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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“The sayin is “the love of money is the root of all evil” and that saying is is untrue. The love of money is how wealth is created.”
I disagree with this. I think it should be more properly stated that the pursuit of happiness is how wealth is created. Money is a byproduct.
To condense, for water, is to change from a vapor state to a liquid state. Clouds, since they are visible to the naked eye, are made up of tiny particles of water which has already been “condensed”. What particulates and and the like do is provide a means that these fine water particles can collect on, not condense. The meaning of words is important.
Bobby Lane (10:43:47) :
Okay. Here’s my thing. If aerosols only stay in the atmosphere a few weeks before they are washed out, how does that affect climate?
Volcanic eruptions can put massive amounts of SO2 into the stratosphere where it can stay for years.
–Mike Ramsey
Flanagan (10:52:00) :
“So, as I said, 24C today, 21 tomorrow, and the average temps for this time of the year is 13C. We never went below 16 since beginning of April. My source is the national weather institute…”
You’re never shy about correcting someone, so I’ll take a lesson from you
Data from Weather Underground for Brussels. Dispute it if you wish:
Max C Min C
1-Apr 14.4 2.2
2-Apr 17.8 4.4
3-Apr 20.6 5.0
4-Apr 12.8 6.7
5-Apr 16.1 7.8
6-Apr 20.6 5.0
7-Apr 11.7 8.9
8-Apr 11.1 7.2
9-Apr 17.8 10.0
10-Apr 23.3 11.7
So it would seem that your claim that it never went below 16 rings a little hollow. BTW, “isn’t it just weather”
How can you trust, really trust an organization thet comes up with this kind of BS:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=37992&src=eorss-iotd
I am a big fan of the sat images they make but their comments!
This organization needs a “Green Scrubber” to get rid of the green minded AH that threaten this organization.
Flanagan (10:52:00) :
23C was the maximum temperature for Brussels on the 10th. 17C was the average. Only the 10th had an average temperature above 16C.
All the rest of the average temperatures for April were 13C or lower. Look half way down this page at “Observations”.
http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/EBBR/2009/4/1/CustomHistory.html?dayend=10&monthend=4&yearend=2009&req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA
anna v (03:01:16) :
“I think that we cannot have it both ways with these computer models.”
Anna V, it is the computer models that enables them to have it both ways. The data from computer models is very adaptive and flexible. Nature’s empirical data is inflexible.
anna v (09:37:23) :
Jerry Haney (08:35:57) :
I was thinking of the song:
money is the root of all evil
money is the root of all evil
money is the root of all evil
take it away take it away take it away
“It was in some musical I think”
The song “Money Is The Root Of All Evil” was composed by Joan Whitney and Alex Kramer in 1945. The song was popularized by the Andrews Sisters with Guy Lombardo and his Royal Canadians.
Archeologist are on our side too:
http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com/2009/04/archaeologists-recognize-past-climate.html
looks like NH ice going to reach “normal” LOL
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.jpg
BTW: SH ice WAY ABOVE normal AGAIN so again global above anomaly. THis is going to be one hell of an interesting year for the AGW crowd
This is very funny guys. You actually consider “weather underground” a better source for Brussels temperature than the Belgian national weather institute?
And you actually tell me the temperature it was here, eventhough I live in this city and you were thousands of miles away?
No I see what a “sketpic” is…
Ron de Haan (12:22:56) :
This organization needs a “Green Scrubber” to get rid of the green minded AH that threaten this organization.
If you only knew what kind of image that conjures up to an English person with a handle like mine …
Flanagan (13:31:35) :
This is very funny guys. You actually consider “weather underground” a better source for Brussels temperature than the Belgian national weather institute?
And you actually tell me the temperature it was here, eventhough I live in this city and you were thousands of miles away?
No I see what a “sketpic” is…
I freely admit I googled the temperature in Brussels. And I freely admit I looked at lots lots of data. An I also freely admit that one of the sites wasn’t “weather underground”. I paid very careful attention to the BBC website ( me actually living here, it seemed like a reasonable idea) and frankly, I think you are probably full of … (ahem) … sitting in your cosy greenhouse reading your thermometer that you’ve just taken out of your microwave.
It’s not that warm here in “northern Europe” and, since I also live here (actually further north), you are not going to convince me that it is.
Flanagan, if you would provide a link for your assertions maybe people could check them. In the absence of said link, they go to the link they know.
These people deserve credit for reducing their carbon footprint in many ways.
