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.
HenryP says:
July 3, 2011 at 10:35 am
The difference between average daytime max and nighttime min temperature in June in Tandil steadily increased from 8C in 1974 to 13C in 2010.
The only thing I know of that make such a radical change is water vapor. Tandil is undergoing desertification. I’d bet on anthropogenic land use change, particularly deforestation, as being the root cause.
From Brian H on July 3, 2011 at 5:21 am:
It’s not good to interchange them willy nilly even if 1K is the same increment as 1C but I sometimes do it when writing for a lay audience. In many cases you have to use Kelvin or you get wrong results. One particular case that comes to mind because I recently wrote about it is Carnot Efficiency of a heat engine which is expressed as E = 1 – Ta/Ti where Ti is the intake temperature in Kelvin and Ta is the ambient temperature in Kelvin. If you substitute degrees C you get ridiculously wrong answers.
What does desertification do to airborne particulate load? Seems like it would increase the load as plants wouldn’t be holding back soil with their roots and wind would pick it up easier.
Peter Taylor says:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/01/cleaner-air-may-result-in-increased-solar-insolation-and-therefore-warming/#comment-692233
thanks for your explanation, it makes a lot of sense, the only point where I differ is:
“Carbon dioxide is, of course, a GHG”
I donot think that that fact is really proven, i.e. that the net effect of more CO2 is warming rather than cooling. It could be that the net effect of more Co2 is zero or close to zero.
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok
Dave Springer
What about all the people involved in the drilling.
http://arcticcircle.uconn.edu/ANWR/arcticconnections.htm
Henry@DaveSpringer
the max temps. increasing in Tandil is in line with what I expected, for the SH, namely +0.04C per annum. Humidity in June is virtually unchanged there, and for the whole year it is up +0.035 %RH per annum increasing since 1974
Precipitation is also up, on average 0.6 mm per month per year more since 1974.
see here: http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
So, I don’t think that theory of desertification holds any water?
You don’t see clear sun cycle activity in those graphs from winter there?
tallbloke says:
“Henry, I like your empirical approach to the issue, and it has helped you put your finger on the issue of importance. Co2 is ‘well mixed’ globally, yet it seems to have a bigger effect in the northern hemisphere. Odd that!”
Why yes, that “oddness” is in fact a good observation. That also proves that the observed global warming is not due to an increase in GHG’s…
ed mertin says
“that 2/3 of earth’s volcanoes are in the NH”
That could help explain to me why the NH is warming more than the SH and also why I initially regarded the Honululu result with some sceptism… (Hawaii is one big vulcano?)
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
Funny.
Just spent a week hiking and trailing inside the Great Smokey Mountains.
Up there, despite the proof above from the EPA website for national aerosol levels between 1980 and 2010 declining, and the specific aerosol level count for the official monitoring nearest the GS Mountain park also declining – but ALWAYS remaining below the national level, and the “evidence” being used here about justifying “cooler temperatures since 1998 being accounted (by the self-serving” enviro’s) by decreasing aerosol counts, every sign above 1500 foot elevation waxed nearly hysterical about “decreasing visibility in the mountains” … due to increasing (man-made) aerosol and sulfates and particulates from burning coal outside the Park.
But, the further in distance (and elevation!) from every nearby city (Knoxville, Chattanoogna, Atlanta, Asheville, etc.) one measures ozone levels, the worse they get.
Maybe we should cut all the pine trees in northwest GA, SW Carolina’s, and TN to reduce smog and ozone levels back to “safe levels”?
HenryP says:
July 4, 2011 at 11:31 am
“You don’t see clear sun cycle activity in those graphs from winter there?”
None at all. Nightly lows have been falling constantly since 1974 and daytime highs rising for the same period resulting in little net change in the average temperature. A characteristic of deserts is a large difference in nightly low and daily high temperature compared to other land at the same latitude. Average temperature of deserts is not much unlike non-desert land at the same latitude. Rest assured Tandil is undergoing desertification. The reason is more speculative but I’d still bet heavily on anthropogenic land use change as forests are cooler by day and warmer by night than cultivated fields of short height crops.
HenryP
You mention that relative humidity has been on the rise in Tandil.
Low relative humidity is not what makes a desert have large day/night temperature swings. Low absolute humidity does that. Dew forms every night in a desert and most of the time that dew is the only source of water for the things that live there. By definition the relative humidity is 100% when dew forms. Low absolute humidity is what makes deserts heat up faster during the day and cool off faster at night.
don penman says:
July 4, 2011 at 10:16 am
“Dave Springer
What about all the people involved in the drilling.
http://arcticcircle.uconn.edu/ANWR/arcticconnections.htm”
Drilling doesn’t produce excessive particulate emissions into the atmosphere. Maybe some if they dispose of methane by burning it off at the wellhead but otherwise nada. Oil refining and combustion of the end products produces the particulates but there isn’t much of either of those happening in Alaska. It leaves the state as crude oil.
Henry@Dave
Could be you are right.
I will try and check this.
HenryP
http://www.google.com/search?hl=&q=%22desertification+in+argentina%22&sourceid=navclient-ff&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS290US290&ie=UTF-8
Desertification in Argentina is a BIG problem. I wasn’t really aware of that but I accurately guessed it just from a 35 year graph of June average daily high and nightly low temperatures from a single location near Buenos Aries. I was also right about the cause. Argentina has lost 70% of its forests in the last 100 years. Soil erosion problems are a huge concern as a result and sand dunes are marching across the country due to the reduction in forest cover.
Some things can be deduced with little data. Desertification is one of them and all you really need is average day/night temperature. Anywhere undergoing desertification will see hotter days and colder nights. There’s really nothing else that mimics that particular effect.
Henry@Dave
OTH
(thinking it over again and again)
it could be you are completely wrong. I think it must just be the other way around?.
According to my theory more CO2 leads to more growth which in turn leads to lower temps. during the night. Earth is getting greener, as reported on WUWT (elsewhere)
So
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok
??
Henry@daveSpringer
Anyway
when I get some time I will check this myself by doing another station at the other side of the world,
at the same minus (SH) latitude, and then I will see.
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
Henry@DaveSpringer
Well, I finished doing Christchurch in NZ.
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
Again look at the enormous difference between Christchurch and Tandil
I think I must agree with you now that de-forestation must be a big factor that causes this difference.
http://earthtrends.wri.org/pdf_library/country_profiles/for_cou_032.pdf
However, do you realize what the implication is of that finding?
It means that the opposite, forestation, causes global warming. And whereever I look and listen people are planting trees and reports are showing that earth is getting greener….
now, is that an interesting finding, or not?