This makes me wonder if the temperature dip in the 1970’s where everyone was worried about global cooling wasn’t partially driven by atmospheric aerosols. With the advent of pollution controls, certainly we have cleaner (and more optically transparent) skies since then.
From the National University of Ireland, Galway comes this:
New research initiated jointly by NUI Galway and the University of Helsinki reveals the true rate of greenhouse gas induced global warming has been masked by atmospheric aerosols (otherwise known as Particulate Matter), through their formation of reflective haze and cloud layers leading to an aerosol cooling effect.
The new investigations show that the present-day aerosol cooling effect will be strongly reduced by 2030 as more stringent air pollution abatements are implemented both worldwide and at the European scale and as advanced environmental technologies are utilised.
These actions are projected to increase the global temperature by 1°C and temperatures over Europe by up to 2-4°C depending on the severity of the action. This is one of the main research outcomes of the recently concluded EUCAARI (European Integrated project on Aerosol Cloud Climate and Air Quality Interaction) project funded by the European Commission.
The EUCAARI project, originally initiated by Professor Colin O’Dowd at NUI Galway’s Centre for Climate and Air Pollution Studies, who resided on the project’s management team, and led by Professor Markku Kulmala of the University of Helsinki, has provided new understanding of the impacts of aerosols and trace gases on clouds and climate.
According to Professor O’Dowd:“The quantification of the effect of aerosols on the radiative balance (cooling or heating) of the planet has been one of the most urgent tasks to underpin more informed projections of future climate change. Now that we have this data we need to reinforce European political decision-making to develop new strategies and implementation plans for global air quality monitoring and to take Europe a leading role in developing and applying environmental technologies. Furthermore, it is urgent that higher-resolution EU-scale projections are conducted using a new generation of regional models nested within the global models.”
EUCAARI has been the most extensive atmospheric aerosol research project in Europe so far. The total budget of the project was € 15 million, of which € 10 million was provided by the European Commission Framework Programme 6. In all, 48 research institutes from 24 countries participated in this project over the period 2007-2010. The project has led to significantly more information on the whole physics background related to aerosol formation and impacts at all scales; from nanoscale to global, and from milliseconds to centuries.
The project performed extensive studies from ground-based, aircraft and satellite platforms, not only in Europe, but also in China, South-Africa, Brazil and India (i.e. significant developing countries). These studies have improved the theoretical understanding of the aerosol life-cycle, enabling scientists to make major improvements in climate and air pollution models and present new air pollution scenarios over Europe.
Professor O’Dowd added: “The positive impacts of aerosols are partially off-setting global warming while the negative effects impact on public health. Abatement of the negative health impact is complicated due to the diversity of sources, even within Europe.”
EUCAARI found that the reduction in ammonia emissions is one of the most effective ways to reduce aerosol mass concentrations in Europe. Reduction in nitric oxides is also effective, but might lead to higher ozone levels, thereby leading to another negative impact on air quality. Reduction in sulphur dioxide emissions will reduce particulate air pollution especially in the Eastern Mediterranean area.
Reduction of organic aerosol concentrations is a lot more challenging and will require reductions of gas and aerosol emissions from transportation and biomass burning. Furthermore, it is now shown that a large fraction of organic aerosols in Europe is of modern origin (as opposed to fossil fuel origins), for which the main sources are biogenic secondary organic aerosol (boreal forests), biomass burning and primary biogenic aerosol particles.”
Professor O’Dowd concluded: “All these emission sources are expected to respond to climate change, although we are presently unable to gauge the strength of the multitude of feedback mechanisms involved. The uncertainties in feedback highlight the need for improved Earth System Climate models to encapsulate feedback processes generally lacking in current projections.”
-Ends-Author: Press Office, NUI Galway
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Particulates over Central Europe have decreased since about 1990 due to introduction of (true, not CO2) pollution controls on Warsaw Pact-era industries. One familiar with situation in Czech and Poland in the 1980’s vs. today would know that this a major difference (I am sure that relative particulates in EEC countries at that time, even industrial giants like then West Germany, were far less). My feeling about the stated interpretations cited by the WUWT piece is that these may be used to account (in a disingenuous way perhaps) with lack of warming since ca. y2000
“This makes me wonder if the temperature dip in the 1970′s where everyone was worried about global cooling wasn’t partially driven by atmospheric aerosols. ”
I thought this was understood by all.
I worked in engineering on quite a few air, water and emissions cleanup for heavy industry, starting in 1972, just after the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act were passed. Industry cried to high heaven that it made American industry non-competitive in the world marketplace. That may, in fact, have been true to some extent; it sure didn’t help. But what it DID do is clean up our then really dirty, polluted air.
