Claim: Air pollution may have masked mid-20th Century sea ice loss

From the American Geophysical Union:

Melt pools on melting sea-ice. New research shows humans may have been altering Arctic sea ice longer than previously thought. Credit: NASA.
Melt pools on melting sea-ice. New research shows humans may have been altering Arctic sea ice longer than previously thought. Credit: NASA.

WASHINGTON, DC — Humans may have been altering Arctic sea ice longer than previously thought, according to researchers studying the effects of air pollution on sea ice growth in the mid-20th Century. The new results challenge the perception that Arctic sea ice extent was unperturbed by human-caused climate change until the 1970s.

Scientists have observed Arctic sea ice loss since the mid-1970s and some climate model simulations have shown the region was losing sea ice as far back as 1950. In a new study, recently recovered Russian observations show an increase in sea ice from 1950 to 1975 as large as the subsequent decrease in sea ice observed from 1975 to 2005. The new observations of mid-century sea ice expansion led researchers behind the new study to the search for the cause.

The new study supports the idea that air pollution is to blame for the observed Arctic sea ice expansion. Particles of air pollution that come primarily from the burning of fossil fuels may have temporarily hidden the effects of global warming in the third quarter of the 20th Century in the eastern Arctic, the researchers say.

These particles, called sulfate aerosols, reflect sunlight back into space and cool the surface. This cooling effect may have disguised the influence of global warming on Arctic sea ice and may have resulted in sea ice growth recorded by Russian aerial surveys in the region from 1950 through 1975, according to the new research.

“The cooling impact from increasing aerosols more than masked the warming impact from increasing greenhouse gases,” said John Fyfe, a senior scientist at Environment and Climate Change Canada in Victoria and a co-author of the new study accepted for publication in Geophysical Research Letters, a journal of the American Geophysical Union.

To test the aerosol idea, researchers used computer modeling to simulate sulfate aerosols in the Arctic from 1950 through 1975. Concentrations of sulfate aerosols were especially high during these years before regulations like the Clean Air Act limited sulfur dioxide emissions that produce sulfate aerosols.

The study’s authors then matched the sulfate aerosol simulations to Russian observational data that suggested a substantial amount of sea ice growth during those years in the eastern Arctic. The resulting simulations show the cooling contribution of aerosols offset the ongoing warming effect of increasing greenhouse gases over the mid-twentieth century in that part of the Arctic. This would explain the expansion of the Arctic sea ice cover in those years, according to the new study.

Aerosols spend only days or weeks in the atmosphere so their effects are short-lived. The weak aerosol cooling effect diminished after 1980, following the enactment of clean air regulations. In the absence of this cooling effect, the warming effect of long-lived greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide has prevailed, leading to Arctic sea ice loss, according to the study’s authors.

The new study helps sort out the swings in Arctic sea ice cover that have been observed over the last 75 years, which is important for a better understanding of sea ice behavior and for predicting its behavior in the future, according to Fyfe.

The new study’s use of both observations and modeling is a good way to attribute the Arctic sea ice growth to sulfate aerosols, said Cecilia Bitz, a sea ice researcher at the University of Washington in Seattle who has also looked into the effects of aerosols on Arctic ice. The sea ice record prior to satellite images is “very sparse,” added Bitz, who was not involved in the new study.

Bitz also points out that some aerosols may have encouraged sea ice to retreat. Black carbon, for instance, is a pollutant from forest fires and other wood and fossil fuel burning that can darken ice and cause it to melt faster when the sun is up – the opposite effect of sulfates. Also, black carbon emissions in some parts of the Arctic are still quite common, she said.

###

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

129 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
ShrNfr
February 24, 2017 9:13 am

Who needs data? We have simulations!
I am sure that the deposition of carbon did effect the ice, but still.

Greg
Reply to  ShrNfr
February 24, 2017 9:28 am

“The cooling impact from increasing aerosols more than masked the warming impact from increasing greenhouse gases,” said John Fyfe

More than masked….
So what they have really “discovered” is that AGW is little to do with GHG and was simply a result of cleaning up our act and removing the global COOLING produced by earlier REAL pollution. It was the Clean Air Act what done it.
Once again the cooling of the stratosphere ( which shows effects opposite to the lower climate system ) shows changes due to the two main volcanic eruptions.comment image
https://climategrog.wordpress.com/2015/01/17/on-determination-of-tropical-feedbacks/

After the particulate matter and aerosols have dropped out there is also a long-term depletion of stratospheric ozone ( 5 to 8% less after Pinatubo ) [1]. It is likely that the mechanisms that remove the volcanic ejecta also remove other natural and anthropogenic stratospheric pollution. The relative importance of these factors, which reduce the opacity of the stratosphere and allow more energy reach the lower atmosphere, has not been accurately determined.