1. They are recycling a theory discredited in the 1970s, rather than attempting to create a new one. This will clearly result in fewer dead trees, conferences, etc., since the science was clearly settled prior to being discredited in the interest of AGW. (I know this is muddled, but it isn’t my fault if these post-science scientists can neither construct nor follow a coherent chain of reasoning.)
2. They performed this valuable research using virtual experimentation, rather than actual experimentation. Virtual experimentation offers the opportunity to perform all research using sustainable energy, as well as repeating the experiment until the desired answer is obtained. This dramatically reduces the need for field work to take measurements, and reduces the time to settle the science since theories never have to be reformulated in light of new data.
I’m sure there are many other benefits as well. I think you should all be ashamed of yourselves for being so snarky about their valiant efforts to stave off the end of all known life.
:^)
I’ll go with weatherunderground. They have a station about 200 yards from my house, and the accuracy with my readings is extremely good.
Mr Green Genes (13:32:37) :
Ron de Haan (12:22:56) :
“This organization needs a “Green Scrubber” to get rid of the green minded AH that threaten this organization.
If you only knew what kind of image that conjures up to an English person with a handle like mine …”
Mr. Green Genes
It’s rather funny isn’t it.
Flanagan:
“This is very funny guys. You actually consider “weather underground” a better source for Brussels temperature than the Belgian national weather institute?
And you actually tell me the temperature it was here, eventhough I live in this city and you were thousands of miles away?
No I see what a “sketpic” is…”
LOL!
A good example of a “sketpic” would appear to be the Belgian National Weather Institute:
“Belgian weather institute (RMI) study dismisses role of CO2” http://www.standaard.be/Artikel/Detail.aspx?artikelid=B18307176070801
(Translation)
Excerpt: “Brussels: CO2 is not the big bogeyman of climate change and global warming. This is the conclusion of a comprehensive scientific study done by the Royal Meteorological Institute, which will be published this summer. The study does not state that CO2 plays no role in warming the earth. “But it can never play the decisive role that is currently attributed to it”, climate scientist Luc Debontridder says. “Not CO2, but water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. It is responsible for at least 75 % of the greenhouse effect. This is a simple scientific fact, but Al Gore’s movie has hyped CO2 so much that nobody seems to take note of it.” said Luc Debontridder. “Every change in weather conditions is blamed on CO2. But the warm winters of the last few years (in Belgium) are simply due to the ‘North-Atlantic Oscillation’. And this has absolutely nothing to do with CO2. (Belga) Translation provided by Theo van Daele
http://www.demorgen.be/dm/nl/nieuws/wetenschap/540607?wt.bron=homeArt2
Now THAT is funny, guys!
Flanagan (13:31:35) :
You haven’t given us a link to the data. Until then your honesty is in question.
Yes, isn’t it a wonderful world we live in these days. I remember the days when all we had was semaphore. Gosh! Now I’m giving my age away.
A skeptic is usually a lot better informed than you are; Here’s a graph of the April temperatures for Brussels going back to 2001.
2007 is going to be hard to beat.
http://i599.photobucket.com/albums/tt74/MartinGAtkins/BrusselsAPR.jpg
Flanagan (13:31:35) :
“This is very funny guys. You actually consider “weather underground” a better source for Brussels temperature than the Belgian national weather institute? ”
Having seen a lot of your posts, the answer is yes!
BTW, the link you provided presents only current and forecast information, no historical info. So what’s a skeptic to do but look for info where it’s available. None at the Belgian National Weather Institute, none at UK Met, none at GISS, NOAA, NCAR
As the saying goes, “should I believe you or my lying eyes”
Comments by Icecap.us:
Icecap Notes: “This is a another attempt to blame man and our evil ways for the natural changes we see in the arctic. If not CO2, then carbon soot or aerosols. Willie Soon in 2004 showed how well arctic basin temperatures (Polyakov) correlated with total solar irradiance (Hoyt/Schatten) and how poorly it correlated with CO2.
I have found the Atlantic and Pacific temperature cycles (PDO and AMO) also matched very well with the arctic temperatures as shown below. Water intrudes into the arctic beneath the ice through the Bering Straits or the North Atlantic near the Barents Sea. When the water is unusually warm, there is more melting, cold less.
Both Willie and I used the Polyakov data set for the arctic basin available to 2000. Craig Loehle has shown how the RSS satellite analysis of the arctic shows a cooling since 2005, consistent with the global trend.