When I heard (here on WUWT, probably) that that “pollution” was aerosols that have a cooling effect – perhaps 5 or more years ago – this quoted point seemed 100% an obvious explanation (though needing verification) for why the temps from about 1940 to 1970 were dropping. And why the temps since that time have been rising; The world was cleaning up its act.
I strongly suspect that Hansen recognized that this was a likely bet and built it into his reasoning when he claimed very early on that temps would be rising.
The post-WWII world ran on soft coal more than anything. Besides industry, I recall all the homes with coal furnaces. I played in one, even.
The air quality was TERRIBLE then. If the level of aerosols was proportional to the visible pollution, it certainly had to be a factor in reducing the solar insolation. It is good to see studies that can support this. It is certainly a factor that must be taken into account. Quantifying it would be a wise move, so our climate record has the proper adjustments being made.
It is simply amazing how many factors are not included in the AWG meme. Counter factors, that is. Any factor that supports it is touted to high heaven. All others are swept under the proverbial rug.
Central Europe (sp.) to include former DDR, Poland, former Czechoslovakia, Hungary as well as W. Germany.
Mark Wilson says:
July 1, 2011 at 6:18 am
“The only problem with the theory that it was aerosols that led to the cooling seen in the 70′s is that the areas with the most aerosols did not see the greatest cooling.”
As I recall aerosols back then weren’t blamed for global cooling. Instead there was a scare ginned about the aerosols making rain more acidic which was going to destroy all the world’s forests in a few decades. As it turned out the acid rain was only a nuisance in the high industrial density northeastern US. Actual damage to forests was minimal and confined to the immediate area around huge emitters like Bethlehem Steel in Lackawanna, NY. Fifty miles from Lackawanna where I grew up there was no detectable effect from so-called acid rain. Nonetheless the federal government in and under the authority of the Clean Air Act of 1963 and later revisions forced all emitters large and small to scrub the sulfates out of smokestack and tailpipe emissions. Then the warming started a couple of decades later and we have another fine example of unintended consequences from environmental mania. The choicest one perhaps will forever remain the virtual castration of the nuclear power plant industry which could, if not for the environmentalist whackos, be providing enough power so we would have to import foreign oil. But noooooooooooo… nuclear power is another evil incarnate that could not be tolerated.
I just happen to have these cartons of crystal balls, packaged in Taiwan – place of manufacture not precisely stated. Any reader here can have a carton of six for $59.99, free at my front gate, you assume all liability from there. Do they work? I think that they may do as long as they are operated with the considerable skills that this class of equipment requires. What I can guarantee is that they work every bit as well as any (any at all) future predicting climate model ever constructed and just as well as any such model which might be devised at any time to come. Less than $10 each. What a bargain!
Buzz Belleville:
Sorry, but your comment at July 1, 2011 at 4:19 am is plain wrong. My investigation of the AGW ‘aeosol excuse’ was published in the last century.
ref.
Courtney RS, ‘An assessment of validation experiments conducted on computer models of global climate using the general circulation model of the UK’s Hadley Centre’, (Energy & Environment, Vol. 10, No. 5, pp. 491-502, Sep. 1999)
Simply, the issue was – and is – as follows.
The Hadley Centre’s computer model of global climate provided too great a rate of global warming from 1900 to 1990. It was postulated that this resulted from anthropogenic aerosols negating some warming from anthropogenic GHGs. So, it was decided to test this postulate.
The degree of cooling provided by the aerosol is not known (i.e. it has large uncertainty which provides a wide range of possible values from very slight warming to very large cooling).
But
1.
the degree of total cooling from the aerosol needed to compensate for the degree of too much global warming was known, and
2.
the aerosol stays in the air for only a few days so its concentration over the Earth’s surface is similar to the concentration of industrial activity.
Therefore, the models were input with
a)
an amount of cooling that would compensate for the degree of too much global warming, and
b)
the distribution of the input cooling over the Earth’s surface was set to mimic the concentrations of the anthropogenic aerosol over the Earth’s surface.
And the model was again run to emulate the global temperature change from 1900 to 1990.
This was a good test.
If anthropogenic aerosol were responsible for the model indicating too much global warming
then
the pattern of warming over the Earth’s surface indicated by the model with arosol cooling would match the observed pattern of warming over the Earth’s surface.
Unfortunately, this match did not occur.
The two patterns were very different. For example, the computer model indicated the highest warming in the world where observations indicated least warming had happened. And the computer model indicated the lowest warming in the world where observations indicated most warming had happened.
Thus, the test proved that anthropogenic aerosol was not the cause – at least, it was not the sole cause – of the model’s failure to emulate change to global climate from 1900 to 1990.
The modellers did not like to present this result so, with much hype, they proclaimed the agreement of the test with the observed change to global temperature from 1900 to 1990.