GW is due to changes in atmospheric composition but not trace amounts of CO2.

Charles Higley
Reply to  ShrNfr
February 24, 2017 4:27 pm

The biggest mistake in this study of sea ice changes is that they are now assuming that the Clean Air Act which ONLY affected the US air pollution had profound effects on climate. This is really over-inflating minor changes in climate factors and continues to ignore the more than 50 major climate factors that the climate models do not include.

Rob
Reply to  Charles Higley
February 25, 2017 11:51 am

Do climate models fully consider how we changed the specific heat capacity and thermal transmissivity of the surface of the earth due to our own urbanization?

Reply to  Charles Higley
February 26, 2017 8:52 am

What about WWII? There was a lot of global air pollution produced during those years.

February 24, 2017 9:16 am

This is from the IPCC’s First Assessment Report. I added the red circles showing the 1979 Arctic sea ice peak:
http://www.sealevel.info/ipcc_far_pp224-225_sea_ice2_1979circled.png
You can see why it is convenient for sea ice alarmists to start their graphs in 1979.
Nimbus 5 was measuring sea ice extent with a passive microwave radiometer (which can observe ice through clouds) from Dec. 12, 1972 through May 16, 1977. Most of its sea ice measurement data (all except 1977) are on the NSIDC’s own web site, here:
https://nsidc.org/data/docs/daac/nsidc0009_esmr_seaice.gd.html
Inconveniently, however, the Nimbus 5 measurements show that Arctic sea ice extent was increasing during the chilly 1970s.
The units in that graph are millions of sq-km, but they used an ice concentration threshold of 10%, rather than 15%, which makes the numbers a bit larger. That 1979 peak appears to represent a growth of somewhere between 0.5 and 1.0 million sq-km over five years.
For comparison, since the 1980s it appears that Arctic ice extent maximums have declined about 1 million sq-km, and minimums by about twice that. So it appears that at least half of the current over-hyped decline in Arctic sea ice is due to the anomalous 1979 starting point.
I imagine that if you asked why the IPCC no longer uses sea ice data from prior to 1979 you’d be told that the Nimbus 7 multichannel instrument was superior to the earlier instrument aboard Nimbus 5. That is true, but, as you can see in the FAR graph, above, it is also true that the 1979 starting point is very convenient to the alarmist narrative of steadily declining Arctic ice.

AndyG55
Reply to  daveburton
February 24, 2017 11:26 am

“In a new study, recently recovered Russian observations show an increase in sea ice from 1950 to 1975 as large as the subsequent decrease in sea ice observed from 1975 to 2005”
I would love to see this data. Does anyone know where it can be accessed?

Felflames
Reply to  AndyG55
February 24, 2017 1:33 pm

Let us hope it is more reliable than the data from the Russian cities that fudged the numbers to get more fuel from the central government during the USSR period.

Reply to  AndyG55
February 24, 2017 1:50 pm

Footnotes 3 and 4 to essay Northwest Passage in ebook Blowing Smoke.
3. Mahoney et. al. J. Geophys. Res 113:C11005 (2008)
4. Pasarev psc.apl.washington.edu/publications/ArcticChanges/arctic.pdf
The latter is a complilation in English of older Russian sea literature.

Stanley Baer
Reply to  AndyG55
February 24, 2017 8:21 pm

OMG. Another fairy tale. Will it ever end? (I know the answer)

homercidel
Reply to  daveburton
February 24, 2017 2:00 pm

Thank you Dave Warburton a most interesting reply 🙂

Reply to  daveburton
February 24, 2017 2:50 pm

Dave – Have you seen this graph from the NSIDC?comment image
If so, what do you make of it?

