Crozier, along with Ira Fulton and Duncan Alexander, studied nanoscale atmospheric aerosols called brown carbons, which they said are largely being ignored in climate computer models in favor of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
But the researchers say there are other atmospheric components that can also contribute to climate change — including carbonaceous and sulfate particles from combustion of fossil fuels and biomass, salts from oceans and dust from deserts.
They said brown carbons from combustion processes are the least understood of all aerosol components, but their effect is complex because it both cools the Earth’s surface and warms the atmosphere.
“Because of the large uncertainty we have in the radiative forcing of aerosols, there is a corresponding large uncertainty in the degree of radiative forcing overall”, Crozier said. “This introduces a large uncertainty in the degree of warming predicted by climate change models.”
The research appears in the Aug. 8 issue of Science magazine.
Source link here
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Of course, they’ve left out the most important variable of all: grant money.
Compared with every other variable, grant money is so immense, so overwhelming that it has the capacity to make a mockery of other, minor factors like…oh, the Sun, maybe? [After all, the Sun is a long way away, but grant money is close and, well…tempting!]
In fact, given that we are dealing with temperature differences of less than 0.5C, it’s entirely conceivable that the heat generated by the printing presses, churning out those tens of billions of dollar per annum for global warming research, is what they’re measuring.
Seriously, major centres of climate research (University of…[Insert US Institution Here]) place their measuring instruments in locations designed to measure maximum heat. Isn’t it one of Newton’s Laws of Thermodynamics, that “The Heat at the Thermometer is Directly Proportional to the Size of The Global Warming Grant.”
I know I’ve laboured the point, but the warmers do it incessantly, so I don’t at all bad about it.
I don’t think the models are missing these aerosols.
In fact, they are building them in so that the models match up with the cooling which occurred from 1944 to 1976 and the fact that temperature increases are only about half of what the CO2 climate sensitivity estimates say it should be.
Aerosols have certainly had an impact on temps but we should be in an ice age already if the effect was really large given how south asia is pumping them out now.
The title word “Aersols” should be “Aerosols”.
Aerosols are the elephant in the climate room.
I read somewhere that, as far as their role in cloud formation is concerned, they are deliberately ignored on the basis that while some warm, some also cool with what is considered to be a net neutral effect. The truth being, this is a great unknown with huge variables — clouds are a wild card.
There are lots of things the models have ignored, or neglected.
Only politicians who want to regulate the masses actually use the models.
Who commissions all these models?
A very interesting study from India. In summary it shows cooling by aerosols in the dry season and warming in the wet season, in records going back a century.
Bear in mind that most temperate areas have a limited ‘dry’ season and surface measurements are biased toward ‘wet’ areas because that’s where people live.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VH3-4H68T8S-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=0419d93ad49cf24bdd1bb4a69bc7d2c9
Note, this may be a magic URL. Google ‘Pune temperature trend’ to find it.
Maybe the mis-spelling was for ars-holes! Except then, the headline would be wrong anyway. the warmers are way too involved in the models.
Pierre,
Its obviously the scientists who refine the models, and I guess, as has even been argued in the past on RC no less, the scientists themselves have lots of issues with what the models are producing.
But, as in all walks of life, certain scientists are political animals and campaigners for their particular viewpoint. These are the people who have won over parts of the political process. Once they got the UN on board ( and I am not anti many of the things the UN does but there are an awful lot of political reasons to why it does anything!) the political took over from the scientific, but of course its processes provided a lot of money to support the now ‘political correct’ consensus.
So now both most scientists and politicians are tied into the ‘ consensus’ And it takes very brave people to step over the precipice.
Associate Professor Peter Crozier
In the interests of tenure the esteemed Associate Professor did not mention the cooling aspects without also positing some warming somewhere.
mbabbit,
Yes, when I first read the headline, I thought Anthony was being a little too frank, if you mis-read another anagram. Trueful maybe 🙂
Here’s something of interest, though O/T:
From Comment #8 to a post about Hathaway & SC24 at Solar Science is the following animated gif file tracking the changes to SC24 predictions:
http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk316/MichaelRonayne/Hathaway_Predict.gif
Wonder how these clouds will affect things.
http://www.avo.alaska.edu/image.php?id=14340
http://www.avo.alaska.edu/image_full.php?id=14818
“Wild cards” and other difficult to understand variables are exactly what the Warmists want to avoid. All that does is make it more difficult to explain. Just imagine: “You mean we can’t stop global warming by just cutting our CO2 output?” “Well, with the effect of Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and the uncertainty in cloud formation from aerosols…” Yawn. That’s not a media-friendly explanation. The average man on the street doesn’t understand or even care. He just wants to know if something is going on and, if so, what to do (or not do) about it. He’s far more concerned with his job security, finances, and family-life to give a serious toss about whether coal factories in China are responsible for global warming (or cooling).
