It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

AGW was real but the threat has passed? 50-70 years of cooling ahead?

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 07:48 AM
link   

AGW was real but the threat has passed?




Long-term global cooling began in 2002, according to a just-released study in the Journal of Cosmology, a peer-reviewed publication produced at Harvard-Smithsonian’s Center for Astrophysics. Man-made global warming was real and dangerous, the study finds, but the danger has passed.


Source

This source is however only reporting the study made by Qing-Bin Lu. In order to be informed correctly before commenting please download and read this PDF file.

This is the abstract for the document but PLEASE read the full document, and please restrain your comments to the document and not rants about AGW and/or CO2 and whether it is a scam or not.


A recent observation strikingly showed that global warming from 1950 to 2000 was most likely caused by the significant increase of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in the Earth atmosphere (Lu, 2010). Here, three key questions are addressed: (1) How could CO2 play a negligible role in recent global warming in view of its extremely high concentrations of ≥300 ppm? (2) Is there other evidence from satellite or ground measurements for the saturation in warming effect of CO2 and other non-CFC gases? And (3) could the greenhouse effect of CFCs alone account for the rise of 0.5~0.6 K in global temperature since 1950? First, the essential feature of the Earth blackbody radiation is elucidated. Then re-analyses of observed data about global temperature change with variations of halocarbons and CO2, the atmospheric transmittance of the infrared radiation and the 1970-1997 change in outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth are presented. It follows by new theoretical calculations of the greenhouse effect of halocarbons. The results strength the conclusion that humans were responsible for global warming in late 20th century, but CFCs, rather than CO2 , were the major culprit; a long-term global cooling starting around 2002 is expected to continue for next five to seven decades.


For those of you who cannot, or will not (
), download the PDF file here is a small snippet which has considerable significance.

Bottom of page 5

The data in Figs. 2 and 3 strongly indicate that global temperature is highly sensitive to the variation of atmospheric CFCs (and HCFCs) rather than to increasing CO2 and other non-CFC greenhouse gases. In the high concentration range of ppm, CO2 should exhibit higher climate sensitivities at lower concentrations. There is no reason to argue that global temperature would have an almost zero sensitivity to CO2 in the concentration range of 285-330 ppm and then have a linear dependence on CO2in the range of 330-377 ppm.


Problems with radiative forcing. Read either side of this sentence on Page 7 (2nd paragraph)

This radiative forcing arising from the CO 2 absorption has lied at the heart of the debate on the anthropogenic global warming observed in the late half of the 20th century.


The long and short of this study is that if it is correct then the reason that we had AGW was indeed man made, but not because of CO2. If CFC gasses were the cause, and they have now been reduced then what will be the effects of the increasing CO2 levels?

Page 10

All the above observations (A-D) lead to the conclusion that increasing CO2 and other non-CFC gases have caused no significant warming effect since the 1950s. Then, a question follows: Can the greenhouse effect of CFCs alone account for the observed surface temperature rise from the 1950s to ~2000?


There are various calculation and discussions of water vapour and how this can affect atmospheric feedbacks and then the punchline if you like....


These calculations demonstrate that CFCs alone could indeed account for the observed temperature rise of 0.5~0.6 K from 1950 to 2000. The calculated data also show that global temperature will reverse slowly with a deceasing rate


The concluding remarks start at the bottom of page 12


In comparison with previous calculations on the greenhouse effect of CFCs, the present calculations give rise to a larger greenhouse effect. This is due to two factors: the former calculations significantly underestimated the amplification factor of water vapor feedbacks by using a much smaller βvalue of 0.15 (Ramanathan, 1975) and also overestimated the greenhouse effect of CO2 by assuming a logarithmical increase in radiative forcing of CO2 with increasing concentration (Ramanathan et al., 1985, 1998; IPCC, 2001, 2007). These should be revised with the present observations.