Graham
Reply to  AFWetware (@AF_Wetware)
February 24, 2017 3:13 pm
Reply to  AFWetware (@AF_Wetware)
February 24, 2017 3:55 pm

I have now Graham.
Sounds like a tiny fragment of anecdotal evidence to me. Have you seen this?
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02203/1922_08.jpg
If so, what do you make of it? What do you make of the NSIDC’s 1953-2012 graph for that matter?

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  AFWetware (@AF_Wetware)
February 24, 2017 4:18 pm

Well it sure seems to seriously contradict the claims of the paper regarding ice extent gains from 1950-1975 being the same as the 1975-2005 decline. That is, unless the sea ice extent gains from 1950-1953 (leading to your chart) were absofreaking unbelievable.

Graham
Reply to  AFWetware (@AF_Wetware)
February 24, 2017 4:19 pm

And this, AFWetware?
https://www.cfact.org/2016/09/29/the-arctic-was-supposed-to-be-ice-free-in-2016-that-didnt-happen/
Bottom line:
Global warming (since the Little Ice Age) melts ice. Big deal.

Reply to  AFWetware (@AF_Wetware)
February 24, 2017 11:03 pm

And this Graham?
http://afwetware.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/PIOMAS-Jan-19Years.png
It certainly looks as though the ice has been melting for the last 20 years, does it not? Big deal?

Reply to  AFWetware (@AF_Wetware)
February 25, 2017 2:01 am

The ice melts. So what?

Pamela Gray
Reply to  AFWetware (@AF_Wetware)
February 25, 2017 6:57 am

Dear AFWetware,
You are at or near the top of an interstadial warm period. Expect ice to melt. CO2 will be increasing partly because the Earth is also greening year after year from an abundance of rain. Civilized life is abundant, food is plentiful, and growing old is exceedingly pleasant. There will be occasional moist heat spikes and a few dry ones as the last of overabundant heat is discharged from our oceanic storage battery. Too bad we haven’t figured out a way to keep that battery full of heat. Feel better?
Sincerely,
Pamela Gray

Reply to  AFWetware (@AF_Wetware)
February 25, 2017 2:10 pm

Dear Pamela,
It seems we’re agreed that Arctic sea ice is melting at the moment. Perhaps we can now stop the Gish gallop and get back to my point about where the 20th century peaks and troughs were, and the OPs point about whether “air pollution” had anything to do with that?
Best wishes,
Alice

BillW
February 24, 2017 9:22 am

And once again, aerosols come to rescue of climate modelers who can’t reconcile historical measurements with their models. Aerosols – unverifiable, undetectable, and unmeasured.
How convenient!

MarkW
Reply to  BillW
February 24, 2017 9:28 am

The fact that there no records regarding how much and what types of aerosols were being released during this time is a major plus. As it allows the “researchers” to pick whatever value makes their models work best.

Reply to  MarkW
February 24, 2017 2:58 pm

Now Mark,
The piece does say – “To test the aerosol idea, researchers used computer modeling ” – so, for sure, it looks like, to get more grants, they picked values which would tend to bulk up their grants.
Is there something in their idea that humans might have affected sea-ice 1950-1975?
Probably – or possibly, anyway. To some unknown extent.
But models don’t prove that.
Models are horoscopes with numbers.
Auto

mark
Reply to  MarkW
February 27, 2017 2:38 am

Is there much in the way of monitoring emissions even now?
Be it aerosols, soot or carbon dioxide…

Reply to  BillW
February 24, 2017 9:34 am

Just what I was going to write after I read the article. Aerosols and volcanoes as a tool to rescue the CO2 as temperature tuning knob theme, despite the evidence. Cherry picking (special pleading) is the favorite tool of the zealots.

Reply to  BillW
February 24, 2017 9:34 am

Sneaky little devils, aren’t they.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  BillW
February 24, 2017 9:57 am

I feel another temperature adjustment in the making.

Reply to  Pamela Gray
February 24, 2017 1:31 pm

It will depend on whether HADISST is updated to reflect the “new” recovered observations.
EVERY historical estimate of past temperature is an…. estimate. That means, as “new” data comes in, the possibility of revising our estimate of the past exists.
Think Bayes.
Changes would be limited to the arctic and would be small, like the changes made when folks moved to the new version of ice maps..

