From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By P Gosselin on 26. November 2021
Die kalte Sonne reports on a new aerosol study by Liu et al.
The results are a major blow to the high greenhouse-gas climate sensitivity modelers.
IPCC scientists have a favorite wild card they often use to explain serious model discrepancies: aerosols. Mysterious cooling events in the past are often explained away by aerosols from major volcanic eruptions, for example. They act to filter out sunlight.
According to IPCC climate models, the mean global temperature should have risen by 1.5°C since 1850 due to the higher CO2 concentrations. But best estimates show that it has instead risen by only 1.1°C. So what about the missing 0.4°C?
Naturally, the missing 0.4°C of warming since 1850 gets explained by the higher 20th century aerosol levels in the atmosphere – due to the burning of fossil fuels. Air pollution by man over the course of the late 19th century and entire 20th century are said to have dimmed the earth, and thus this explains the 0.4°C less warming.
Surprise: global aerosol emissions have been flat over past 250 years
But now results by a new study appearing in the journal Science Advances by Liu et al tells us that the forcing by aerosols had to have been overestimated by climate modelers. IPCC modelers insisted that 20th century aerosol concentrations were higher than during the pre-industrial times, and this is what kept the climate from warming by 1.5°C.
According to the scientists led by Liu, however, atmospheric aerosols in the preindustrial times were just as high as they were just recently. They were in fact more or less constant over the past 250 years. No change means it could not have been aerosols putting the brakes on temperature rise:
Image: Science Advances, Liu et al.
That’s a real embarrassment for the IPCC modelers. It means CO2 climate sensitivity has been overestimated.
Aerosol concentrations have changed very little
The above chart is the result they found from records of 14 Antarctic ice cores and 1 central Andean ice core. These tell us that “historical fire activity in the Southern Hemisphere (SH) exceeded present-day levels”. Forest fires back then were much worse, and so more aerosol emissions were greater than modelers believe!
“The results come as a real surprise,” reports Die kalte Sonne.
Significance: CO2 climate sensitivity overstated in models
The researchers found that instead of aerosols increasing during the 20th century, they likely in fact decreased by 30% over the 20th century! This means that aerosols could not have suppressed the warming by 0.4°C, meaning the climate sensitivity by manmade greenhouse gases has to be dialed back accordingly.
The models have got the aerosols all wrong.
Confirmed by previous study
The new findings are underpinned by earlier findings in a 2018 study by Hamilton et al, who also found “significantly increased aerosol concentrations in the pre-industrial atmosphere.”
“Stark contradiction” to model assumptions
“The high natural aerosol emissions of the preindustrial time are thus clearly a global phenomenon,” reports Die kalte Sonne. “The documented constancy of the aerosol total emissions are in stark contradiction to the assumptions in the IPCC climate models.”
CO2 warming effect has to be much less
“The consequences for the climate models could be enormous,” Die kalte Sonne adds. This means that CO2’s warming effect thus has to be much less. “The study tells us that the CO2 climate sensitivity indeed has to be in the lower range of the IPCC’s 1.5-4.5°C warming for a doubling of CO2.”
What about the problem of evaporation rates and solar dimming? Goes back some years to a long running experiment with a container of water showing reduced evaporation over a period of years which led to concerns over solar dimming.
what a horrible misreading of the paper and the science
1. The models have got the aerosols all wrong.
nope. The INPUT?S for negative forcings in the southern hemisphere were under estimated.
people need to learn to read and discriminate between a model being wrong and the inputs being wrong. between the physics being wrong anf the data being wrong.
2. BC or black carbon is negative forcing. and it’s local unlike c02.
basically temperature is a function of forcing if the balance of positive and negative forcing is >0 it warms; <0, it cools.
3. changing the value for BC (due to fires) does not effect ECS. this has been speculated long
ago and disproved.
notrickszone is run by a literal clown.
a no shit, clown, childrens entertainer.
who cannot read much less ubderstand aerosol science
A Mosh drive-by, been quite a while since the last sighting of the black SUV.
Mosh just re-iterates the claims made in the paper, then declares that anyone who disagrees with him is an idiot.
I think you overlooked something. The BC (soot) is a PROXY for wildfires which make much more emissions of other ( cooling) aerosols. The researcher looked at ice-proxys which conserve soot, not sulphur dioxide. And yes. the GCM use the forcing (ERF) as an input. If they run too hot after adjusting for the real ERF aerosols as these two papers found … something is wrong. It was my pleasure to help out, it worked because I read both studies. A difference to your approach?
This is beyond stupid. The sun-blocking effect was due to sulfur from fossils. That is not the kinda aerosol this study is about. This sulfur-thingie has been explained to you (“skeptics”) in plain language 10101010010101 times already. The funniest thing is that you “skeptics” are now wanking off ‘cos you think this study justifies your “views”, completely misunderstanding the topic. Congratulations!
typical nyolci, naked assertions combined with insults towards anyone who doesn’t worship as it does.
nyolci also exposes itself as a world class hypocrite. Just two days ago it went whining about much milder insults that were directed towards it.