I have little doubt that both 'warmists' and 'deniers' will crawl all over this spouting their rhetoric, but I would ask everyone to consider what this report is saying. You cannot make a good judgement unless you read all sides of the story.

(1) Sulphur Aerosols

Most of you on the site will not remember the climate back in the 1950s but basically it was much colder than it is now and we had harder winters and possibly warmer summers, in other words the extremes were greater. I don't remember the winter of 47 as I was not born until just after that but I do remember well the winter of 63. In my own locale - the UK - I also remember snowdrifts of as much as 17ft and that every year we had snow from around December until march at least. White Christmases were not so rare back then.

It is known that SO2 can reduce the temperature basically by blocking out the sunlight. The levels of SO2 back in the 1950s was not what it potentially is today with countries like China and India pumping out SO2 for all they are worth.

Could it be that were the climate to return to the levels of 1950 it would in fact be even colder due to the increased aerosols that were not around then?

(2) Impending Ice age?

I am sure that most of you who have more than a passing interest in climate change ( passing interest?
) are aware of this graph.



Source

It could be construed from the graph that we are about to start down the slope into another ice age, or a cooler period in this inter glacial era. It is unlikely that anyone reading this thread today will see the results of that! (Unless we achieve immortality whilst this site is till up and running!) This however does not mean it will not happen. These changes have made their appearance in as little as 1000 years.

There is a view that the current drop in the temperature anomaly over the past 3 months (November figures awaited) whilst CO2 levels are still increasing does not prove anything and that the overall effect of climate change is to increase global warming. But I ask the question. If this temperature anomaly continues to fall, at what point does a continued fall in temperature against a continued increase in CO2 cease to be a 'blip' and become a trend? Does this study negate the view that the fall in temperature anomaly (i.e. a decline in the increase) is just a blip?

My personal opinion is that the premise of the study seems reasonable. It certainly goes a long way to resolving some of the apparent difficulties that have been thrown up with a purely CO2 based AGW theory. I am no physicist however so I cannot validate the equations myself, but I would welcome input from someone who is knowledgeable about this area.

The For AGW:
The AGW Stratispheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming model
Are we heading into a new ice age?

The against AGW:
Global Warming Update: 'Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age'
Mass suicides the only way out! ;D
Ice Age Now



edit on 1/12/2010 by PuterMan because: To fix a link




posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 08:25 AM
link   
Less ozone because of CFCs let high frequency light in (UV rays). And due to its contact with the atmosphere, the frequency get lower (infrared), like what happen when light enter the deep ocean. Now, with a higher CO2 level, these rays can't escape.

But if CO2 is able to retain heat on the planet, it can also block or deflect it, but only the lower end of the electromagnetic spectre(infrared again).

P.S. : I didn't read the PDF, but am I right in my explanations ?



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 08:53 AM
link   
Your link to the pdf isn't working. Could you rapidshare it or maybe use the ats media to post the file to?

media.abovetopsecret.com



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by grey580
 


Hi, I just tried that link and it works fine (in Firefox).

I have dropped it here on 4 shared just in case you still cannot get it.



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Vio1ion
 


To be honest I am not sure that you are correct in what you are saying.

Perhaps if you look at pages 7 and 8 of the PDF it might answer your question?



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 

These calculations demonstrate that CFCs alone could indeed account for the observed temperature rise of 0.5~0.6 K from 1950 to 2000.

My main argument against the idea that CFCs could be capable of significantly pushing up global temperatures would be the fact they exist in such fantastically small concentrations - around 500 parts per trillion - if I remember. That's like 0.00001% of the atmosphere. Or something. Is it even measurable? Could be wrong with that number of 500ppt so anyone is welcome to correct me. I think a more plausible explanation for the rise in temperatures between 1940-1998 is PDO and GCRs.
edit on 1-12-2010 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Nathan-D
 



it has been generally thought that CFCs would play only a minor part in global warming because their concentrations (≤540 ppt) are three to six orders of magnitude lower than those of non-CFC greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4 and N2O)


You are correct as regards the concentrations. The study is aiming to show that it is indeed the case that the CFCs are the cause and addresses this.