Resourceguy
Reply to  BillW
February 24, 2017 10:40 am

Either that or dark energy

MarkW
Reply to  Resourceguy
February 24, 2017 11:02 am

I thought dark matter was what kept falling on the ice, making it melt.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Resourceguy
February 25, 2017 10:18 am

Don’t forget the Universal Law of Dust and Soot.
Dark dust and soot only fall on light objects and light dusk and soot only fall on dark objects.

Reply to  BillW
February 24, 2017 11:44 am

But they can be MODELED !

BCBill
Reply to  BillW
February 24, 2017 2:02 pm

Clearly snowsnakes had an effect. The heavy upswing in snowsnake traffic due to increasing snowsled activity after 1979 cause snow compaction which raised the thermal conductivity of the snow allowing the ice to warm more quickly in the fall and spring. However in the winter, the increased thermal conductivity allowed heat radiating up from the underlying water to escape which increased the ice thickness at the top but not the bottom. Wait wait, my model is so confused. Maybe it needs some black carbon, not that nasty soot. Or is it dark matter that is missing? At any rate, I am sure it was snowsnakes. 95% confident.

Reply to  BCBill
February 24, 2017 3:03 pm

BCBill,
Apply for a grant to study snow snakes, and sandsnakes in, say, Las Vegas or the Bahamas.
Plainly important – if linked appropriately to, say, climate change . . . .
The grant would need to be in the hundreds of thousands, minimum, per year.
Just not out of my taxes.
Auto

Bruce Cobb
February 24, 2017 9:26 am

They “found” the result they wanted. Quelle surprise.

Tom in Florida
February 24, 2017 9:29 am

Let me see if I really understand. They used computer modeling to simulate sulfate aerosols in the Arctic from 1950 through 1975. Then they compared these simulations with the ice coverage recorded by Russian aerial surveys in the region from 1950 through 1975. From that they concluded that it was the aerosols that dun it.

ShrNfr
Reply to  Tom in Florida
February 24, 2017 10:04 am

And the AMO is nowhere to be found. Sneaky AMO that.

MarkW
Reply to  ShrNfr
February 24, 2017 11:04 am

We were told 20 years ago that CO2 was so powerful that it had completely over powered all of the natural cycles. That’s why they didn’t need to worry about those cycles when writing or tuning their models.
Now all they have to do is erase the natural cycles from the climate record and once again they will be proven correct.

michael hart
February 24, 2017 9:39 am

And aerosols may also significantly affect Arctic cloud cover. The article doesn’t appear to contain the word “cloud” in the pdf file

Stephen Greene
February 24, 2017 9:40 am

Tweak a computer model to support a hypothesis that alarmists have as to why a chaotic system didn’t behave as they thought and wa la, we were right all along, see, we nailed it. Can anyone say confirmation bias of the first order. Too Transparent.

February 24, 2017 9:54 am

According to Stevens most recent paper, the aerosol cooling effect is at most half of what was previously modeled. Nic Lewis recalulated ECS using Stevens data, and found ECS~1.5 compared to the 2014 Lewis and Curry estimate of ~1.65 using AR5 values. More important than Arctic ice.

Reply to  ristvan
February 24, 2017 1:05 pm

ristvan
Aerosols have a coalescing effect, leading to cloud formation ?

Reply to  Ozonebust
February 24, 2017 1:54 pm

They have two effects. One is direct increase in atmospheric albedo. E.g. Volcanic aerosols injected into the stratosphere. (See essay Blowing Smoke in ebook of same name for details.) You are correct that the other is cloud nucleation, which also increases albedo and cools on average.

Reply to  Ozonebust
February 24, 2017 2:14 pm

ristvan
The same process of coalescing has been used for many years in vacuum processing equiptment. Example water and gas removal from oils, using coalescing cartridges or filters inside the chamber. The cartridge has thousnads of very fine fibreglass fibres. Oil flows into the vacuum chamber through the filters (inside to outside flow). As the oil is exposed to the surface and more importantly the end tips of the fibres where temperature and surface area is increased promoting seperation of the gases and dissolved water. The water leaves as vapor. The same dissolved state but into a different fluid. This can occur very succesfully at pressures of up and above 200mbar.

Reply to  Ozonebust
February 24, 2017 2:24 pm

Ob, thanks for that comment. Something I did not know, now filed away for future reference.

Reply to  Ozonebust
February 24, 2017 2:35 pm

The fallacy was that the oil had to be hot to facilitate release. We developed systems that operated just as successfully with the oil at zero degrees C.

