You have it all wrong. CO2 is not, and never has been the cause of any global warming. The teal cause of our warming has been simply decreases in the amount of industrial SO2 aerosol pollution of our troposphere due to Clean Air legislation, and other actions, to reduce their amount.
As the air gets cleaner, the intensity of the solar radiation striking the Earth's surface increases , and warming naturally occurs . This is INEVITABLE but it is overlooked by everyone.!
As for our future, the cleaner the air, the hotter it will get, unless we attempt some geo-engineering.
This is not backed up by data. We can directly measure total solar irradiance (TSI) with high altitude balloons and satellites. Before that we used ground-based methods that mathematically compensated for the earth's atmosphere. The first person to do this was Samuel Langley (of aviation fame) in the 1880's. Other scientists have used proxies to infer TSI before that time.
During that same period of time stratospheric temperatures have decreased as tropospheric temperatures have increased. This is what you would expect with greater heat storage in the troposphere. If TSI was increasing, we would expect stratospheric temperatures to rise along with tropospheric temperatures.
SO2 levels are subject of active research and it very likely that they have some effect on mitigating anthropogenic global warming. However, that effect is limited by a short residence time in the atmosphere. The SO2 is oxidized to form sulfates which nucleate on dust particles in the atmosphere, which in turn serve as nuclei for raindrops. The discussion turns out to be more about particulate material in the atmosphere, which does mitigate warming, than about the SO2 itself
The biggest issue with SO2 having a major impact is that the timing does not work. Tropospheric temperature began significantly rising in the 1950's when SO2 emissions were at their maximum. The sharp drop in these emissions did not occur until around around 2000.
No, my statements are backed up empirical observations..
There is not a single incidence of an increase or a decrease in average anomalous global temperatures that cannot be shown to be due a decrease or an increase in the amount of SO2 aerosol pollution of our atmosphere.
VEI4 and larger Volcanic eruptions temporarily cool our climate for about 2 years by injecting SO into our stratosphere, where it is converted to the SO2 aerosol, microscopic droplets of H2SO4, which are reflective and decrease the amount of solar radiation striking striking the Earth's surface, cooling it.
They settle out after ~12-16 months, and cause temperatures to rise because of the less polluted air, normally raising temperatures enough to result in an El Nino.
Regarding industrial SO2 aerosol pollution of our troposphere, it is tracked by the Community Emissions Data System of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratories, and our decreasing or increasing temperatures reflect their levels.
They peaked at 139 million tons in 1979, then began falling in 1980 because of European and American legislation to reduce the amount of industrial SO2 pollution of our atmosphere, because of Acid Rain and health concerns,
NASA/GMAO SO2 and SO4 column mass images of the amount of global sulfurous aerosol pollution between 1980 and 2022are available, and clearly show decreasing amounts of pollution between those years
1) There is no question that the atmosphere cools during volcanic eruptions due to SO2 and particulate material
2) There is no question that SO2 aerosols have decreased since 2006 and that had some effect on temperature
3) The problem with your theory, however, is that it fails to explain the rise in temperature during the 1965-2006 period when SO2 emissions were rising and at their maximum. Although SO2 emissions peaked in 1979, they stayed stable until 1990, fell from 1990 to 2000 then rose again to a peak in 2006. These variations were relatively minor. The major fall you discuss, did not really happen until 2006. When SO2 emissions did fall sharply during the period 2006 -2022 (2022 is the date the chart was made), the magnitude of the temperature rise did not increase. Look at the SO2 emissions chart I linked below and compare it with the NASA temperature chart. There is simply not a good correlation. I made a graphic that superimposed both charts in order to document this for myself but there is no way to present this chart in this discussion
4) Your theory also cannot explain the cooling of the stratosphere at the same time tropospheric temperatures were rising. Stratospheric cooling has continued throughout the rise and fall of SO2 emissions as tropospheric temperatures have risen.
Review the references I cited and the associated charts
You state that the problem with my theory is that it doesn't explain the rise in temperatures during the 1965-2006 period when SO2 emissions were rising and at their maximum.
