Comments 1 to 12:

1. Montross515 at 23:55 PM on 30 January, 2017

   If warming melts the polar caps the ocean goes up 100 or more feet. It hasn't gone up an inch yet, so why worry. 99% of everything in our solar system is in the Sun, so it controls and we don't understand it.

   0 0
   Moderator Response:

   [JH] Sloganeering snipped.

   [PS]

   Thank you for taking the time to share with us.  Skeptical Science is a user forum wherein the science of climate change can be discussed from the standpoint of the science itself.  Ideology and politics get checked at the keyboard.

   Please take the time to review the Comments Policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.  Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter. To avoid sloganeering back your assertions with data/references to support your view.

2. Ravenken at 06:23 AM on 31 January, 2017

   I've got a question that I believe SS can best answer/direct me... do the modeled forecasts for temp from reduced CO2 also account for decreased solar dimming and thus more wamring?

   0 0
3. scaddenp at 06:51 AM on 31 January, 2017

   Ravenken, I cant comment on the forcing used to climate commitment papers but I would note a couple of things:

   1/ Aerosols are increasing decoupled from CO2 emissions anyway thanks to scrubbing technologies and have been dropping since 1990s.

   2/ If you look at the forcing strength, the heating from increased CO2 is rather stronger than aerosol cooling.

   From this I would conclude the GHG concentration is most anthropogenic important factor affecting temperature.

   0 0
4. scaddenp at 09:27 AM on 31 January, 2017

   Not common to see sealevel rise talked about in inches but I just found this image

   based on this paper.

   0 0
5. Ravenken at 11:06 AM on 1 February, 2017

   scaddenp- thank you for getting back to me...

   I'm still a little in the dark... what I am trying to get at is, as global society starts using less coal I thought that might decrease the amount of global dimming occuring from coal power plants... There might not be any dimming from coal plants (as my ignorance would attest) but I'm assuming there is... I get and understand the CO2 is going nowhere but I thought the particulate matter from coal plants contributed to global dimming...

   I guess my first question is do coal plants contribute to global dimming. If so, how much... I appreciate your patience.

   0 0
6. Tom Curtis at 11:22 AM on 1 February, 2017

   Ravenken @5, the particulate matter is soot, which contributes to global warming, and is accounted for in models as Black Carbon (BC).  Coal or oil with high sulfur contents also release sulfur dioxide (an invisible gas).  That reacts with components in the atmosphere to form sulfates, very small particles that reflect sunlight and also form cloud condensation nuclei.  As a result of the latter, the presence of sulfates will result in more, but smaller water droplets in a cloud, which results in a greater cloud albedo, and reduced rainfall.  The effects of sulfates are taken into account as the aersol direct effect (the albedo of sulfates), and the aerosol indirect effect (the impact on clouds by providing cloud condensation nuclei).  Combined the consequences of these two effects is what is generally called global dimming.  As both effects are taken into account in climate models, so also are the effects of global dimming.  However, the uncertainty of the strength of the two effects is one of the largest uncertainties in climate science.

   From the above, you should see that the impact of reduced aerosols from shutting down fossil fuel energy sources is taken into account in scenarios with rapid decarbonization of the economy.

   0 0
7. scaddenp at 11:38 AM on 1 February, 2017

   But independent of Tom's comment - scrubbing technologies are reducing global dimming independently of the about of FF we burn. As far as I can tell, the models for zero emissions also nil the human aerosols.

   0 0
8. Tom Curtis at 12:32 PM on 1 February, 2017

   scaddenp @7, do you know that global dimming is reducing from a scientific study.  My understanding was that as aerosols decreases in the developed world due to the introduction of scrubbers, it increased in the third world, and particularly in China due to their rapid industrialization.  Because aerosols tend to be regional effects, it may be that global dimming as measured in the US, EU or Australia has fallen, but that globally it has remained the same or  increased.  I have made a quick skim of Wild 2012, and Wild 2016, and can see no definite conclusion on that point.  Wild 2012 does illustrate the different trends in different regions (Figure 2). 

   0 0
9. nigelj at 13:33 PM on 1 February, 2017

   So coal causes some quantity of cooling through the global dimming effect. But as noted, it also causes warming, and on the best evidence we have this is the more powerful effect, although with some level of uncertainty.

   However we cannot stop there. I read this recently so thought I would add it in. A recent study by the WHO has found air pollution, including particularly from coal, causes far more deaths than previously thought, as below. 

   www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2014/air-pollution/en/

   And coal mining remains a very hazardous occupation. We had a coal mine explode a few years back, killing dozens of people, despite all the modern technology, and health and safety rules.

   And we are no longer in the Industrial Revolution with coal generating steam power or home heating. We now have other energy alternatives.

   Things constantly evolve and change.

   You have to consider the big picture, and the full range of evidence. Trump seems to struggle with that, as do his inner circle. 

   0 0
10. scaddenp at 14:07 PM on 1 February, 2017

    Tom, I was basing of this

    which certainly to come from a published source.

    0 0
11. MA Rodger at 22:06 PM on 1 February, 2017

    scaddenp @10.

    Your graph is not unusual for SO2 graphs in that it stops at 2000. Coal-use has thankfully ceased its massive post-2000 rise and perhaps even peaked, as data from the BP 2016 review suggests.The stat is mirrored in CDIAC CO2 emission data (2000 - 2,413Gt(C), 2015 - 4105Gt(C), down 2% on 2014).

    Thankfully, the post-2000 global SO2 emissions are not as dramatic as CO2 emissions, this graphic of SO2 from Klimont et al (2013) demonstrates.

    

    And even more up-to-date is the NASA Global Sulfur Dioxide Monitoring Page which shows emissions 2005-14 from 500 locations around the globe and so allows analysis by latitude. It also splits emissions into electricity generation (totalling ~50%), smelters (~12%), FF (~12%), volcano (~25%). And it shows the monitored anthropogenic sources falling from 2007 (58 TgSO2) to 2014 (41 TgSO2). We can presumably expect this trend to continue for some years as SO2 emissions are further decoupled from coal use and coal-use hopefully also dropping substantially.

    0 0
12. Tom Curtis at 09:52 AM on 2 February, 2017

    In the humour department comes this paper refuting the science of global warming:

    

    (Full sized copy).

    0 0

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.