Pamela Gray
February 24, 2017 9:55 am

We now have anthropogenic (cough…hack…gag) “scientific” explanations for all changes in Earth’s climate whether large or small, or averaged climate or weather. As long as research does not look past the end of its nose and funding is geared towards amplifying that bias. When will this waste of research dollars end?????

MarkW
Reply to  Pamela Gray
February 24, 2017 11:05 am

When the dollars run out. Either because the funders have caught on, or bankruptcy.
Toss up as to which comes first.

Gil
Reply to  Pamela Gray
February 24, 2017 1:15 pm

When Trump’s appointees take full control of their agencies’ spending.

February 24, 2017 9:58 am

SO many criticisms of this…. but what if we take them at their word instead?
If it was cooler because of aerosols which supposedly no longer exist, should we not be adjusting the temperature record from 1950 to 1975 upward to normalize it with current conditions? I know, I know, that would reduce sensitivity calculations and may ever create a bigger pause than we already have, so there might be some resistance to this 😉

Pamela Gray
Reply to  davidmhoffer
February 24, 2017 10:33 am

Hmmmm! Good point! Remove the earlier cooling from pollution and you have less warming trend! Certainly one must also then remove uncontrolled natural forest fire aerosols from the pre 1950’s temperature record too. Uh oh! Now we have no trend!

4 Eyes
Reply to  davidmhoffer
February 24, 2017 1:54 pm

And without the aerosol induced increase in sea ice from 1950 to 1970 the long term rate of sea ice loss would be less.

Caligula Jones
February 24, 2017 9:59 am

I think the main question is: will Griff need to change his chart he’s about to post. Again.

Editor
February 24, 2017 10:07 am

So the AMO had nothing to do with it?

Reply to  Paul Homewood
February 24, 2017 10:27 am

No anthropogenic in AMO. So that won’t do.

MarkW
Reply to  ristvan
February 24, 2017 11:07 am

WHAT that’s not what the A in AMO stands for????? ;*]

Reply to  ristvan
February 24, 2017 8:16 pm

NOAA and NASA still think AMO is ELMO’S brother.

Reply to  Paul Homewood
February 24, 2017 1:48 pm

Err no. The looked at the following
Can GHGs, Solar forcing, Volcanic Forcing, and Aerosols explain the observed increase from 1950-1975?
Answer?
Yes.
Can you rule out that AMO or unicorns could explain the same observations? can you show these are the necessary causes and the only causes?
Well, YOU would have to get the observations and SHOW that AMO was required to explain the observations or that Adding AMO improved the estimate, or that AMO and some other combination, excluding Aerosols and GHGs, did an equal or better job.
They didnt rule out AMO: They showed that a combination of
A) natural forcing ( solar and volcanoes)
B) GHGs
C) Aerosols
Was sufficient to explain the observations.
sufficient.
mere speculation that it might be something else, AMO or unicorns, isnt science. Getting the observations and showing that is science.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
February 24, 2017 4:56 pm

SM, have you ever noticed your arguments are illogical? Lets start at your chosen beginning. The warming from ~1920-1945 is indistinguishable from that of ~ 1975-2000. A Lindzen point. Now the former cannot be attributrd to AGW; there was not enough delta CO2. Proof IPCC AR4 WG1 SPM figure 8.2. So explain your AGW attribution to the latter? You cannot. Logic fail.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
February 24, 2017 8:02 pm

“SM, have you ever noticed your arguments are illogical? Lets start at your chosen beginning. The warming from ~1920-1945 is indistinguishable from that of ~ 1975-2000. A Lindzen point. Now the former cannot be attributrd to AGW; there was not enough delta CO2.
Wrong.
The 1910-1940 period is easily explained as a conbination of
GHGS about .13C +-.1C
Natural about .15C +-.1C
Internal Variablity 0 +-.15C
The observed warming is within the combination of these
Check the forcings for this period. easy peasy

Reply to  Steven Mosher
February 24, 2017 8:19 pm

Is that why there are so many “may haves” in the paper?

Chris Nelli
February 24, 2017 10:10 am

They want it both ways. In the climate models predicting global temps they claim that aerosols continued unabated through the 80’s and 90’s in order to show greater climate sensitivity.