The chart that you provided shows that SO2 emissions peaked at 139 million tonnes in 1979, then began falling afterwards. There was NO increase in SO2 emissions beyond the 1979 maximum, and nothing is mentioned with respect to temperatures.
For temperature measurements, I use the Met Office HadCRUT5.0 data set, which is not as extreme as the NASA data.
Between the 1965-2006 period that you mention, temperatures fell up until 1979, because of rising levels of industrial SO2 aerosol pollution, then began rising after 1980, when industrial SO2 aerosol pollution levels began falling because of the "Clean Air" legislation of the 1970's.
From their 1979 peak of 139 million tonnes, by 2022 they have fallen to 72 million tonnes, a decrease of 67 million tonnes, and temperatures have risen by 0.7 deg. C.
And they will continue to rise, except for temporary cooling periods due to volcanic eruptions
Reference this, please. I agree that global warming tends to lead rising CO2 levels over long historic periods, but would appreciate your references for SO2. Thanks.
For those who may be more skeptical about warming, don't forget the cost of climate policy, which is having little effect for $1 to 2 trillion dollars a year. Even if good climate policy doesn't solve warming it still solves bad climate policy. Should-cost nuclear is necessary.
I have heard that the adaptation costs necessary to completely adapt to sea level rise would be .2% of GDP by 2100. That may be an idealized figure not truly representing what would happen - but it may indicate sea level rise isn't a critical problem.
Your focus on the poor in the world is THE right reason for Nuclear Power. It is the one means of power production that can be done locally in every place and is technically simple enough for everyone with reasonable education to implement. It is only political policy that restricts its use. The technical and engineering challenges are on a similar level or scale as most other technologies. The complex regulations are evil. A willing decision to lie through exaggeration and refusal to compare with other ordinary hazards. Yes yes it needs shields. Yes yes radiation can harm you in you stick your head inside a reactor. Got it. If I pump my own gas, I am exposed to more cancer causing agents than would come from even doses higher than the 100 rem level where no harm has been measured. I am EXHAUSTED with the safety mantra. Until we see some folks (10 or 16) working at a NPP actually get cancer from the radiation at that plant, we are over doing the regulations. Business has no motivation to kill its own people. It would kill its own business.
How fast you get that 100 rem (1000 mSv) will determine whether there is any detectable increase in you chance of getting cancer. It's not dose. It's not dose rate. It's the dose rate profile. 1000 mSv in the time it takes to fill up your tank will produce a measurable increase.
Yes, dose amount over time. I’ve been thinking of the kind of comparisons that would illustrate the ridiculous regs. Like setting the speed limit for a modern car at 1 mile per hour because driving at 200 miles per hour has a measurable number of deaths associated with that speed. Then reducing that 1 mph each year by a “reasonable” amount. Another way would be to regulate oven temperature to make sure no one is ever burned. Since the background temperature is about 65 on average we should regulate ovens to below 50 degrees so no one is harmed.
Jack, with your expertise, I think it would be very helpful if you could estimate, and emphasize in your discussion, the net additional heat energy that the earth has trapped due to the additional greenhouse gases, since perhaps 1950.
I'm afraid I don't have that expertise. I'm a naval architect. My expertise is drawing ships that don't capsize. But I'm sure somebody has estimated that number.
Jack, when I wrote that comment, I was thinking of what you said about sea level rise, since the oceans are where most of the additional heat has gone.
I asked ChatGPT about this. I asked, "can we estimate the net amount of additional heat trapped by the earth since 1950, due to increase in greenhouse gases, and offset by the decrease in reflectivity caused by decrease in aerosols?"
After one additional prompt, it gave its estimate: 6 x 10^23 joules.
Which it said was equivalent to ten billion Hiroshima bombs.
It also said that about 90% of the heat went to the oceans.
And it helpfully added that currently the earth's energy imbalance is about 10^22 joules per year. Which it said is 20 to 30 times large than total human primary energy consumption. If accurate, that comparison shows the scale of the problem?
