Possible Explanation for 1998-2008 Leveling off of Global Temperatures Jul 25, 2011; 5:16 PM ET A Boston University professor may have found an explanation for the leveling off of the long term global warming trend that occurred between 1998 and 2008. Robert Kaufmann, a College of Arts & Sciences professor and chair of the department of geography & environment at Boston University, along with researchers from the University of Turku in Finland and from Harvard have determined that sulfur particles mostly emitted from coal burning power plants in Asia had reflected enough solar energy back to space to almost cancel out global warming for the period from 1998 to 2008. The team analyzed data that might influence the earth's surface temperature collected between 1998 and 2008, including such things as greenhouse gas emissions, incoming radiation from the sun, sulfur pollution, and El Nino and La Nina warming and cooling patterns. The researchers plugged their data into a computer model, and found that it replicated the actual conditions: even while carbon dioxide increased, the surface temperature remained steady, according to BU Today. Today, China is now using scrubbers to reduce sulfur emissions which is good for the environment but will likely allow the globe to resume a fairly steady warming, according to the story ----- Keep in mind that 1998 was an unusually warm year due to El Nino and so the period started off with an unusually high temperature anomaly. I also believe that the 1998-2008 period is still short enough for long term climate that it can still qualify as a period of normal "noise" within the upward trend. AccuWeather.com - Climate Change | Possible Explanation for 1998-2008 Leveling off of Global Temperatures Working with researchers from the University of Turku in Finland and from Harvard, Kaufmann analyzed data that might influence the earths surface temperature collected between 1998 and 2008, including such things as greenhouse gas emissions, incoming radiation from the sun, sulfur pollution, and El Niño and La Niña warming and cooling patterns. The researchers plugged their data into a computer model, and found that it replicated the actual conditions: even while carbon dioxide increased, the surface temperature remained steady. We showed that a model based on the theory of anthropogenic climate change could be explained by the observed temperatures between 1999 and 2008, says Kaufmann. Its a simple and elegant test of the hypothesis. The bad news, says Kaufmann, is that his scientific evidence that climate change is indeed influenced by human activities was trashed by Rush Limbaugh, whose remarks precipitated a rash of hate mail sent to Kaufmann. What happens next, says Kaufmann, is good news and bad news. China, which doubled its coal consumption in just four years in the early 2000s, is now using scrubbers to reduce sulfur emissions, a move that will clean up the atmosphere but may also lead to a period of rapid warming. Global Warming Research Heats Things Up | BU Today Grand minimum my friends is what is causing the negative forcing, but yes the sulfur could be adding some to the equation to. These people are starting to catch up with what I knew for about 5-6 years now. Holy shit! Yes the skeptics were right with the big assed decrease rate of warming, but were off on the reasons for it. I wish Hansen would of been honest earlier. The truth is the debate over the missing energy is all about knowing the total observed energy going into the atmosphere and reaching the surface...How much of it stays within the oceans, reflected off of sea ice, land ice, reflected off of clouds. ect. You put that together to find how much reaches the surface of our planet, now wire believes at at least water vapor that makes up 91 percent of ghg, but causes only 36 or so percent of the green house effect because it is not uniformly across the earth surface. Let me see if I can figure out wires case Lets say that the particles of co2 don't readmit the energy the the energy goes right through at the speed of light for co2 and even if it did readmit that the em energy from all vectors are making sure no energy is admitted towards the surface of the earth. Why, he says it is because that a molecule can't transfer energy onto another molecule of co2. In such case being that all this energy is within all vectors away from the earth to space. (wirebenders case) "Clip: What happens after the GHG molecules absorb infrared radiation? The hot molecules release their energy, usually at lower energy (longer wavelength) radiation than the energy previously absorbed. The molecules cannot absorb energy emitted by other molecules of their own kind." If this is true then how on earth could you explain the needed green house effect to warm the planet from 1980-2010? Tsi topped out in 1955 and has been slowly sloping downwards...You can't decrease "energy output" going into the climate system and have a warming planet. So we know it is not the sun, which is a producer of the energy. In there is only two ways major ways to warm a planet like earth, 1# the suns solar output and 2# the green house effect. We know it is not 1#, but 2# is the green house effect. Know based on water vapor blocking the wave length(polar bears case) within the co2 area of the spectrum that and the reasons above make co2 worthless for warming the planet. So you just have water vapor, but it is not uniform over the planet, but it is the only other answer. But Polar bear, which is also very smart made a case that co2 can cause warming and works log wise in its warming effects. Using the same laws more or less. So we got two men getting two using two different methods to get the same conclusion. Then you have the large percentage of the climate field saying that co2 causes warming. The general public can be really confused very quickly. Wirebander One of the things is he believes that the 2nd law of thermal dynamics applies for any energy reratiated back towards the surface, meaning cold can't warm up a warmer body as the surface of the earth is, meaning it is losing energy(1st law). But others believe that there is a "net" energy and a lot of people that should understand this do to. "However, the concept of energy in the first law does not account for the observation that natural processes have a preferred direction of progress. For example, spontaneously, heat always flows to regions of lower temperature, never to regions of higher temperature without external work being performed on the system. The first law is completely symmetrical with respect to the initial and final states of an evolving system. The key concept for the explanation of this phenomenon through the second law of thermodynamics is the definition of a new physical property, the entropy. A change in the entropy (S) of a system is the infinitesimal transfer of heat (Q) to a closed system driving a reversible process, divided by the equilibrium temperature (T) of the system." "Clausius statement German scientist Rudolf Clausius is credited with the first formulation of the second law, now known as the Clausius statement: No process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a body of lower temperature to a body of higher temperature.[note 1] " So this proves wire right! I will keep thinking about it and will read some of wires post so I can try to understand. it is not easy, but I will try to think.