As We Clean The Air, It Becomes Hotter?

[The PIT]

9 hours ago, SnowBear said:

Well, it would certainly account for the seas becoming warmer, more sunlight heating the top layer over a few decades. 

May also account for the seas changing colour as well. Climate scientists won't like it as all extra warmth has to be due to green house gasses and nothing else.

[Gowon]

The anthropogenic carbon emissions aren't warming the planet anymore, it's the clean air? 

And we need to burn more forests to cool the planet? 

 

[Derecho]

@Gowon you said...

The anthropogenic carbon emissions aren't warming the planet anymore, it's the clean air? 

And we need to burn more forests to cool the planet? 

 

Well the science with regards to the GhG effect is very well understood so you may as well take off your tin foil hat.

If it was that simple there would have been a huge sudden spike in global temperatures in the months after lockdown. That never happened as you can see below and the argument falls flat when you look at the global temperature record going back to the 20th century. If pollution really is linked so strongly to reducing global temperatures they wouldn't have increased through the 20th century. 

It will act as a small positive feedback on global temperatures but GHGs are a far more important factor.

I think this thread just shows that arguments against the impacts of GHGs on global climate are becoming weaker. I also think its no coincidence that this thread was created as the big heatwave last July loomed... an agenda perhaps?

Edited July 17, 2023 by Derecho

[SnowBear]

37 minutes ago, Derecho said:

Well the science with regards to the GhG effect is very well understood so you may as well take off your tin foil hat.

If it was that simple there would have been a huge sudden spike in global temperatures in the months after lockdown. That never happened as you can see below and the argument falls flat when you look at the global temperature record going back to the 20th century. If pollution really is linked so strongly to reducing global temperatures they wouldn't have increased through the 20th century. 

It will act as a small positive feedback on global temperatures but GHGs are a far more important factor.

I think this thread just shows that arguments against the impacts of GHGs on global climate are becoming weaker. I also think its no coincidence that this thread was created as the big heatwave last July loomed... an agenda perhaps?

I take it you actually read the article and also the peer reviewed study linked in it? 

[alexisj9]

On 10/07/2022 at 17:29, GSP said:

6 reasons the air you're breathing today is much cleaner than it was 50 years ago

WWW.FOXWEATHER.COM

---

Despite population growth, urban sprawl and more vehicles on the roads, getting a breath of fresh air is much easier today than it was five decades ago.

 

Yes as in there's less soot in it, I've never seen a pea souper for instance. But it isn't cleaner re gases.

[alexisj9]

On 26/07/2022 at 10:55, SnowBear said:

I think there is a point which should be raised as to what counts as "pollution".

Without doubt some of the gases from internal combustion engines are, and lead to that yellow hue that you speak of. 

But there are gases and particulates which are essentially part of our weather systems. 

Smoke from wildfires left to their own devises are part of that system, many plants and trees have evolved to live with fire, many won't germinate without it. 

We now actively suppress wildfires vigorously, where once large areas would burn every so often, releasing smoke particles and gases into the atmosphere, some cooling, some warming, but leaving behind a fertile tract of land which very very quickly begins to regrow and flourish. This was seen after the Australian Bush Fires a few years ago, the land absolutely exploded with life. 

Obviously we have encroached on those areas which are prone to burn once every 10, 20, 50 or 100 or so years, whatever its cycle is. 

How much does our suppressing of biological cycles have an effect on weather systems? 

Recently we have had extreme dryness in the UK, previously this would probably have been a time when wildfires renewed the land, cleared away the old and rotten, and allowed new growth to appear. The ash from those fires (potash.. which I had to laugh at an article the other day which said "x acres of stubble destroyed".. Like.. Eh? Best thing for that field fertiliser wise Lol) creates a rich land of nutrients which would feed the new growth. 

So. Fire, which we suppress, creates particles, which become part of the weather systems. 

Thoughts? 

Tell Canada they are sepressing wild fires, they have a record number happening this year, we've even had the smoke over here at times causing red sun in the evenings.

Didn't realise I was in older parts if a thread, thought it was new. Sticking to what's being posted now.

Edited July 17, 2023 by alexisj9

[Derecho]

7 minutes ago, SnowBear said:

I take it you actually read the article and also the peer reviewed study linked in it? 

Yes I did but I'm not sure how this links to the conclusions that Gowon comes to?

[SnowBear]

19 minutes ago, alexisj9 said:

Yes as in there's less soot in it, I've never seen a pea souper for instance. But it isn't cleaner re gases.