AI generated content is banned from this site. AI is a compute intensive way of regurgitating conventional wisdom. It's also a way of creating meaningless numbers. To reach the number you asked for requires making a boatload of assumptions any one of which could be questioned. Unless we know the assumptions underlying those figures, they are meaningless.
Pls reword or I will have to take your comment down.
Jack has advised me that AI generated content is banned from this site, and I can see the reasons for this. The hope of my earlier post, in line with Jack's comment about the seriousness of sea level rise, was to bring our attention to the increased quantity of heat energy over past decades now stored in the oceans, land, and atmosphere of the earth --with an estimated 90% of that heat stored in the oceans, leading to expansion of that water and hence most of the sea level rise.
I submit that focusing on this added heat energy would give valuable perspective to the discussion of the increase in greenhouse gasses, and the decrease in earth's reflectivity caused by decrease in aerosols. And it would have a direct connection to sea level rise.
Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is very real, but the apocalypse has been indefinitely delayed. While I strongly agree with you on nuclear power, even the IPCC has backed away from the extreme scenarios. When we didn't go extinct in 2022, Greta decided antisemitism was more fun. To learn more, I strongly suggest you subscribe to Roger Pielkes Substack
That way China and India are adding coal power plants, a few new nuclear plants in the U.S. won't make much of a difference in CO2 emissions. There are other better reasons to advocate for nuclear power although I admit that this one is politically the best 😁.
Of course, a few nuclear plants will not make much of a difference in anything. But if we had should-cost nuclear and rational regualtion nuclear would automatically push coal (and wind/solar) out of all power generation over the next 50 years. Not to mention making humanity wealthier and healthier. That's the vision. We could have it. It's our choice.
You have it all wrong. CO2 is not, and never has been the cause of any global warming. The teal cause of our warming has been simply decreases in the amount of industrial SO2 aerosol pollution of our troposphere due to Clean Air legislation, and other actions, to reduce their amount.
As the air gets cleaner, the intensity of the solar radiation striking the Earth's surface increases , and warming naturally occurs . This is INEVITABLE but it is overlooked by everyone.!
As for our future, the cleaner the air, the hotter it will get, unless we attempt some geo-engineering.
This is not backed up by data. We can directly measure total solar irradiance (TSI) with high altitude balloons and satellites. Before that we used ground-based methods that mathematically compensated for the earth's atmosphere. The first person to do this was Samuel Langley (of aviation fame) in the 1880's. Other scientists have used proxies to infer TSI before that time.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/products/climate-data-records/total-solar-irradiance
TSI has been flat since the 1970's, with minor fluctuations associated with the 11-year sunspot cycle It has markedly declined from the 1950's
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/products/climate-data-records/total-solar-irradiance
During that same period of time stratospheric temperatures have decreased as tropospheric temperatures have increased. This is what you would expect with greater heat storage in the troposphere. If TSI was increasing, we would expect stratospheric temperatures to rise along with tropospheric temperatures.
https://science.nasa.gov/resource/graphic-temperature-vs-solar-activity/
https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/stratospheric-temperature-satellite-datasets-used-quantify-lower-middle-and-upper
SO2 levels are subject of active research and it very likely that they have some effect on mitigating anthropogenic global warming. However, that effect is limited by a short residence time in the atmosphere. The SO2 is oxidized to form sulfates which nucleate on dust particles in the atmosphere, which in turn serve as nuclei for raindrops. The discussion turns out to be more about particulate material in the atmosphere, which does mitigate warming, than about the SO2 itself
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-27315-3
https://www.mpg.de/7248507/sulfate-aerosol-clouds-climate
The biggest issue with SO2 having a major impact is that the timing does not work. Tropospheric temperature began significantly rising in the 1950's when SO2 emissions were at their maximum. The sharp drop in these emissions did not occur until around around 2000.
https://ourworldindata.org/data-insights/sulfur-dioxide-emissions-from-shipping-dropped-sharply-with-the-introduction-of-new-rules-in-2020
Jory:
No, my statements are backed up empirical observations..
There is not a single incidence of an increase or a decrease in average anomalous global temperatures that cannot be shown to be due a decrease or an increase in the amount of SO2 aerosol pollution of our atmosphere.