Thus, there apparently exist three puzzling questions. First, how could CO2 and other non-CFC greenhouse gases play a negligible role in the 1950-2000 global warming in spite of their extremely high concentrations? Second, is there other evidence from satellite or ground measurements for the almost zero warming effect of increasing CO2
? Third, can the greenhouse effect of CFCs be large enough to account for the rise of 0.5~0.6 K in global temperature since 1950? This paper will address all the three questions.


You are saying that you feel this study did not address this? Would that be based on your feeling on this (no problem with that, if a little unscientific) or do you have some additional information that leads you to this conclusion?



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 03:41 PM
link   
Lu has a habit of making such predictions. I'm sure you can check how his last one derived from his 'model' of CFCs atmospheric chemistry jived with reality.


Correlation between Cosmic Rays and Ozone Depletion
Q.-B. Lu
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1, Canada
(Received 7 August 2008; published 19 March 2009)

This Letter reports reliable satellite data in the period of 1980–2007 covering two full 11-yr cosmic ray
(CR) cycles, clearly showing the correlation between CRs and ozone depletion, especially the polar ozone
loss (hole) over Antarctica. The results provide strong evidence of the physical mechanism that the CRdriven electron-induced reaction of halogenated molecules plays the dominant role in causing the ozone
hole. Moreover, this mechanism predicts one of the severest ozone losses in 2008–2009 and probably
another large hole around 2019-2020, according to the 11-yr CR cycle


And in the style of Lu, I'll make a prediction - this prediction of cooling from 2002 will also be shown to be wrong. Indeed, he makes the claim that temps are currently decreasing, which is wrong.

He seems to make very basic errors of reasoning at times (i.e., that if CO2 is rising, it must necessarily be shown in observations otherwise it must be saturated, lol). Now, that's not to say that CFCs are not GHGs - they are, and they will be acting to force radiative balance (minimal cf. carbon-based GHGs).

Also, that journal (Journal of Cosmology) must be pretty crap. Even the abstract is loaded with basic errors. A bit of editing would be helpful. Doesn't bode well for other normal procedures.

And, finally, nice to see you note the importance of sulphates on climate. The data shows that are actually much lower than they have been in the 20th century. But, yeah, china and india are doing their best to rewind to the mid-20th.

epic.awi.de...
www.ipcc.ch...
edit on 1-12-2010 by melatonin because: if your work isn't what you love, then something isn't right



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


Hail Mel old friend. I will try not to mess up your melon!


Indeed, he makes the claim that temps are currently decreasing, which is wrong.


Agreed, but I am assuming that he is saying the rate of increase is slowing as obviously they are not decreasing. As to the change in rate (right/wrong)- I would prefer to leave that for another thread.


Also, that journal (Journal of Cosmology) must be pretty crap.


Sure is. It did make me wonder which was why I was looking for input..


And, finally, nice to see you note the importance of sulphates on climate. The data shows that are actually much lower than they have been in the 20th century. But, yeah, china and india are doing their best to rewind to the mid-20th.


I do try Mel as well as being trying!!

Thanks for your input.



edit on 1/12/2010 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by melatonin
 


Hail Mel old friend. I will try not to mess up your melon!


Don't worry I have other people to do that for me at the moment. I'm here for a bit of sanity (lol).

Hope all's well with you and your significant other.


Agreed, but I am assuming that he is saying the rate of increase is slowing as obviously they are not decreasing. As to the change in rate (right/wrong)- I would prefer to leave that for another thread.


Fair enough, but it's indicative of his sloppy reasoning. He basically uses this and other periods to claim saturation for non-CFC GHGs. Which is quite a leap.

What it does do is allow him to claim all the recent forcing for CFCs. Of course, once the assumption of saturation is shown to be based on questionable claims, then the rest of his reasoning is shown to be rather tenuous.