Mods: If my comments were out of bounds, nyolci’s are completely outside the stadium.
Well, this is what science says. And this is a very strong thing. Not just some assertions from a guy. Science doesn’t give a jack about your feelings.
Once again, naked assertions.
This is not what the science says and never has been. It is what the models say, but models aren’t science and never have been.
The fact that you don’t know this is yet more evidence that you do not and never have known what you are talking about.
You are great at repeating talking points that have been poured into your empty head, but thinking for yourself is a skill that you will never master.
And you talk about “assertions”… 🙂 FYI modelling is just a tool for calculating results in a system that is mathematically complicated. Again, this is a tool, and not even the only tool here. FYI the “hockey stick” is not a modelling result.
🙂 And what about your empty head? I, at least, have a degree, you don’t. You’re pontificating without understanding basic scientific concepts.
The Hokey Schtick is a fraudulent result of splicing together tree-ring proxies and modern thermometric data. Trees are not thermometers.
No one care what your qualifications are. Present real, empirical data to support your assertions.
Uh, I didn’t know that… I thought they were… 🙂
You know whenever a “skeptic” is railing against the “hockey stick” (in reality there are at least 20 independent reconstructions, all showing essentially the same picture), and then later on bs about the various warm periods, I always wonder how on earth they can’t see the inconsistency of their position. ‘Cos how do you know there was a global medieval warm period that was warmer than what we have today if you didn’t have thermometers back then? How do you know anything about past temperatures if your only tool to measure them is a collection of indirect methods (ie. via proxy)? And this leads us to the next topic:
Well, my qualifications made me aware of the fact that even thermometers were kinda indirect. The liquid-in-glass types actually convert temperature to length via a mostly (approximately) linear expansion of a fluid. You essentially measure (calibrated) distance there. Most measurements nowadays are really related to transforming a quantity into a voltage between two points and then further transforming it to get a digital reading. The sheer number of various transformations etc. to get this reading that represents a measurand is only known to people who have qualifications. All in all, you’d better believe me, a person of qualification in this topic that in a certain sense thermometers are not thermometers either. Or a different take can be: thermometers represent a gradual improvement over trees in certain temperature measuring scenarios.
So no actual evidence then?
Of course there is. The problem is that you don’t understand it. This question of yours the latest demonstration.
Still waiting for you to present it, you coward.
Ad hom. Why? Completely unnecessary. Everyone knew already you had run out of arguments. You don’t have to advertise this fact with an ad hom. Which is, accidentally, false anyway.
No the problem is that you can’t explain it. Why don’t you give direct references to what you describe. The internet has a multitude of explanations for any measurement technology you can name.
Actually, what am I supposed to explain? What is the thing that needs to be explained here? Graemethecat apparently misunderstood what I was telling him in a way I can’t understand.
Useless… Again, these are things that had been referenced here 10100239234234 times. I don’t know specifically what needs to be explained to you but if it’s aerosols, try simply searching “sulfur aerosols”, it gives you tons of references, so please don’t pretend your sincere curiosity has been kept unsatisfied. But here is a link, you can choose 3 levels of dept in the explanation. https://skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-mid-20th-century.htm
Yes. MSc of EE. And yes.
Yes. Like amplifying, linearization, etc. We had a subject that had almost a semester long course in how to deal with strain gauges.
I do. And this is getting to be ad hom. Please cool down.
Qualifications. Hah! Do you have a BSEE or higher so you understand how a “digital” temp reading is made and what electronics are needed to perform it? How about tolerance specs for each stage in making a digital reading?
I question your knowledge from your statement “Most measurements nowadays are really related to transforming a quantity into a voltage between two points and then further transforming it to get a digital reading.”. Transform!? Ha!
You don’t have a clue about a digital measurement device design do you? How often do these “digital” devices require calibration? Why? What is their tolerance? Are they temperature compensated? Does the compensation drift? Do you even know what a 1//2 digit means for a digital device?
It’s a good thing the science was settled years ago, or this might matter.
/sarc
We already knew this as the average number of acres burned in just the western USA prior to 1920 was 55 million acres per year
Factor in correct estimates of UHI, get rid of the data adjustments designed to introduce more warming into the data, stop mixing in ocean temperatures as if they are land temperatures, and now introduce better estimates for aerosols and what is left? Less than 33% of the original “atmospheric sensitivity to CO2”?
That would actually be approaching a number I could believe in…instead of 2.5C you get around 0.8C. Probably still too high but at least in the range of believable.
I found this also quite relevant to the longterm natural removal of CO2 from the atmosphere, through oceans and zillions of lantern fish: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8KpuydjfJI
Till recently much under estimated, not of interest to the IPCC.
What Artic amplification. Tell that to the current state of ice in the artic. WWF running ads on the Poor “Polar Bears” running out of ICE! Just look at the temp for the south pole. Coldest temps ever recorded for the past 6 months. Why do we think anything from the IPCC is reliable at all. Good article on the climate models on American Thinker. https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/11/the_profound_junk_science_of_climate.html Since the CO2 ability to change temp goes down as concentration goes up. As the trends on forest fires show a marked decrease over the last 100 years.