The Discovery Channel has “shark week”. With all the Arctic news items on WUWT, this is beginning to feel like “polar week”. Here’s an article about aerosols having an impact on the arctic from a surprising source.- Anthony
From Universe Today, Nancy Atkinson
Since the 1890s, surface temperatures on Earth have risen faster in the Arctic than in other regions of the world. Usually, discussions on global warming tend to focus on greenhouse gases as the culprit for the trend. But new NASA research suggests about half the atmospheric warming measured in the Arctic is due to airborne particles called aerosols.
Aerosols are emitted by both natural and human sources. They can influence climate by reflecting or absorbing sunlight. The particles also affect climate by changing cloud properties, such as reflectivity. There is one type of aerosol that, according to the study, [reduces] rather than increases in its emissions seem to have promoted warming.
The research team, led by climate scientist Drew Shindell of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies used a computer model to investigate how sensitive different regional climates are to changes in levels of carbon dioxide, ozone, and aerosols.
They found that Earth’s middle and high latitudes are particularly responsive to changes in aerosol levels. The model suggests aerosols likely account for 45 % or more of the warming measured in the Arctic since 1976.
Though there are several types of aerosols, previous research indicates two in particular, sulfates and black carbon, play leading roles in climate. Both are products of human activity. Sulfates, which come mainly from the burning of coal and oil, scatter sunlight and cool the air. Over the past three decades, the United States and European countries have passed clean-air laws that have halved sulfate emissions.
The models showed that regions of Earth that showed the strongest responses to aerosols in the model are the same regions that have witnessed the greatest actual temperature increases since 1976, specifically the Arctic. However in the Antarctic, aerosols play less of a role.
Researchers with the NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported in the April 3 issue of the journal Geophysical Research Letters that Arctic summers may be ice-free in as few as 30 years.
The Arctic region has seen its surface air temperatures rise by 1.5 C (2.7 F) since the mid-1970s. In the Antarctic, surface air temperature has increased about 0.35 C (0.6 F). That makes sense, Shindell said, because the Arctic is near North America and Europe, highly industrialized regions that produce most of the world’s aerosols.
“In the mid-latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere and in the Arctic, the impact of aerosols is just as strong as that of the greenhouse gases,” said Shindell. “We will have very little leverage over climate in the next couple of decades if we’re just looking at carbon dioxide. If we want to try to stop the Arctic summer sea ice from melting completely over the next few decades, we’re much better off looking at aerosols and ozone.”
Aerosols tend to be short lived, staying in the atmosphere for just days or weeks, whereas greenhouses gases can persist for centuries. Atmospheric chemists thus think the climate may respond most quickly to changes in aerosol levels.
NASA’s upcoming Glory satellite is designed to enhance current aerosol measurement capabilities to help scientists reduce uncertainties about aerosols by measuring the distribution and properties of the particles.
If a significant portion of the Arctic warming is a result of brightening due to cleaner air arriving from the industrialized nations, what does that say about the cause of the warming experienced by the industrialized nations themselves?
Stephen Wilde (23:30:41) Certainly not as simple as higher surface temps = less ice. See: The Top of the World:
Is the North Pole Turning to Water?
by John L. Daly
NASA GISS suggests aerosols play a large role in Arctic warming
Doesn’t this completely screw the IPCC “Detection and Attribution Studies”. That is, the reconstructions which supposedly explain the climate over the past century. You all know what I’m on about – the reconstructions which can only simulate the 20th century climate by adding in increased GHG concentrations. The mid 20th century cooling was supposed the be due to an increase in aerosols, but, according to the GISS zonal temperature record, it was the Arctic which cooled more than any other region. In fact, the Arctic (64N-90N) cooled at around 4 times the rate of any other latitude band. The NASA findings suggests that, not only were aerosols not responsible for the 1940s-1970s cooling (as I’ve always suspected), but any aerosol effect should have resulted in warming.
Unfortunately, for me, the analysis became very suspect when i saw ” models”.
I don’t have much faith in ” models”, no matter what the purported conclusions. ISTM, there are so many variables, and the relative emphasis is unknown, and may change over time, that models are a fools errand. People, from climatologists to stock market analysts, love to construct models. I got a call recently from a commodities broker touting their “new” trading system. I pointed out to the new, young enthusiastic broker that they had a “new” model because the “old” model didn’t work.They never do. Accurately predicting the past is not particularly difficult. My model shows that UNC will win the NCAA. lol..fm
Flanagan,
Could you kindly send some of that heat over here? (northwest US) We’re frequently 10 degrees F under normal. I’d like to start the barbeque.
A computer model investigation. This is not science and is no substitute for actual physical experimentat or physical data collection. I don’t understand how this garbage ever makes it into print.
