New paper shows that sulfur from developing country's are stopping global warming

Discussion in 'Environment' started by Matthew, Jul 6, 2011.

  1. Matthew
    Online

    Matthew Blue dog all the way!

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2010
    Messages:
    49,735
    Thanks Received:
    4,604
    Trophy Points:
    1,885
    Location:
    Portland Oregon
    Ratings:
    +15,181
    Quote:
    The increase in sulfur emissions slows the increase in radiative forcing due to rising greenhouse gas concentrations (Fig. 1). Net anthropogenic forcing rises 0.13 W∕m2 between 2002 and 2007, which is smaller than the 0.24 W∕m2 rise between 1997 and 2002. The smaller net increase in anthropogenic forcing is accompanied by a 0.18 W∕m2 decline in solar insolation caused by the declining phase of the eleven year solar cycle, such that the sum of modeled forcings increases little after 1998 and declines after 2002 (Fig. 1). This cooling effect is amplified by a net increase in the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI)

    As indicated in Fig. 1, anthropogenic activities that warm and cool the planet largely
    cancel after 1998, which allows natural variables to play a more significant role.
    Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998



    Looks like they're now blaming China sulfur emissions for the non-warming after 1998. In they admit that the solar minimum has caused .18 w/m2 decline of solar isolation after 2002. Proving that the sun has a big effect.

    So they have just admitted that the sun causes nearly as much effect on the climate as there global warming. Plus add in the sulfur. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: lol

    So let me get this straight

    The Anthropogenic forcing=man made.
    Co2=.24 watts per meter^2-.13 net balance=-.11 watts per meter^2 is the forcing from china's sulfur emissions.

    So all together the anthropogenic forcing is .13 watts per meter^2
    Now we're in the solar minimum from heck, which makes up .18 watts per meter^2
    So .13-.18=-.05 watts per meter^2.

    .13+(-.18)=-.05 or a negative forcing when you consider the sun. So unless the effects of co2 have grown since 1997-2002 period over the period of 2002-2007 then we would have a negative forcing right now. In considering the sun is even deeper in a grand minimum now from 2007-2011 then you would expect that has grown and the sulfur from china is growing. Both is a negative and growing in strength faster then the co2 forcing. Truthfully it is a good thing it is there because we would be much colder now.

    I'm surprised that we have NOT seen a cooling with 2007-2011 being even deeper solar minimum; even to the point of the biggest in over 100 years. Weak max to boot. maybe the co2 forcing has increased with it to counter that a little?

    If your co2 emissions are going up your forcing is NOT going to go down. So it is at least .24 watt per meter^2 in likely more. So that is one variable you can count on. Your solar forcing is also likely even more in the negative, most likely within the -.2 watts per meter^2 now. China hasn't stopped adding sulfur into the system so it is more then -.11 watts per meter^2.

    Lets assume(Lets pull a guess) that the co2 in reality is near .27 now, but solar is -.22 and sulfur is -.14. Just as a case in point.

    .27+(-.36)=-.09 watts per meter^2

    but the funny thing is 2010 couldn't of happened if this is so. 2010 was half super nina and we would of had to warm between 2005-2010 ever so slightly(Slightly as in .03-.05c) to even start to make that likely. Can't have a negative. So co2 forcing is high enough to have a positive effect.

    You have to consider that the sulfur is even more of a negative in 2011 and the solar, oh hell, is even more so because this is a very weak max. It is all in the compounding effect that causes the cool and warm cycles.

    When you consider all this you can arrive to the conclusion that co2 forcing is near or over .3 watts per meter^2 right now.

    These global warmers believe that the 1950s-1970s cooling was caused because of the western world---being Europe and the US sulfur emissions. With the conclusion made above of .3+ watts per meter^2, we can jump to the case that when the developing world cleans up its sulfur emissions that the world will warmed faster then the 1980's and 1990s. .18-.2c per decade was the rate, so I'd guess .25c per decade???

    Of course I'm assuming and pulling things out of thin air, but many theories and idea's have been made this way. It is called thinking through things and seeing where they end up.
     
    Last edited: Jul 6, 2011
  2. Matthew
    Online

    Matthew Blue dog all the way!

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2010
    Messages:
    49,735
    Thanks Received:
    4,604
    Trophy Points:
    1,885
    Location:
    Portland Oregon
    Ratings:
    +15,181
    Lets say I'm right and the developing world cleans up its sulfur emissions by the 2020. Lets say 2030 are again largely positive forcing. So 2030 onward would be positive forcing.

    Lets assume we get .1c of warming in the 2010's, .25c of warming in the 2020's, .3c in the 2030s. That is .65c of warming or .79+.65c(1.44c) of warming since 1880. If you add more positive of course the rate of warming shall increase and as things get cleaner that should help with that with less negative forcing.