Point is, this seems to be norm for Lu. A recent article pulled his CR-CFC ideas apart, again citing flaws in his reasoning...

prl.aps.org...


Sure is. It did make me wonder which was why I was looking for input..


It's likely he's been shopping around for somewhere to take it, and he was reduced to this rather interesting outlet. I'll ask a friend to shoot me if I'm ever that desperate, lol.



And, finally, nice to see you note the importance of sulphates on climate. The data shows that are actually much lower than they have been in the 20th century. But, yeah, china and india are doing their best to rewind to the mid-20th.


I do try Mel as well as being trying!!

Thanks for your input.


No worries. Kudos (again) for doing some research on this. The issue with sulphates plays a big part in the observations in the early part of the 20th century (one which Lu seems to decide to ignore). It effectively masks warming from other sources, and was an essential part of the global cooling vs. warming debate between some in the 1970s (which you may have seen raised in other contexts).
edit on 1-12-2010 by melatonin because: hey babe, take a walk on the wild side



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 10:21 PM
link   

originally posted by melatonin
"Fair enough, but it's indicative of his sloppy reasoning. He basically uses this and other periods to claim saturation for non-CFC GHGs. Which is quite a leap".

R/C: I read through the pdf (J. of Cosmology by Lu), and I cannot see how you came up with this argument.

"What it does do is allow him to claim all the recent forcing for CFCs. Of course, once the assumption of saturation is shown to be based on questionable claims, then the rest of his reasoning is shown to be rather tenuous".

R/C: Fairly speaking, I see that Lu presented the observed evidence first and then calculated the warming caued by CFCs.

"Point is, this seems to be norm for Lu. A recent article pulled his CR-CFC ideas apart, again citing flaws in his reasoning...
prl.aps.org... "

R/C: It seems that the PRL paper by Müller and Grooß has been well /over countered by Lu's Physics Reports article:

dx.doi.org...

Isn't it?

"It's likely he's been shopping around for somewhere to take it, and he was reduced to this rather interesting outlet. I'll ask a friend to shoot me if I'm ever that desperate, lol".

R/C: Lu's article was published in a special issue of J of Cosmology, "Climate Change, Solar Activity, and the Poisoning of "Mother Earth"", which also included an article by Paul R. Ehrlich at Stanford. It may be not that bad as you commented.

"The issue with sulphates plays a big part in the observations in the early part of the 20th century (one which Lu seems to decide to ignore)".

R/C: Here is the final paragraph in Lu's article. "Finally, accurate and reliable analysis of satellite datasets are often affected by the climate models that investigators use. This is to some extent caused by the complexity of the scientific issue, which might require the use of a certain climate model to guide the data analysis. On the other hand, researchers should also be aware of the fact that used climate models may be incorrect or incomplete. An open opinion about different models may be instrumental in revealing the truth. This study did not aim to make precise calculations of global temperature change with a sophisticated climate model including multiple parameters and factors. But it does show that the warming effect of CO2 and other non-CFC gases had most likely saturated and CFCs and HCFCs could account for global warming observed in the late 20th century. A long-term global cooling starting around 2002 is expected to continue for next five to seven decades".



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 08:18 AM
link   
Sorry for missing this, bit hard to decipher your post, though. I'll have a bash...


Originally posted by FRMLL

originally posted by melatonin
"Fair enough, but it's indicative of his sloppy reasoning. He basically uses this and other periods to claim saturation for non-CFC GHGs. Which is quite a leap".


R/C: I read through the pdf (J. of Cosmology by Lu), and I cannot see how you came up with this argument.


Section 3A: he discusses that there are periods when CO2 is increasing and temperatures not; for example:


That is, the global temperature was independent of the rising CO2 level (285 to 307 ppm) in the period of eight decades


He italices this, indicating this is a crucial issue. What this implies is that temperatures and CO2 must always be correlated. This is wrong. Climate is a dynamic system involving a number of variables, which can enhance or ameliorate each other. For example, what were sulphates doing during these periods? Not even mentioned.