Flanagan. Please send some of that warmth to California. We are tired of the cold, with the occasional north wind that makes it even colder. My BBQ is feeling neglected. …fm
The Arctic temp line is labeled 60N – 90N while the Antarctic/Southern mid- latitudes line is labeled 28S-90S. So how are they comparable? I would think one would use the same latitudes to get an equal comparison. Or would that dissprove their point?
Since the argument for CO2 as the sole cause of AGW grows weaker and weaker, those who have invested their time, money and reputations on the CO2 cause must move quickly onto something else or lose everything. Of course the blame is still placed on humans so they can claim they were “right” all along.
Paul R (22:44:14) :
I think regardless of however you look at it the problem with the climate, whether It’s heating or cooling, rising or falling, sooty or clear the problem is Man.
Otherwise known as the doctrine of original sin
“Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.” Psalm 51:5
To paraphrase the song ” man is the root of all evil” ( from “money is the root of all evil”).
To wax philosophical, the combination of an anthropocentric age with deeply ingrained beliefs in original sin leads to such statements. Some people have to say ” mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa”. I just wish they did not have their hands on the grants faucet and the taxation decisions.
In my opinion man is a part of animate nature, and of as much consequence to the inanimate nature as a mosquito on the back of an elephant.
.
The atmosphere is very complex and yes, we have contributed to Global Cooling by our emissions. Take a look at these pan evaporation rates for the last few decades – Global Dimming has negated much of what might have been an even warmer epoch over the last decades.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_evaporation
In fact, one of the greatest COOLING agents over the previous decades, has been that evil portent of climate doom – the jet aircraft. Unsurprisingly, contrails limit incoming solar radiation, and prevent infared cooling.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/200720/global_dimming_contrails/
.
“In the mid-latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere and in the Arctic, the impact of aerosols is just as strong as that of the greenhouse gases,” said Shindell.
Of course, all this is from “models”. So really there is no more need to comment until they measure it. Similar for CO2. When they measure the warming I will look at it.
That’s in addition to the ice-thawing & thinning effects of sootfall on ice that has been modeled play a 90% role in thawing the Arctic region in the past 150 years, with an impact representing 20% of all global warming seen in that time.
See also: V. Ramanathan’s work on brown cloud heating effects. A major surprise was that soot heats the air more than it shades the Earth. When soot & SO2 are adjacent in atmospheric brown clouds they trap heat together as the SO2 drives more NIR into the soot particles, heating the soot more than the soot shades the surface.
The net effect of soot-driven temperature anomalies over the entire Pacific alone is around 40% total, about 50 – 60% of the effect the GCM’s model for CO2 alone.
I am skeptical about the report.
1. I have seen contradicting reports on this subject (also from Nasa).
2. it comes from NASA, not an organization to be trusted in objective climate reporting, let alone the organization broadcasting the “news”.
If you want to hear about climate fraud nonsense, you watch Discover Channel!
3. The emphasis of the article is fully concentrated on the burning of fossil fuels.
4. Higher temperatures in the Arctic Region have occured before we burned fossil fuels.
5. It comes at a moment that the CO2 doctrine is cracking up.
6. The conclusion: Humans are responsible for 45% of the Arctic Warming from 1976 to….makes me extremely suspicious.
The first question I have is that I would like to see a graph that includes the last ten years. This is a recent report and to be honest with you I am fed up with looking at graphs that stop at the year 2000, almost ten years ago.
The second question I have is about the aerosols.
What has been the reason for NASA to concentrate their report on black carbon (sounds nasty) and sulfates?
Is there any difference made between aerosols caused by erosion, the burning of fossil fuels, burning of bio materials (which is the cause of the so called brown cloud in Asia) for cooking, forest fires and volcanic emissions.
In Europe where measurement of fine dust has led to car free zones scientist came to the conclusion that up to 60% of fine dust comes from the Sahara.
Not really a reason to ban cars from the cities. As long as it makes the Grenies happy.
I am skeptical about the report because it takes over the the debunked CO2 hoax and calls for the enforcement of the same measures as the reduction of CO2 emissions.
Therefore I have filed this report under the chapter: “Continuing attacks on Human Civilization and Prosperity based on BS (Bad Science)”.
First comment, as usual, GISS is using some smoothing function to make the data show what they want. The actual Arctic temperatures are much more variable than the above chart shows.
Second, Arctic temperatures are closely correlated with the AMO. [I keep going back to the AMO all the time because it keeps showing up in every temperature series I look at].
Here is Arctic temps versus the Raw AMO index back to 1880. [The actual AMO index has the trend upward removed and I used the Raw untrended data here just to show the correlation a little better].
http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/6196/arcticamo.png
And Third, a very important point. The vast majority of the change in Global temperatures has, in fact, been changing temperatures in the Arctic.