February 24, 2017 10:14 am

must say
I don’t see any possible chemical explanation from the IR spectra that SO2 could be cooling the atmosphere [by deflecting high energy from the sun back to space]
it is not even picked up deflected from earth via the moon
eg fig 6 and 7
http://astro.berkeley.edu/~kalas/disksite/library/turnbull06a.pdf
there is simply too little of it to be of any consequence [except perhaps killing the trees on earth if those are in the way]
unless I am missing something?

Ed Zuiderwijk
February 24, 2017 10:34 am

Humans have not been changing arctic ice. Natural cycles did that. The whole premises of the paper is flawed.

Chris
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
February 24, 2017 11:09 pm

Proof of your hypothesis?

Reply to  Chris
February 25, 2017 2:27 am

You first. We don’t need to prove the null hypothesis.

February 24, 2017 10:36 am

“humans may have been altering Arctic sea ice longer than previously thought”
Absolutely. Inuits have been doing it for centuries.
http://www.arcticphotoshop.com/p/249/inuit-fishing-through-hole-in-the-sea-ice-for-halibut-1602731.jpg

Reply to  vukcevic
February 24, 2017 12:46 pm

On more serious note: Assuming that the Arctic ice coverage is directly related to the Arctic temperature then correlation to total (anthropogenic) carbon emissions is far worse than the correlation to the Arctic’s geomagnetic natural variability.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CO2-Arc.gif
(graph was constructed nearly a decade ago)
mechanism is not known, possible: a) solar-UV-ozone, b) up to 30% of the MF decadal change is often due to the ocean floor tectonics c) just coincidence.

Reply to  vukcevic
February 24, 2017 5:47 pm

Small point for your further edification vuk – you shouldn’t say “inuits”. Inuit is plural of the singular Inuk.
How’s that for nit picking?

Reply to  Smart Rock
February 25, 2017 2:10 am

Thanks, got it. Link to the photo “inuit-fishing-through-hole-in-the-sea-ice-for-halibut” is also incorrect since only one person is shown.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Ulaanbaatar
Reply to  Smart Rock
February 25, 2017 5:42 am

Inu – human/person/man (gender neutral)
Inuk – a person (esp a human)
Inuvik (the town) – place of people/human place
Inuit – people/humans
Inuvialuk – a real person/human
Inuvialuit – the real people/humans
In case you are interested, Eskimo is a Dene (and others) word that means ‘they speak another language’. Their language groups were so unrelated they had no easy way to communicate.
In many cultures the name for themselves means ‘human people’ or ‘real humans’. In Africa the meaning of ‘ubuntu’ is ‘humanness’, the philosophy of being and behaving like a real human. For insights into N American parallels see the movie ‘Little Big Man’.

February 24, 2017 10:40 am

LOL
This is a morphing of “pollution is bringing on a new ice age” scare of the 70s except it is used to explain an advance of ice rather than doom.
This is such frustrating junk science

February 24, 2017 10:53 am

What hidden effects? Down-welling IR has been decreasing this century.comment image?w=640&h=252
Isn’t this definitive proof that CO2 can’t be responsible for any 21st century warming?

The Original Mike M
Reply to  gyan1
February 24, 2017 11:00 am

CO2 was responsible but only for “this” much!

MarkW
Reply to  The Original Mike M
February 24, 2017 11:08 am

“Missed it by THAT much.”
Max Smart

Reply to  The Original Mike M
February 24, 2017 11:17 am

I’m not sure what “this” you are referring to? In order for CO2 to cause increased surface warming down-welling IR must increase to slow down the rate heat escapes the atmosphere. Since it is declining it can’t be responsible for any of “this”. Am I missing something?

The Original Mike M
Reply to  The Original Mike M
February 24, 2017 11:36 am

gyan1: “I’m not sure what “this” you are referring to?”
CO2’s GHE contribution, though small, (only “this” much), doesn’t go away just because downwell IR decreased. The decrease in IR is just going to make a far greater difference than an increase in CO2 concentration.

Mickey Reno
Reply to  The Original Mike M
February 24, 2017 12:02 pm

You know I can’t accept sloppy imprecision that isn’t converted to standard units. How many Hiroshima equivalents is that?