Later concluding this same section he states:


There is no reason to argue that global temperature would have an almost zero sensitivity to CO2 in the concentration range of 285-330 ppm and then have a linear dependence on CO2 in the range of 330-377 ppm...All these observations indicate that the warming effect of increasing non-CFC gases is most likely to have saturated.


Therefore his argument is that because there is no direct correlation between some early periods, this means non-CFC gases have saturated. It is rather myopic and flaky reasoning; especially when he says there is no reason for the failure to find a relationship?



"What it does do is allow him to claim all the recent forcing for CFCs. Of course, once the assumption of saturation is shown to be based on questionable claims, then the rest of his reasoning is shown to be rather tenuous".


R/C: Fairly speaking, I see that Lu presented the observed evidence first and then calculated the warming caued by CFCs.


Yeah, he made the argument outlined in the last quotes (non-CFCs are saturated), therefore CFCs. The premise does not hold. In section 4 he takes the climate sensitivity outlined by the IPCC, and applies it to CFC, claiming that CFCs alone can account for recent warming. If the first premise does not hold, then the remainder is not of any great consequence.



"Point is, this seems to be norm for Lu. A recent article pulled his CR-CFC ideas apart, again citing flaws in his reasoning...
prl.aps.org... "


R/C: It seems that the PRL paper by Müller and Grooß has been well /over countered by Lu's Physics Reports article:

dx.doi.org...

Isn't it?


I don't see Muller and Grooss in the references, so I don't see how he could have examined their claims.
Indeed, the Muller and Groos article is only one of the responses to his work.


"It's likely he's been shopping around for somewhere to take it, and he was reduced to this rather interesting outlet. I'll ask a friend to shoot me if I'm ever that desperate, lol".

R/C: Lu's article was published in a special issue of J of Cosmology, "Climate Change, Solar Activity, and the Poisoning of "Mother Earth"", which also included an article by Paul R. Ehrlich at Stanford. It may be not that bad as you commented.


It is not on the main citation indices. This is a sign that is has little impact and status. Certainly the last places I'd want to publish. Considering Lu publishes most of his work in proper journals, I'm sure he understands this issue as well. Perhaps they are invited manuscripts - but basic issues with the manuscript suggest the editing process is poor. The abstract is viewed as one of the most important parts of an article (it's generally first contact for researchers), the stupid errors do not bode well for the review process.



"The issue with sulphates plays a big part in the observations in the early part of the 20th century (one which Lu seems to decide to ignore)".


R/C: Here is the final paragraph in Lu's article. "Finally, accurate and reliable analysis of satellite datasets are often affected by the climate models that investigators use. This is to some extent caused by the complexity of the scientific issue, which might require the use of a certain climate model to guide the data analysis. On the other hand, researchers should also be aware of the fact that used climate models may be incorrect or incomplete. An open opinion about different models may be instrumental in revealing the truth. This study did not aim to make precise calculations of global temperature change with a sophisticated climate model including multiple parameters and factors. But it does show that the warming effect of CO2 and other non-CFC gases had most likely saturated and CFCs and HCFCs could account for global warming observed in the late 20th century. A long-term global cooling starting around 2002 is expected to continue for next five to seven decades".


Yeah, he doesn't note sulphates there either, lol. He does use the word 'complexity', but fails to fully account for the complexity in the article and then states (essentially), 'yeah, is not a climate model with multiple parameters'. This does not excuse his sloppy reasoning.

His argument is effectively exactly as I've noted. CO2 does not correlate at times in the recent past, therefore saturated. CFC does correlate in the near past, therefore CFC is causing the warming and we'll cool now. Both CFCs and CO2 are GHGs - neither are saturated. Current CO2 levels could be doubled many times and saturation would not be reached (it would absorb at the wings of the absorption band)



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join