It is a smaller area but when its anomalies are averaged into the Global temps, the Arctic becomes the big swing factor, the big driver.
Here is the Arctic temp anomaly versus GISS Global (and versus southern hemisphere temps which haven’t done much over the last 130 years).
http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/2130/arcticvsglobal.png
Now just a damn minute. Aerosols were suposed to be responsible for the cooling of the 1960s.
http://www.washington.edu/research/pathbreakers/1969e.html
Which is it?!?!?!? Warming or cooling???
On March 26, WUWT had an article about LACK of volcanic dust and Saharan sandstorms causing 70% of North Atlantic warming. We’ve got to be close to 200% of warming caused by particulates in the air. It doesn’t leave much room for CO2 to contribute to warming.
By the way, many of these posts seem to have the oil / coal angle wrong. What they are saying is that to combat global warming we need to burn MORE coal and oil to increase the pollutants and reflect more heat out into space.
I don’t know how the Greens are going to handle the case where we need to pollute more to save the Earth.
Reductio ad absurdem …
Measuring the warming isn’t enough. You have to show the following:
1) That the measurements are valid
2) That any warming is indeed global, and not just regional
3) That said warming is primarily due to CO2
4) That human industrial CO2 is the primary source
As far as I know, none of these have been shown to be true.
Off topic-has UAH been hacked?
http://www.atmos.uah.edu/
Carbon Credits
I have changed my mind about participating in the carbon credit program.
And have resolved to give the money I received to St Jude’s Children’s Hospital
Here is why.
Recently I sat in the fire hall with a few dozen farmers. We had been invited to hear
how we can get paid for carbon credits.
The speaker explained how their satellites can measure the carbon in our land
individually and how much money we could get.
Then asked for questions.
I asked what is the source of this money?
The presenter said it comes from big companies that pollute.
I asked where do they get this money?
He had no answer.
So I answered for him, asking, won’t it come from everyone who pays their
Power bill? He then agreed and said “that could be”.
I then said isn’t this about the theory of man made global warming?
he said “we are not going to talk about that”.
Here they are on the prairie soliciting land for carbon credits
tempting us with free money.
I believe that agreeing to take their money means you agree with taxing cattle gas
also, because methane is a greenhouse gas 20 times more powerful than carbon.
I believe taking this money without considering its source makes us no better than
the bankers who lent money to people, knowing they could not pay it back.
Collecting their fees then selling the bad loans in bundles to someone else.
They did not care where the money came from either.
Let’s be clear.
Carbon is not a new commodity! No new wealth is being created here!
Is this the way we want to make a living?
Let me ask you, what if their satellites determine that your land has lost carbon?
You will get a bill, not a check, right? If you make a tillage pass you will get a bill
for emitting carbon, is this not correct?
It is also a fact that this income will, in short order, get built into your land cost.
You will keep very little and be left with the burden of another burocratic program.
Let’s be honest, we feel compelled to take this money because of the need to be
competitive, however we also need to hold true to our values
and lead by example that means placing our principals ahead of money.
No good citizen is opposed to using the earth’s resources wisely however
wisdom means a person who has both intelligence and humility.
In my view many of the proponents of man made global warming have the first and lack the second.
We are able to exercise our freedom in this country because we have abundant, reliable and affordable power.
It is ironic that we sat in front of the flag in that fire hall and considered trading our liberty for money.
I’ll leave you with a quote from Roy Disney “Decision making becomes easier when your values are clear to you”
This study reminds me of Sturgeon’s Law – “Ninety percent of everything is crap”.
I try to apply my Sturgeon filter to studies from both sides of the AGW debate and this one (which appears to favor both sides) failed to pass through.
Farmer Steve,
You are a true American.
Mike
farmersteve (06:50:41) :
Amen.
“Since the 1890s, surface temperatures on Earth have risen faster in the Arctic than in other regions of the world. Usually, discussions on global warming tend to focus on greenhouse gases as the culprit for the trend”
As it transpires from many WUWT post NASA data it is not trustful any longer. If artic is warming, how is it that militar buoys report ice increase, as reported yesterday in WUWT?
Farmer Steve,
Please accept this handshake across the digital divide, wherever you are.
Good on you, sir.
Your post is quote of the week, in my view.
Please run for an office. Your community needs you.
You would have thought they would have figured out that relationship from study of the Tambora eruption in 1815 (producing the “year without a summer”).
If such a thing were to happen today, it would be an economic and social catastrophe. We have much less locally grown food these days and more people are dependent on food grown in a smaller area. If that area gets a killing frost in summer, literally millions of people are at risk.