Lunar eclipse data shows 1/2 of GW caused by variation of Volcanic Aerosol optical thickness

[polarbear]

Source:
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/publications/annual_meetings/2017/slides/7-Keen.pdf

There was more volcanic effect on the
climate during 1913-1962, and less from
1816-1882, than previously estimated.
Cosegüina in 1835 was a dud.
Since 1979, Volcanic forcing is responsible
for half of the observed warming (global
MSU Satellite temperatures).
There has been no increase of volcanic
forcing since 1996, ruling out volcanoes
out as a Cause of the Pause..

Overlaying this graph with all these exaggerated graphs for temperature "anomalies" pops the CO2 hot-air balloon.
Have as much of a nice day as is possible during this "warm" winter

 

[IanC]

Aerosols have been used as a convenient fudge factor to tune climate models so that they give plausible results.

I can see how aerosols can affect the derived climate sensitivity for doubling CO2 by giving more or less weight to the proposed feedbacks. I could even imagine how they might be used to generate a different estimate for the stand alone affect of CO2.

What I cannot understand is how they negate the mechanism and direction of the CO2 warming influence.

 

[polarbear]

Aerosols have been used as a convenient fudge factor to tune climate models so that they give plausible results.

I can see how aerosols can affect the derived climate sensitivity for doubling CO2 by giving more or less weight to the proposed feedbacks. I could even imagine how they might be used to generate a different estimate for the stand alone affect of CO2.

What I cannot understand is how they negate the mechanism and direction of the CO2 warming influence.

"Aerosols have been used as a convenient fudge factor to tune climate models so that they give plausible results."
Of course, else it`s too obvious how miserably these fail.
"What I cannot understand is how they negate the mechanism and direction of the CO2 warming influence.."
To that I would say who cares about a few W/m2 in comparison to the effect of aerosol a volcanic eruption of a magnitude of several hundred Mega tons TNT can kick up:
Nuclear winter - Wikipedia

Climatic effects
A study presented at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in December 2006 found that even a small-scale, regional nuclear war could disrupt the global climate for a decade or more. In a regional nuclear conflict scenario where two opposing nations in the subtropics would each use 50 Hiroshima-sized nuclear weapons (about 15 kiloton each) on major population centers, the researchers estimated as much as five million tons of soot would be released, which would produce a cooling of several degrees over large areas of North America and Eurasia, including most of the grain-growing regions. The cooling would last for years, and, according to the research, could be "catastrophic"

 

[skookerasbil]

Great stuff Polar.........I always have to laugh at Ian's responses. LOL.......he gets hit with a howitzer and fires back with a spitball. Happens every time.........

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

We all look forward to your next published scientific article in ....never.

 

[polarbear]

Great stuff Polar.........I always have to laugh at Ian's responses. LOL.......he gets hit with a howitzer and fires back with a spitball. Happens every time.........

Especially when the spitball is only ~ 1/574 th the size of the ordnance to get an effect.
But now that this NASA paper established that (negative) volcanic forcing is numerically 1/2 the forcing CO2 is believed to have that spitball is ~ 1/ 1148 th.
The warmer`s favorite sound byte is that their argument is based on science...not knowing (or ignoring) that all the science concerning heat radiation is based on equations using degrees Kelvin and an anomaly of 0.5 deg C amounts to no more than a 1/574 th increase over what they say is "normal".

 

[IanC]

"What I cannot understand is how they negate the mechanism and direction of the CO2 warming influence.."
To that I would say who cares about a few W/m2 in comparison to the effect of aerosol a volcanic eruption of a magnitude of several hundred Mega tons TNT can kick up

Do you really think the total effect of CO2 in the atmosphere is only a few Watts? I think the addition of more CO2 has a small effect. The addition of the first ppm had a huge effect.

The surface must get rid of the incoming solar insolation to stay at near equilibrium.

With no atmosphere the range of surface temperature is extreme.

With a non-GHG atmosphere it is moderated but will at best be limited to the average solar input.

Adding GHGs changes the paradigm. By recycling surface radiation back to the surface again, the surface temperature can be more than what solar input alone can support.

340w less 30% for albedo is frigging cold, everything would be frozen.

But 240w solar plus 160w recycled is a toasty 400w, of which 240 escapes and the remaining 160 goes for another loop in the cycle.

 

[Old Rocks]

Melting glaciers, melting ice caps, warming oceans, increasing extreme weather events. Oh sure, little to no effect. LOL Willfully ignorant and blind.