Reply to  The Original Mike M
February 24, 2017 12:03 pm

The Original Mike M February 24, 2017 at 11:36 am
gyan1: “I’m not sure what “this” you are referring to?”
“CO2’s GHE contribution, though small, (only “this” much), doesn’t go away just because downwell IR decreased. The decrease in IR is just going to make a far greater difference than an increase in CO2 concentration.”
Thanks for the clarification! My post refers to the claim that there is warming being “masked”. The idea that human emissions are causing an increase in global temperature is refuted by the CERE’s data. I wasn’t claiming CO2 had no effect or that it isn’t a GHG.

Nhansen
Reply to  gyan1
February 24, 2017 5:35 pm

At least we know burning fossil fuels is a good way to hide or protect from the effects of burning fossil fuels.

The Original Mike M
February 24, 2017 10:56 am

If aerosols had actually had a cooling effect on Arctic temperature during DAYLIGHT (summer) periods back in the 50’s and 60’s then DMI would have recorded lower temperatures during those DAYLIGHT periods. Such did not happen. I see no significant difference in summer Arctic temperatures between then and now. The AGU is flailing.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
e.g. –
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_1958.png
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_1999.png
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2015.png
.

Reply to  The Original Mike M
February 24, 2017 2:05 pm

OMM you are posting real data and using logic to refute this silly speculation.
That is not what warmunists do, as illustrated by this paper. Warmunists MODEL their desired answer, then make up or Karlize data to suit the model. Some, like Mann’s hockeystick, even invent dodgy statistical methods to use on the made up treemometer data.

Richard M
February 24, 2017 11:00 am

I suspect the global aerosol emissions are nearly as high today from China, India other developing countries. Funny how they no longer have the same effect.

The Original Mike M
Reply to  Richard M
February 24, 2017 11:02 am

All aerosols are equal, some aerosols are more equal than others.

Reply to  The Original Mike M
February 24, 2017 2:05 pm

Plus many.

MarkW
Reply to  Richard M
February 24, 2017 11:09 am

Those are communist aerosols. They never cause a problem. Just like communist CO2 is not a problem.

Joel Snider
Reply to  MarkW
February 24, 2017 12:12 pm

Or C02 from any source other than humans or fossil fuels.
See, THAT C02’s ‘natural’.

Michael Jankowski
February 24, 2017 11:14 am

“…In a new study, recently recovered Russian observations show an increase in sea ice from 1950 to 1975 as large as the subsequent decrease in sea ice observed from 1975 to 2005…”
25 years of gain and then an equal loss over the next 30 yrs. Couldn’t be cyclical…

Michael Jankowski
February 24, 2017 11:27 am

Cecilia Bitz had better watch-out. Her level-headed and truthful comments could generate a “skeptic” label. If she were to become prominent a la Judith Curry, then the warmistas will unleash their sexist and hateful wolves.

RWturner
February 24, 2017 11:37 am

Ah, the old sulfates ate our global warming from 1945-1975 meme. Crazy how sulfates from oil and coal had no effect prior to the cooling, and that regulations on sulfur had demonstrable effects immediately!

The Original Mike M
Reply to  RWturner
February 24, 2017 11:48 am

Yeah, you catch them doctoring the temperature record so then they divert our attention with “Oh look! Sulfates!” http://images.nymag.com/news/features/squirrels140127_250.jpg

Latitude
February 24, 2017 11:49 am

ok…so now air pollution is stronger than CO2/global warming….is there anything that’s not??
They admit that the arctic did not start in 1979…
and cleaning up real air pollution probably has caused it all

MarkW
Reply to  Latitude
February 24, 2017 1:36 pm

Someone better put Griff on the suicide watch list.
When he discovers that even pals are acknowledging that 1979 was a high mark for Arctic ice, not the norm as he’s been pushing for the last couple of years, it won’t be pretty.

Reply to  MarkW
February 24, 2017 2:21 pm

Ever since he got climateottered here, he/she/it has been hanging out more at Tony Heller’s blog. There are some good commenters there, but not at the general knowledge level here or at Judiths.

Reply to  MarkW
February 25, 2017 2:14 pm

Ristvan – Who might the “good commenters at Tony Heller’s blog” be?

Reply to  Latitude
February 24, 2017 1:38 pm

Err no. See figure 5 in their paper

Joel Snider
February 24, 2017 12:09 pm

This is why Global Warming is so darned evil – it actually conspires to hide its presence from us, even as it’s destroying the planet.
Diabolical.