How does their model explain this? You must understand there is an effort to discount any natural factors from influencing climate or the crack in the dyke that would create could open up the theory to increasing questions, more holes in the dyke than they have fingers or model answers to fill. With every new model explanation, they sound less convincing, more desperate”.
In short, it’s another scam.
For anyone interested, Prof. Lindzen has sent Anthony a reply in answer to some minor alarmist criticism he received regarding his guest post on 3/30: click
Flanagan,
I’ll see your mildly-warm, itty-bitty Belgium and raise it with the coldest temperature ever recorded in April for Austin, Texas (2° C). Overall the beginning of April was far below normal for Texas.
Basil / Anthony:
Here’s why:
Up until recently there was a lack of field data on the effects of airborne soot, so the GCMs downplayed the air-heating effects of soot-ladened brown clouds and ozone. It’s crucial that this new data on the heating effects of smog & brown haze gets broader recognition as it has only been grudgingly received by the IPCC in the past couple of years.
Some backstory:
During the period 1998 – 2004 there were those outside NASA/GISS that kept noting that more temperature anomalies were occurring near renown brown clouds, including drought conditions downwind from the thickest brown cloud plumes. These observations didn’t get much credit at NASA/GISS or the IPCC, but were noticed by the the Bush administration which saw the Asian Brown Cloud as a sign of serious global policy skew, leading Bush to back off even further from Kyoto.
An important player in research of the Asian Brown Cloud is V. Ramanathan & his team at Scripps Oceanographic Inst (UC Irvine, if memory serves…). Ramanathan is pretty much a warmist, so he’s part of the “In Crowd.” This didn’t protect his research into airborne soot and the Asian Brown Cloud, however, he saw how global politics play havoc with science. In 2002 – 2003 his work in studying the drought-causing Asian Brown Cloud led to his funding getting yanked by the IPCC for a year or so because Chinese & Indian politicians objected to his research into the climatological effects from their massive air problems.
Being Indian himself it was a bit a harsh rebuke for Ramanathan. His funding later got restored but it was instructive how Asian countries feel they are entitled to enjoy an exemption from global air and environmental concerns.
In 2007 V. Ramanathan’s field teams discovered something startling: The soot within the brown clouds heats the air more than it proportionally shades (cools) the surface. This was a major climatology upset & has been spelling trouble ever since.
Following in Scripps’ footsteps, NASA jets trolled across the Arctic last summer collecting real field data on the air-heating effects of brown clouds and ozone. Even last summer the data they were getting was surprising. The data are showing that the tropospheric combination of airborne soot & ozone heat the Arctic air more than the GCMs model for CO2. And better yet: Soot melts snow & ice as well.
The point to all this is that *if* human activities are influencing the thinning of the Arctic ice and it poses any threat whatsoever to the natural environs of indigenous species or people, then the first way to defend the natural habitat of the Arctic is through soot mitigation.
Green Peace, WWF all know about the soot research and have been conspicuously mum on the topic. Would it be disingenuous to scream about polar bears and CO2 when soot could be a far more likely threat to the Arctic habitat?
*That’s* why this is important, because the question of soot has shown that contemporary temperature anomalies have had less to do with CO2 than the IPCC/warmist gang have been willing to consider. It took *REAL* field data on soot to overturn some wrongly held notions about its role in temperature trends in Asia, the Pacific, the Arctic and No. America.
leebert,
Great post! CO2 is no problem at all, in fact it’s beneficial. The atmosphere has been starved of carbon dioxide for a few millennia.
But soot. Now there is the real problem. I recall all the complaints from U.S. energy producers that had coal-fired power plants, when they were required to install stack scrubbers to eliminate the soot. This was back in the ’70’s or maybe early ’80’s.
Scrubbers are expensive. But they eliminate about 99.9% of particulates [soot], which is the problem from an environmental standpoint.
Now the U.S. has the world’s cleanest emissions from coal fired plants. So what’s the problem?
In a word, China. They insist on an exemption, a free pass, so they can continue to coat the Arctic with soot. See, it costs extra money to install scrubbers, and they don’t feel like paying to mitigate their pollution. Even though they hold about a $Trillion in U.S. Treasuries.
The problem on our end is the feckless environmental lobby, which turns a blind eye to China, and blames all the world’s ills on the West; on America, in particular. That suits the Chinese just fine.
China is ruining the Arctic environment, folks. Word up.