But that’s life. Often messy and complicated. There’s hardly ever a straight yes or no that does not come with conditions. But that is exactly what the Warmists want to avoid; they want global warming to be inevitable. And THAT is why the models do not take it into account. It messes with their ideology more than their science.
[…] Arizona State: Climate Models Missing “Important” Aerosols (although replete with carbon… […]
Let me add on a bit:
You have to listen to the Warmists to understand their view. Remember, AGW is a settled fact to them. We might as well be arguing about the existence of gravity for all the good it will do. All the “well, what about (fill in the blank)?” types of questions that bring up things we don’t really understand (like the role of aerosols in cloud formation) are disruptions of this world-view. It makes the explanation of the world-view more complicated, its solutions less certain to work, and its acceptance by the public as the sure-fire way to go less likely to happen. That is why they are so dismissive and aggravated with the so-called “deniers.” More to the point, they like to style themselves as unifiers of humanity and saviors of the planet. All this stuff about “uncertainty” disrupts the very important agenda they are trying to implement.
But yet again, that is my point. There is a lot of science involved, of course; however, when it comes to it, it is ideology that rules the day. That is why the IPCC can revise its reports over and over till their numbers mean nothing yet still talk to the public in press-releases about the imminent dangers posed by global warming.
After years of reading and looking at the predictions of both sides of this argument, I won’t call it a debate because it’s not. What I have seen is that the AGW crowd has been wrong on most points. And the skeptics or deniers or whatever they those to call us, have been right on most of our points. I hope we are not going into a severe cooling tread, as I fully understand the implications of this. This is not just about the weather
it’s about integrity in science and environmental and economic policies.
The whole environmental movement is a misanthropic dishonest mess.
I hope they someday have to be held accountable for the job losses and suffering they have caused from DDT bans to Global warming to bio fuels.
it’s the poor and middle classes who have to suffer or pay for their misgiuded policies.
The poor masses are the only ones who CAN pay for it. The money comes from nowhere else. Government and industry, both source their money from the public family workers. So all of the billions of dollars being spent, or ever will be spent, has gone through the hands of the families first, then to goverment as taxes, or to business for products which have carbon tax attached to them.
iceFree (19:42:16)
‘I hope we are not going into a severe cooling tread, as I fully understand the implications of this.’
I hope not, but my old bones tell me different. I think I better stock up on winter gear.
Have you notice that “positive” has been dropped from “feedback”? It sort of like “global warming” to “climate change” since the temperatures have been flat. I think it started shorly after Dr. Spencer had his paper published.
old construction worker: Well if the precip and temp patterns continue into this fall, winter look out. But not to worry we Canadians in our infinite wisdom invented the snowmobile just in case.
Leon, thanks. That’s flat out amazing how predictions can change in the past and the future. No shame at all.
Leon,
The animation is like the climate models…keep adjusting, eventually they’ll get it right.
The peak of SC24 has been postponed more than 1.5 years.
I’m sure though, that Hathaway is doing his best, and so we shouldn’t harp on him.
It just goes to show that predícting nature, let alone climate, is no easy or certain thing.
Models, even for the short term, have proven to be hardly better than rubbish.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
In case you have not already, you absolutely have to read about Bishop Hill’s Caspar and the Jesus Paper at CA.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3427
Read it! Read it! read it!
It’s yet another example of how climate science has been taken over by political and science guttersnipes.
what I do love about these little debates is that everyone is having them… It’s great that the world over scientists, Engineers and the average Joe Blogg are arguing the facts he/ she has been supplied with. Meanwhile, Global Warming and the dire consequences of it may or may not be happening. Lets put this in black and white people…. on one side, we have the option to cut outputs and sleep at night knowing our gene pool will continue. On the other, we go out and get drunk, sod the idea of kids and consider ourselves as quite possibly being the last generation to live in a civilised world. I don’t really care what others think. I’m trying to make a difference- just in case Global warming does exist. I’ll keep on recycling and cutting my carbon output.
Emotion and Dogma always prevail over Logic and Reason.
Perhaps someone could chart ‘adjusted’ temperature verses climate study grants? I predict a high degree of correlation.