VEI4 and larger Volcanic eruptions temporarily cool our climate for about 2 years by injecting SO into our stratosphere, where it is converted to the SO2 aerosol, microscopic droplets of H2SO4, which are reflective and decrease the amount of solar radiation striking striking the Earth's surface, cooling it.
They settle out after ~12-16 months, and cause temperatures to rise because of the less polluted air, normally raising temperatures enough to result in an El Nino.
Regarding industrial SO2 aerosol pollution of our troposphere, it is tracked by the Community Emissions Data System of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratories, and our decreasing or increasing temperatures reflect their levels.
They peaked at 139 million tons in 1979, then began falling in 1980 because of European and American legislation to reduce the amount of industrial SO2 pollution of our atmosphere, because of Acid Rain and health concerns,
NASA/GMAO SO2 and SO4 column mass images of the amount of global sulfurous aerosol pollution between 1980 and 2022are available, and clearly show decreasing amounts of pollution between those years
1) There is no question that the atmosphere cools during volcanic eruptions due to SO2 and particulate material
2) There is no question that SO2 aerosols have decreased since 2006 and that had some effect on temperature
3) The problem with your theory, however, is that it fails to explain the rise in temperature during the 1965-2006 period when SO2 emissions were rising and at their maximum. Although SO2 emissions peaked in 1979, they stayed stable until 1990, fell from 1990 to 2000 then rose again to a peak in 2006. These variations were relatively minor. The major fall you discuss, did not really happen until 2006. When SO2 emissions did fall sharply during the period 2006 -2022 (2022 is the date the chart was made), the magnitude of the temperature rise did not increase. Look at the SO2 emissions chart I linked below and compare it with the NASA temperature chart. There is simply not a good correlation. I made a graphic that superimposed both charts in order to document this for myself but there is no way to present this chart in this discussion
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/so-emissions-by-world-region-in-million-tonnes
4) Your theory also cannot explain the cooling of the stratosphere at the same time tropospheric temperatures were rising. Stratospheric cooling has continued throughout the rise and fall of SO2 emissions as tropospheric temperatures have risen.
Review the references I cited and the associated charts
Jory:
I am confused by your comments.
You state that the problem with my theory is that it doesn't explain the rise in temperatures during the 1965-2006 period when SO2 emissions were rising and at their maximum.
The chart that you provided shows that SO2 emissions peaked at 139 million tonnes in 1979, then began falling afterwards. There was NO increase in SO2 emissions beyond the 1979 maximum, and nothing is mentioned with respect to temperatures.
For temperature measurements, I use the Met Office HadCRUT5.0 data set, which is not as extreme as the NASA data.
Between the 1965-2006 period that you mention, temperatures fell up until 1979, because of rising levels of industrial SO2 aerosol pollution, then began rising after 1980, when industrial SO2 aerosol pollution levels began falling because of the "Clean Air" legislation of the 1970's.
From their 1979 peak of 139 million tonnes, by 2022 they have fallen to 72 million tonnes, a decrease of 67 million tonnes, and temperatures have risen by 0.7 deg. C.
And they will continue to rise, except for temporary cooling periods due to volcanic eruptions
Reference this, please. I agree that global warming tends to lead rising CO2 levels over long historic periods, but would appreciate your references for SO2. Thanks.
James Forester, MD
See my reply to Jory Pacht.
For those who may be more skeptical about warming, don't forget the cost of climate policy, which is having little effect for $1 to 2 trillion dollars a year. Even if good climate policy doesn't solve warming it still solves bad climate policy. Should-cost nuclear is necessary.
I have heard that the adaptation costs necessary to completely adapt to sea level rise would be .2% of GDP by 2100. That may be an idealized figure not truly representing what would happen - but it may indicate sea level rise isn't a critical problem.