It's a bit of a catch 22, you need particles, or certain aerosols for clouds to form, once they do they reflect sunlight. Naturally this would occur by wildfires, volcano emissions etc. 

Around 1958 was the introduction of the Clean Air Act, before then warming was happening slowly, the CO2 warning being masked by smoke and ash from fossil fuels being burnt by humans. Once that Act was in force, the air began to clear of soot, ash etc, allowing more sunlight to reach the surface due to less clouds. 

Now, we have recently seen more pronounced heat domes, where clear skies heat the ground and move outwards. 

Additionally the surface of the sea has been more exposed to direct sunlight, warming the top layer. 

This is NOT to say we need to reverse the thoughts on Co2, it means we have found another key part of the chaotic system which we need to understand clearly if we are to in someway control our global climate. 

If we look at the hockey stick graph it markedly begins to rise around the 1940s and 1950s, two major events or changes occurred in those times, the advent of the jet engine, and the Clean Air Act. 

Edited July 17, 2023 by SnowBear
Spelling

[alexisj9]

3 minutes ago, SnowBear said:

It's a bit of a catch 22, you need particles, or certain aerosols for clouds to form, once they for they reflect sunlight. Naturally this would occur by wildfires, volcano emissions etc. 

Around 1958 was the introduction of the Clean Air Act, before then warming was happening slowly, the CO2 warning being masked by smoke and ash from fossil fuels being burnt by humans. Once that Act was in force, the air began to clear of soot, ash etc, allowing more sunlight to reach the surface due to less clouds. 

Now, we have recently seen more pronounced heat domes, where clear skies heat the ground and move outwards. 

Additionally the surface of the sea has been more exposed to direct sunlight, warning the top layer. 

This is NOT to say we need to reverse the thoughts on Co2, it means we have found another key part of the chaotic system which we need to understand clearly if we are to in someway control our global climate. 

If we look at the hockey stick graph it markedly begins to rise around the 1940s and 1950s, two major events or changes occurred I those times, the advent of the jet engine, and the Clean Air Act. 

Well let's see what the wildfires that will happen in South Europe soon do, by the reasoning of this article, we might actually be having this cool normal summer because of the Canadian wildfires, as the smoke came this way a few times.

[SnowBear]

1 minute ago, alexisj9 said:

Well let's see what the wildfires that will happen in South Europe soon do, by the reasoning of this article, we might actually be having this cool normal summer because of the Canadian wildfires, as the smoke came this way a few times.

That's actually an interesting thought, I wonder if anyone has looked into that anywhere? It begins to get very complex because underneath you have a warm sea anomaly, which may also induce more moisture in the atmosphere coming from the west.

[alexisj9]

2 minutes ago, SnowBear said:

That's actually an interesting thought, I wonder if anyone has looked into that anywhere? It begins to get very complex because underneath you have a warm sea anomaly, which may also induce more moisture in the atmosphere coming from the west.

It is interesting that Canada is also now stuck under an upper low, which is what's holding the USA heat dome in place 

[cheeky_monkey]

1 hour ago, Derecho said:

@Gowon you said...

The anthropogenic carbon emissions aren't warming the planet anymore, it's the clean air? 

And we need to burn more forests to cool the planet? 

 

Well the science with regards to the GhG effect is very well understood so you may as well take off your tin foil hat.

If it was that simple there would have been a huge sudden spike in global temperatures in the months after lockdown. That never happened as you can see below and the argument falls flat when you look at the global temperature record going back to the 20th century. If pollution really is linked so strongly to reducing global temperatures they wouldn't have increased through the 20th century. 

It will act as a small positive feedback on global temperatures but GHGs are a far more important factor.

I think this thread just shows that arguments against the impacts of GHGs on global climate are becoming weaker. I also think its no coincidence that this thread was created as the big heatwave last July loomed... an agenda perhaps?

lockdown also coincided with a prolonged La Nina which tends to cool the planet somewhat so that could also be at play here

[Methuselah]

2 minutes ago, cheeky_monkey said:

lockdown also coincided with a prolonged La Nina which tends to cool the planet somewhat so that could also be at play here

Aye, the operative word being coincided! 

[Derecho]

5 minutes ago, SnowBear said:

It's a bit of a catch 22, you need particles, or certain aerosols for clouds to form, once they do they reflect sunlight. Naturally this would occur by wildfires, volcano emissions etc. 

