1940 - 1980: Why No Warming?

Wolfgang asks a question which really deserves an answer from James, William, or some other smart guy:
The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has steadily increased during the last century.
But the average surface temperature did not and shows three distinct phases.
An (almost) linear increase in temperature from 1910 to 1940, a flat to slightly falling temperature from 1940 to 1980 and then again an (almost) linear increase until now.
I found this page which argues:
An argument against the idea that global warming is due to mankind's emissions of carbon dioxide goes as follows: the warming this century occurred mostly between 1910 and 1940, when the carbon dioxide concentration grew slowly from 293 to 300 ppm. On the other hand, the temperature remained steady between 1940-1980, while the carbon dioxide concentration increased from 300 to 335 ppm. The most likely answer to this inconsistency is atmospheric aerosol. Aerosols are emitted by industrial processes, transport, etc, and their increased concentration offset simultaneous warming due to increasing greenhouse gases. However the warming overtook the cooling by mid 1970's (8).

Tropospheric aerosols reduced solar radiation to the ground by about 0.5 W/m2, as a global average, between 1940-1992 (5). Unlike greenhouse gases, which are generally long-lived, aerosols fall out of the atmosphere fairly rapidly, either dry ('sedimentation') or within rain (as condensation nuclei). Therefore aerosol concentrations are not uniformly mixed across the globe. They have been so high in some regions that the cooling effect may have exceeded the warming due to greenhouse gases. In fact the lack of warming between 1940-1980 is only found in the northern hemisphere, where most manmade aerosols are emitted.
The Northern Hemisphere point looks good, but I would like the opinion of some guys with climate smarts.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Anti-Libertarian: re-post

The most pointed critique of social security and liberalism in general is the libertarian critique. The problem with libertarians, for a liberal, is that we have too much in common. We both believe in individual rights, tolerance of individual differences, and dislike government prescription of religion. The basic difference, it seems to me, is the different answers we give to Cain's (with thanks to the Captain - my original version had the corpse asking the question!) famous question: "Am I my brother's keeper?" That's not really my basic bitch against the libertarians though. My real complaint is the same as my complaint against most religion - its premise is a fraud. For those who can't stand to wait for the punchline, I believe that trying to implement libertarian principles leads to tyranny or social disintegration. Demonstrating that takes some historical (and pre-historical) context. For all but the last 15,000 or so of the 100,000 years the human spec
Read more

Uneasy Lies The Head

Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown ........... Shakespeare Henry IV, Part II. So it is with us and our slightly distant primate cousins , so it seems. A 9-year study of wild baboons in Kenya by Princeton University and the Institute of Primate Research may turn conventional assumptions of alphas males upside down. The study found that alpha males have high testosterone levels, which allows them to dominate other baboons, get access to more food, and attract better mates. This is expected. Surprisingly, though, the alpha males also have high levels of stress hormone glucocorticoid, which scientists measured from their feces samples. In fact, the stress of alpha baboons was on par with low-ranking baboons. The convention wisdom is that access to food and females provides life security and thus less stress for dominant males. Conversely, weak males who are constantly threatened by starvation and physical violence from stronger males are thought to be more stressed. The st
Read more

We Call it Soccer

The US played its best, and maybe only good game of World Cup, but lost thanks to brilliant goalkeeping by the Swedish keeper and the bizarre method soccer uses to settle ties when three US stars could not put the ball on frame from the 12 yard spot.  At the end it came down to a blocked shot that spun in by maybe a couple of centimeters. Well, that's football - too much like life.   Which brings me to a modest proposal.  Replace the thirty minute overtimes with as many 7-player 15 minute periods as needed to settle it.  Scoring should be much easier with fewer players.
Read more