 

[skookerasbil]

Great stuff Polar.........I always have to laugh at Ian's responses. LOL.......he gets hit with a howitzer and fires back with a spitball. Happens every time.........

Especially when the spitball is only ~ 1/574 th the size of the ordnance to get an effect.
But now that this NASA paper established that (negative) volcanic forcing is numerically 1/2 the forcing CO2 is believed to have that spitball is ~ 1/ 1148 th.
The warmer`s favorite sound byte is that their argument is based on science...not knowing (or ignoring) that all the science concerning heat radiation is based on equations using degrees Kelvin and an anomaly of 0.5 deg C amounts to no more than a 1/574 th increase over what they say is "normal".

Even funnier?

These bozo carbon reducing agreements that end up reducing temperatures by 0.3 degree's over 30 years!! So really, wtf??!! Nobody knows dick why the temperature might increase over the next century, but even if it did, we cant do dick about it!! When you think about it, kinda makes any debate that goes on in here 100% moot........only some cant connect the dots to realize that.............like ever. Whats up with that?

 

[mamooth]

Some fine junk science in the OP. Hence, Polar Bear and Skook fell for it hard.

The first half of it isn't junk. It's the same as Keen's 1983 paper (he's an old guy, like most of the denier fossils). Lunar eclipse brightness is a good indicator of volcanic aerosol levels, and such aerosols are now at low levels. Nobody has ever disputed that.

Keen then waves his hands around, declares a miracle has occurred, and jumps to the conclusion that this is the cause of most of the warming. Given how keen is a big "pause" fraud, that makes it especially interesting, as how does something cause warming that supposedly doesn't exist?

His evidence for that? He presents none. He just asserts it.

Needless to say, Keen has no experience in climate science, and he's been on the Heritage Foundation payroll for many years. He's paid to deny.

 

[polarbear]

Great stuff Polar.........I always have to laugh at Ian's responses. LOL.......he gets hit with a howitzer and fires back with a spitball. Happens every time.........

Especially when the spitball is only ~ 1/574 th the size of the ordnance to get an effect.
But now that this NASA paper established that (negative) volcanic forcing is numerically 1/2 the forcing CO2 is believed to have that spitball is ~ 1/ 1148 th.
The warmer`s favorite sound byte is that their argument is based on science...not knowing (or ignoring) that all the science concerning heat radiation is based on equations using degrees Kelvin and an anomaly of 0.5 deg C amounts to no more than a 1/574 th increase over what they say is "normal".

Even funnier?

These bozo carbon reducing agreements that end up reducing temperatures by 0.3 degree's over 30 years!! So really, wtf??!! Nobody knows dick why the temperature might increase over the next century, but even if it did, we cant do dick about it!! When you think about it, kinda makes any debate that goes on in here 100% moot........only some cant connect the dots to realize that.............like ever. Whats up with that?

After reading the studies about the neg-forcing effect of aerosols that volcanoes or a major carpet bombing can produce, I lean towards the latter. Not only can it achieve ~0.3 degrees in 1 year but it might qualify for funding from the GHG taxes Obama had in mind. After all it`s not as if there weren`t any countries or regions that most of us would like to drop a load of MOABs on, to rid us from those who would if they could bomb us like Trump did in Afghanistan.

 

[IanC]

The basic mechanism of greenhouse gas warming is this. The surface radiates up. All the radiation is going in a direction that leads to space, it is lost and the surface cools by that amount.

If a GHG absorbs a photon of that surface radiation, it is no longer lost to space. It warms the atmosphere but the surface still cooled.

The warmed (excited) GHG molecule now emits a similar photon to what it absorbed. However, the direction is random. Half goes up, half goes down. Half is lost to space, half returns to the surface. Only half of the radiation escapes to space, only half of the cooling happens.

Reality is more complicated, there are more pathways, more geometric and density and thermal conditions that must be accounted for. But the main mechanism is the change of direction of the outgoing surface radiation for the wavelengths absorbed by GHG molecules. Less surface radiation escapes, less surface cooling happens.

Does the amount of CO2 in the air matter? For the actual surface emitted radiation, no it does not. The first round of absorption/emission has already randomized the direction, half up half down.

Even at one part per million the effect is saturated, every 15 micron photon produced by the surface has been absorbed before it can escape to space. If a surface produced photon was limited to being absorbed and emitted only once, then the probability for escape to space or return to surface would be roughly equal.

The greenhouse effect is large for vanishingly small amounts of GHGs. But the effect is less and less as you increase the amount. Why? Because once you have randomized the direction of radiation you cannot make it even more random.