeremy says:
May 6, 2013 at 12:13 pm
I still find it bewildering how modern “scientists” can make a living from the largely speculative crap that is climate “science”!
You want to remember that all science starts out as speculation. Some philosophers of science such as Karl Popper and Carl Hempel rejected the idea that development of explanatory ideas concerning scientific problems was even part of science. This was because while many times an explanatory concept (e.g. GHG) is derived in some manner from first principles, this isn’t necessarily the case with all hypotheses. However once you have an hypothesis, that can be tested via empirical testing, consistency with first principles, etc. Testing against first principles however assumes that in fact the individual(s) formulating the explanation know enough of the interactions to apply first principles validly.
richard telford says:
May 6, 2013 at 12:24 pm
Of course, if the pollution-induced changes in albedo are greater than previously thought, more of the CO2-induced warming has been masked, and you can kiss goodbye to your low climate sensitivity.
The opposite is true. Pollution levels have declined substantially in most of the world over the last 4 or 5 decades. Thus the warming is a direct result of reduced cloud albedo (and cloud persistence).
Strong evidence that climate sensitivity to 2XCO2 is close to zero.
richard telford says:
“…the CO2-induced warming has been masked, and you can kiss goodbye to your low climate sensitivity.”
Nice try, but still a FAIL. Unless you can explain how the 40% rise in CO2 exactly counteracts your “pollution-induced changes in albedo”.
Alarmist arguments are getting increasingly bizarre. You should just admit what you know is the truth: that the rise in CO2 has had little if any effect on global temperatures. The planet is deconstructing the “carbon” scare, and you lose what little credibility remaining by not acknowledging that fact.
Irrigated afforestation of the Sahara and Australian Outback to end global warming
No need for desal or towing icebergs in Australia. There is already a very large source of fresh water in northern Australia, the Argyle dam.
They’ve still got it wrong. Sagan’s aerosol optical physics is wrong because they inherited a serious mistake from van der Hulst.
It’s the large drops that create high albedo. All of Climate Alchemy is wrong because of this!
AlecM says:
May 6, 2013 at 2:09 pm
They’ve still got it wrong. Sagan’s aerosol optical physics is wrong because they inherited a serious mistake from van der Hulst.
Care to elaborate on that?
Questions I have: Can anyone point to data showing a general global rise in cloud cover?
Global cloud cover has declined over recent decades. In particular, low level clouds have declined. Almost certainly the result of decreased anthropogenic aerosols, including black carbon over most of the world. India being a notable exception.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/20/spencers-cloud-hypothesis-confirmed/
Note that aerosol seeded clouds are more persistent, and this is probably more important to surface temperatures than cloud albedo.
Interesting that the abstract features natural VOCs as prominently as manmade source.
Taken at face value, this would imply that land use could have an impact on (local) climate – ie deforestation = less VOCs = less dense clouds = warming. Not saying I believe it but it would be implied by the theory. I believe Pielke Sr. (or is it Jr.?) has been pushing land use impacts on local climate as important for awhile.
Yeah. Sure, Science embarks as speculation. So having laid out all this stuff that I think I’ve heard before, what do these guys do? Go out and make some measurements? Devise some ingenious experiments? No! They made a computer model.
How hot would it be without clouds?
Philip Bradley says:
May 6, 2013 at 2:09 pm
Irrigated afforestation of the Sahara and Australian Outback to end global warming
No need for desal or towing icebergs in Australia. There is already a very large source of fresh water in northern Australia, the Argyle dam.
They also have, from reports I’ve seen, several large desal plants that are basically mothballed. That just reinforces my point that, for a relatively miniscule investment, we could eliminate the “problem” and also eliminate the “need” for all the draconian and damaging efforts we have been saddled with.In Australia they could get a pretty good jump on this for less than the cost of one small to medium wind farm.