    The variable that we must watch IS the sun.:eek:


    See unlike what the IPCC thinks the sun and negative forcing is very very important. I can't believe that they didn't see what happened in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s occurring right before there eyes with a decrease in solar output. It fucked them up and hurt them with the population of the whole world. I knew the sun was causing a cooling effect for about 5-6 years. If I'm right with what I posted in my op post then they fucked there selfs over and hurt there cause.

    Me I'd would of explained to the population that the climate system is far more complex then just a mere positive forcing and straight warming trend. I would of made it clear that natural facts have a effect within the short term and things like sulfur and volcano's cause negative forcing...I'd also explain that the sun IS not going to stay put and has effects on the climate system.

    If people would understand that co2 is just a part of the process it would of been more accepting, but now there is so much mistrust with the public I doubt they could change any minds even if there was clear data that shown that we where on the verge of 2-3c warming in the next 89 years.

    Truth of the matter it is all a guess off of what could happen....
    Hell the sun could go into another little ice age like output for the next 200 years with all we know. This is NOT a simple warming trend, but a balancing game of negative and positive forcing.
     
    Last edited: Jul 6, 2011
  3. wirebender
    Offline

    wirebender Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,723
    Thanks Received:
    120
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    NC
    Ratings:
    +120
    So what they are suggesting is that man made global warming is cancelling out manmade global warming?

    It amazes me that anyone, I mean ANYONE gives warmists anything even approaching serious attention any more.

    Here is figure 1 from the paper in question:

    [​IMG]

    Note that their own data shows zero effect by sulfur emissions on the global temperature since 1998.
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2011
  4. konradv
    Offline

    konradv Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    Messages:
    22,571
    Thanks Received:
    2,558
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Baltimore
    Ratings:
    +5,673
    NO, as usual you spin the facts to fit your bias. Most people see "particulate pollution cancels out AGW", but since your objection is poltical backed up by pseudo-science, you see things through your own set of glasses that other, honest people, don't.
     
  5. wirebender
    Offline

    wirebender Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,723
    Thanks Received:
    120
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    NC
    Ratings:
    +120
    Still waiting for you, or any of your hand wringing buds to point out, and prove any error in my proof that CO2 is not driving the climate. Till you can come up with said proof, don't pretend that you are on the side of honesty. Warmists are no more than an inherently dishonest cult using fabricated pseudoscience in an effort to achieve a poliitcal agenda.

    And my "bias" is towards hard, observed, repeatable evidence that provides an unequivocal link between the activities of man and the changing climate. To bad neither you, nor your dishonest quasi religious cult has any.
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2011
  6. konradv
    Offline

    konradv Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    Messages:
    22,571
    Thanks Received:
    2,558
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Baltimore
    Ratings:
    +5,673
    You've never provided any such proof. Made up science doesn't count. If you don't realize that CO2 can trap energy and send it back towards earth, thereby warming it to a temp higher than if there were no CO2, we don't really have anything to talk about.
     
  7. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,198
    Thanks Received:
    1,071
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,448
    Lindzen pointed out a decade ago that the climate models added any amount of aerosols that were needed to get the right numbers. and that different models used different amounts. still business as usual I see.

    and konradv, why are you castigating skeptics for a proAGW paper?
     
  8. skookerasbil
    Offline

    skookerasbil Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    24,234
    Thanks Received:
    2,915
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Not the middle of nowhere
    Ratings:
    +6,232


    s0n.........all the AGW science is made up stuff. Every other week there is a report about them fcukking with the data. Perhaps you missed it? Take a gandor through a few threads here..........its all there. Why do you think climate legislation has been in the crapper for the past 2 years? Well........I'll tell you why. Because what was a ship shot field goal in 2006 is now a 70 yarder. Thems the breaks s0n............sorry...........
     
  9. daveman
    Offline

    daveman Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2010
    Messages:
    51,299
    Thanks Received:
    5,693
    Trophy Points:
    1,775
    Location:
    On the way to the Dark Tower.
    Ratings:
    +5,759
    At any altitude above zero, there is more sky than Earth. So CO2 molecules radiate more energy to space than to the planet.

    Unless you want to try to make the case that CO2 radiates only downward...?
     
  10. Matthew
    Online

    Matthew Blue dog all the way!

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2010
    Messages:
    49,735
    Thanks Received:
    4,604
    Trophy Points:
    1,885
    Location:
    Portland Oregon
    Ratings:
    +15,181
    Your right, but if it was Not for the co2 portion being the surplus of heat energy that gets sent back towards the surface wouldn't be adding towards what is already there. Like I say the 100 percent that gets to the surface is now 107...But only 93 gets back to space.
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2011

Share This Page