Your focus on the poor in the world is THE right reason for Nuclear Power. It is the one means of power production that can be done locally in every place and is technically simple enough for everyone with reasonable education to implement. It is only political policy that restricts its use. The technical and engineering challenges are on a similar level or scale as most other technologies. The complex regulations are evil. A willing decision to lie through exaggeration and refusal to compare with other ordinary hazards. Yes yes it needs shields. Yes yes radiation can harm you in you stick your head inside a reactor. Got it. If I pump my own gas, I am exposed to more cancer causing agents than would come from even doses higher than the 100 rem level where no harm has been measured. I am EXHAUSTED with the safety mantra. Until we see some folks (10 or 16) working at a NPP actually get cancer from the radiation at that plant, we are over doing the regulations. Business has no motivation to kill its own people. It would kill its own business.
Dave,
How fast you get that 100 rem (1000 mSv) will determine whether there is any detectable increase in you chance of getting cancer. It's not dose. It's not dose rate. It's the dose rate profile. 1000 mSv in the time it takes to fill up your tank will produce a measurable increase.
Yes, dose amount over time. I’ve been thinking of the kind of comparisons that would illustrate the ridiculous regs. Like setting the speed limit for a modern car at 1 mile per hour because driving at 200 miles per hour has a measurable number of deaths associated with that speed. Then reducing that 1 mph each year by a “reasonable” amount. Another way would be to regulate oven temperature to make sure no one is ever burned. Since the background temperature is about 65 on average we should regulate ovens to below 50 degrees so no one is harmed.
Jack, with your expertise, I think it would be very helpful if you could estimate, and emphasize in your discussion, the net additional heat energy that the earth has trapped due to the additional greenhouse gases, since perhaps 1950.
Ken,
I'm afraid I don't have that expertise. I'm a naval architect. My expertise is drawing ships that don't capsize. But I'm sure somebody has estimated that number.
Jack, when I wrote that comment, I was thinking of what you said about sea level rise, since the oceans are where most of the additional heat has gone.
I asked ChatGPT about this. I asked, "can we estimate the net amount of additional heat trapped by the earth since 1950, due to increase in greenhouse gases, and offset by the decrease in reflectivity caused by decrease in aerosols?"
After one additional prompt, it gave its estimate: 6 x 10^23 joules.
Which it said was equivalent to ten billion Hiroshima bombs.
It also said that about 90% of the heat went to the oceans.
And it helpfully added that currently the earth's energy imbalance is about 10^22 joules per year. Which it said is 20 to 30 times large than total human primary energy consumption. If accurate, that comparison shows the scale of the problem?
Ken,
AI generated content is banned from this site. AI is a compute intensive way of regurgitating conventional wisdom. It's also a way of creating meaningless numbers. To reach the number you asked for requires making a boatload of assumptions any one of which could be questioned. Unless we know the assumptions underlying those figures, they are meaningless.
Pls reword or I will have to take your comment down.
Jack has advised me that AI generated content is banned from this site, and I can see the reasons for this. The hope of my earlier post, in line with Jack's comment about the seriousness of sea level rise, was to bring our attention to the increased quantity of heat energy over past decades now stored in the oceans, land, and atmosphere of the earth --with an estimated 90% of that heat stored in the oceans, leading to expansion of that water and hence most of the sea level rise.
I submit that focusing on this added heat energy would give valuable perspective to the discussion of the increase in greenhouse gasses, and the decrease in earth's reflectivity caused by decrease in aerosols. And it would have a direct connection to sea level rise.
Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is very real, but the apocalypse has been indefinitely delayed. While I strongly agree with you on nuclear power, even the IPCC has backed away from the extreme scenarios. When we didn't go extinct in 2022, Greta decided antisemitism was more fun. To learn more, I strongly suggest you subscribe to Roger Pielkes Substack
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/
That way China and India are adding coal power plants, a few new nuclear plants in the U.S. won't make much of a difference in CO2 emissions. There are other better reasons to advocate for nuclear power although I admit that this one is politically the best 😁.
https://www.energyinst.org/statistical-review
Of course, a few nuclear plants will not make much of a difference in anything. But if we had should-cost nuclear and rational regualtion nuclear would automatically push coal (and wind/solar) out of all power generation over the next 50 years. Not to mention making humanity wealthier and healthier. That's the vision. We could have it. It's our choice.
Agreed!!! 😀