This is NOT to say we need to reverse the thoughts on Co2, it means we have found another key part of the chaotic system which we need to understand clearly if we are to in someway control our global climate. 

If we look at the hockey stick graph it markedly begins to rise around the 1940s and 1950s, two major events or changes occurred I those times, the advent of the jet engine, and the Clean Air Act. 

But I think you are also not considering that CO2 emissions have also increased dramatically in that time...

Sulphur emissions continued increasing at a high rate after 1958 with emissions flatling in the 1970s and slowly dropping after that.

I think a slight positive feedback has occurred in recent years but this is far dwarfed by the role of CO2, though I believe this is what you are saying to an extent.

[raz.org.rain]

There's actually a lot of study going on in regards to the effects of regulation of shipping emissions recently. Supposedly, the concentration of sulphur emitted by maritime traffic was actually helping to keep oceanic regions of mid-latitudes in the northern hemisphere somewhat cooler than they'd otherwise be under anthropogenic warming. Stricter regulations on emissions introduced a few years ago have almost entirely removed that sulphur from the atmosphere, resulting in an unexpected and unintended acceleration of surface warming. I believe it's one of many hypotheses considered for explaining the record high sea surface temperatures observed in the North Atlantic this year.

[raz.org.rain]

1 hour ago, razorgrain said:

There's actually a lot of study going on in regards to the effects of regulation of shipping emissions recently. Supposedly, the concentration of sulphur emitted by maritime traffic was actually helping to keep oceanic regions of mid-latitudes in the northern hemisphere somewhat cooler than they'd otherwise be under anthropogenic warming. Stricter regulations on emissions introduced a few years ago have almost entirely removed that sulphur from the atmosphere, resulting in an unexpected and unintended acceleration of surface warming. I believe it's one of many hypotheses considered for explaining the record high sea surface temperatures observed in the North Atlantic this year.

For the curious, Leon Simmons covers this subject pretty exhaustively:

 

[Gowon]

3 hours ago, Derecho said:

@Gowon you said...

The anthropogenic carbon emissions aren't warming the planet anymore, it's the clean air? 

And we need to burn more forests to cool the planet? 

 

Well the science with regards to the GhG effect is very well understood so you may as well take off your tin foil hat.

If it was that simple there would have been a huge sudden spike in global temperatures in the months after lockdown. That never happened as you can see below and the argument falls flat when you look at the global temperature record going back to the 20th century. If pollution really is linked so strongly to reducing global temperatures they wouldn't have increased through the 20th century. 

It will act as a small positive feedback on global temperatures but GHGs are a far more important factor.

I think this thread just shows that arguments against the impacts of GHGs on global climate are becoming weaker. I also think its no coincidence that this thread was created as the big heatwave last July loomed... an agenda perhaps?

No need for insults, we're all still learning.

[Derecho]

1 hour ago, razorgrain said:

There's actually a lot of study going on in regards to the effects of regulation of shipping emissions recently. Supposedly, the concentration of sulphur emitted by maritime traffic was actually helping to keep oceanic regions of mid-latitudes in the northern hemisphere somewhat cooler than they'd otherwise be under anthropogenic warming. Stricter regulations on emissions introduced a few years ago have almost entirely removed that sulphur from the atmosphere, resulting in an unexpected and unintended acceleration of surface warming. I believe it's one of many hypotheses considered for explaining the record high sea surface temperatures observed in the North Atlantic this year.

I think it's largely due to atmospheric circulation and patterns being stuck for a long time. The easterly / south-easterly winds of May and June persisted without a break leading to many settled days with long sunny spells to our west allowing SSTs to shoot up.

This idea of patterns getting stuck has been a global feature, indeed when I went tornado chasing in the US during May we spent 90% of our trip on the western Texas / New Mexico border when a typical 2 week storm chase covers 10+ states. Everything was stuck for days on end, an unusual pattern.

With the lack of storms going into spring over the North Atlantic, the mixing layer becomes shallower which means SSTs become more sensitive to atmospheric circulation changes compared to the winter months.

It was only in 2015 that we saw record cold SSTs in a large part of the central North Atlantic, the so called cold blob in what was a record warm year globally before 2016 came along.

The decline in sulphur emissions since the 1970s has lead to a positive feedback on global temperatures and perhaps affects atmospheric circulation too.

However atmospheric circulation just determines how the increased heat is distributed across our planet and the increasing CO2 emissions far overwhelm the decrease in aerosols unfortunately.

Edited July 17, 2023 by Derecho