BUT THIS AGREEMENT WAS FIXED AS AN INPUT TO THE TEST.
Other modellers have adopted the same aerosol excuse but each uses a different value of aerosol cooling because they each use a unique value of assumed climate sensitivity to GHGs.
In summation, the aerosol excuse is bunkum.
Richard
@Juraj V. 3:11 am:
There is no specificity to this last statement. Cooler than what? The rest of the world? Cooler than the rest of Europe? The rest of Germany? And in what period? What is the time period when Germany cleaned up their pollution (aerosols)? The Ruhr didn’t cool off when aerosols were abundant (they had huge coal reserves there and nearby (that being the reason it was so heavily industrialized in the first place)? And it didn’t warm up when air cleanup time came?
If the Ruhr has been consistently “not cooler,” than whatever region you compare it to, but it climbs and drops with other regions, then what you call “not significantly cooler” would have to rest on some other factor, probably geographic.
You mention “industrial areas like the Ruhr.” London was one, and its heyday of industrial development – like the Ruhr’s – was the last 3/4 of the 1800s. That is precisely the period that is used as a baseline for CO2 and its possible relationship to temperatures. But it is also precisely the period when the world was beginning to come out of the LIA. Therefore, there are two opposing forcings, making it the wrong period to use as a baseline, since no one has quantified (and may never) which was doing how much over time.
Based on industrialization, the year 1800 would be a better baseline – but that was still within the LIA. It was also a moment when very few thermometers were in use, so the data is too spotty. Prior to the LIA, thermometers didn’t exist at all. We are left with no good time to use as a baseline.
This lack is both a handicap and a boon, all at the same time. Not having one, it makes it that much more difficult to get our feet on the ground. And not having one, all kinds of claims can be made, and different baselines can be used to serve one’s purposes and message – to take advantage of the lack.
I think pointing at any one place and making across-the-board generalities is easy to do, but gets us nowhere.
Personally, I grew up in St. Louis, in the 1950s and 1960s, right in the middle of the “cooling,” and what I recall of it is that it was a freaking HOT period. But the air was filthy with aerosols. Contradictory? Yes. Yet the big studies all claim that it was a very cool time. Was it location specific? My poor recall of the climate of the period?
Nah, it is all too compound and complex to point at one place and conclude – or refute – this point.
Since the 70’s farming practices in the US have changed substantially. There should be less particulate from farming because of chisel plowing rather than moldboard plowing, less cultivation and more use of herbicide, more drilling rather than rowing of soybeans, and generally faster operations in the spring.
This is something new from the Warmista. If they are going to claim that aerosols can reduce the effects of global warming that is caused by manmade CO2 then they are making a claim that is testable. Unbelievable! The first ever testable claim from Warmista! In fact, the first claim from Warmista that can be explored through active experiment! Just select the “best” aerosol, start pumping it into the air and check the results!
How can this be? Is there no downside to this Warmista position?
Well, as usual, yes there is. They “candidly” admit that they know nothing about forcings, such as changes in cloud cover, and that fact would over-ride measurements of aerosols.
The upside for critics of the Warmista is that some Warmista has stated in print that Warmista know nothing about forcings. They have not one reasonably well-confirmed physical hypothesis that can be used to explain and predict the existence and effects of some forcing. Given that admission, there is no point in their Gaia Models. All their efforts must be turned to the environmental research necessary to create the necessary physical hypotheses about forcings or they should close up shop entirely.
Brent Hargreaves says:
July 1, 2011 at 3:30 am
There used to be strange individuals wearing sandwich boards proclaiming “The End is Nigh!”
They still exist. They are called “climate scientists”.
Anthony said “This makes me wonder if the temperature dip in the 1970′s where everyone was worried about global cooling wasn’t partially driven by atmospheric aerosols.”
CRS reply Absolutely, Anthony. That seems to be the consensus of the environmental scientists I know, which is also a reason that DOE Sec. Chu advocates geoengineering such as release of sulfur aerosols in order to shade the planet.
AEROSOL COOLING : There is one notable test case – the one month grounding of aircraft in the US after 9/11.
A few years after the event I read that this lead to a 2 degrees C rise in temperatures over America. More recently I read that in fact it lead to a 1 degree rise in daytime temperatures and a 1 degee fall in nighttime temperatures.
The first story would give credence to the idea that aersols cause cooling.
The second story would suggest that although aerosols cause an effect, it is neutral overall – they may prevent some sunlight reaching Earth during the day, but also trap the heat overnight.
Can someone clarify what was actually discovered about this event?
Feet2theFire says:
July 1, 2011 at 7:04 am
“The post-WWII world ran on soft coal more than anything. Besides industry, I recall all the homes with coal furnaces. I played in one, even.”
In 1950, the majority of homes were heated with coal. For those of us who had a choice, hard coal was strictly preferred over soft coal. Soft coal is one huge mess to handle, regardless of what comes out the chimney. In about 1959, the cost of hard coal was pennies, about $8 a ton I believe, if you had the truck to pick it up yourself.
The US and Europe were awash with coal for heating during the first two-thirds of the 20th century.
Chas says:
July 1, 2011 at 1:42 am
According to a Metoffice analysis, annual Sunshine Hours (Campbell Stokes) are the highest they have ever been in SE and Central England. They rose steeply in the 1980′s (see Fig 15) in:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/about/UK_climate_trends.pdf
The maps at the end say it all.
London and the South East are pushing up temperatures which are radiating out into the rest of the country. Increase in population = increase in heat!
I have no doubt that aerosols have an impact – the acid rain of the 70’s was from aerosols forming nuclei and getting rained out of the system bring down the sulphates with it – a natural cleaning system depending on the altitude of the aerosols. Thing I have noticed in the notes to date is that no one has mentioned the proportion of anthropogenic aerosols to natural aerosols. Anthropogenic aerosols are estimated to be between 3% and 12% of the total according to this http://cloudbase.phy.umist.ac.uk/people/dorsey/Aero.htm
Mother Nature is just so much more powerful than man. Now, 12% consisting entirely of sulphate aerosols would be a disaster, but that is the total. and the break down is shown in the article. The article also says aerosols have a life of a few days to a week before they get rained out.
However, this article is from 1998 and maybe the physics have changed since then.
It is noted in other articles that biogenic aerosols promote the large rainfalls in tropical areas.
A Colorado paper says it is uncertain whether aerosols warm or cool the earth:
http://cires.colorado.edu/jimenez/AtmChem/CHEM-5151_S05_Aerosols_all.pdf
and their ratio of anthropogenic to natural aerosols is about the same.
Urban air is definitely cleaner than it was when I was a kid. You could see where cities were by the brown cloud overhead, and not just Denver, but smallish cities on the East Coast. This smog is long gone.
Maybe UHI is what is getting the shot in the arm? NAaah!
anticlimactic says:
July 1, 2011 at 10:02 am
The testing you are refering had to do with contrails from jet liners. Jet fuel has little to no sulfur in it.
Mark Wilson says:
July 1, 2011 at 6:27 am
Tony B (another one) says:
July 1, 2011 at 3:47 am
“gaken away”
Is that a British thing?
*******************************
Nooooo, its an Apple thing.
Bloody ipad keyboard…….
From the 15th to the early 20th century smog levels were so high that children often developed rickets from of a lack of vitamin D because of less exposure to sunlight.
“All these emission sources are expected to respond to climate change, although we are presently unable to gauge the strength of the multitude of feedback mechanisms involved. The uncertainties in feedback highlight the need for improved Earth System Climate models to encapsulate feedback processes generally lacking in current projections.”
Translation: “Our study concluded nothing and the clowns writing climate models are even more in the dark.”
Mr sleepalot said;
“”48 research institutes” – I read that as 48 research prostitutes.”
Would that make the IPCC, Satan’s Brothel ?
Doesn’t pass the “sniff test.” Go outside at night. Look up. Unlike CO2, particulates in concentrations sufficient to significantly impact TSI at ground level have visible effects. Do you see stars or haze? I told you they were making it up as they go along.
@Brent Hargreaves:
July 1, 2011 at 3:30 am
“[…] There used to be strange individuals wearing sandwich boards proclaiming “The End is Nigh!” I’ll maybe try reviving this practice in my town: my sandwich board will read “The End is Not Nigh!” Might get some funny looks, though…”
I like your idea except I’m going to add, “See you tomorrow!”
The other interesting thing about the ’70s was that the amplitude of the sunspot cycle was about 50% of the two that preceded it, and the two that came after it (check out Anthony’s great solar reference page).
Perhaps the decreases in particulates that has occurred a few times since Industrialisation – for example the reduction and near elimination of London Peasoup fogs created by widespread use of coal which were deliberatley targetted by reducing coal burning – can go a long way to explaining the mild temperature increases experienced which sparked AGW panic ?
Just a thought – the world reduced air pollution smog up to the dominance of the motor vehicle. The temperature started to go up. We invented more aerosols and noticed a temperature decrease.
We noticed problems with aerosols – acid rain, ozone depletion etc – the world responded by reducing emissions and the temperature began an upward trend.
Perhaps there is no greenhouse effect but aerosols reflecting insolation reducing what otherwise would be the “true” temperature.
We know extreme volcanic activity causes cooling, the “scientists” of the IPCC seem to love the idea of “geoengineering” to prevent “climate collapse” so there may be something to this.
I want my funding now.