Aerosols affect climate more than satellite estimates predict
Aerosol particles, including soot and sulfur dioxide from burning fossil fuels, essentially mask the effects of greenhouse gases and are at the heart of the biggest uncertainty in climate change prediction. New research from the University of Michigan shows that satellite-based projections of aerosols' effect on Earth's climate significantly underestimate their impacts.
The findings will be published online the week of Aug. 1 in the early edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Aerosols are at the core of "cloud drops"---water particles suspended in air that coalesce to form precipitation. Increasing the number of aerosol particles causes an increase in the number of cloud drops, which results in brighter clouds that reflect more light and have a greater cooling effect on the planet.
As to the extent of their cooling effect, scientists offer different scenarios that would raise the global average surface temperature during the next century between under 2 to over 3 degrees Celsius. That may not sound like a broad range, but it straddles the 2-degree tipping point beyond which scientists say the planet can expect more catastrophic climate change effects.
The satellite data that these findings poke holes in has been used to argue that all these models overestimate how hot the planet will get.
"The satellite estimates are way too small," said Joyce Penner, the Ralph J. Cicerone Distinguished University Professor of Atmospheric Science. "There are things about the global model that should fit the satellite data but don't, so I won't argue that the models necessarily are correct. But we've explained why satellite estimates and the models are so different."
Penner and her colleagues found faults in the techniques that satellite estimates use to find the difference between cloud drop concentrations today and before the Industrial Revolution.
"We found that using satellite data to try to infer how much radiation is reflected today compared to the amount reflected in the pollution-free pre-industrial atmosphere is very inaccurate," Penner said. "If one uses the relationship between aerosol optical depth---essentially a measure of the thickness of the aerosols---and droplet number from satellites, then one can get the wrong answer by a factor of three to six."
These findings are a step toward generating better models, and Penner said that will be the next phase of this research.
"If the large uncertainty in this forcing remains, then we will never reduce the range of projected changes in climate below the current range," she said. "Our findings have shown that we need to be smarter. We simply cannot rely on data from satellites to tell us the effects of aerosols. I think we need to devise a strategy to use the models in conjunction with the satellite data to get the best answers."
More information: PNAS 2011 ; published ahead of print August 1, 2011, doi:10.1073/pnas.1018526108
Provided by
University of Michigan
-
From lemons to lemonade: Reaction uses carbon dioxide to make carbon-based semiconductor,
32 comments
-
Thioridazine kills cancer stem cells in human while avoiding toxic side-effects of conventional cancer treatments,
3 comments
-
SpaceX private rocket blasts off for space station (Update),
42 comments
-
Climate scientists say they have solved riddle of rising sea,
31 comments
-
SpaceX capsule has 'new car' smell, astronauts say (Update),
2 comments
-
Hypothetical desert earth
14 hours ago
-
More human population = greater mass?
May 25, 2012
-
Conversion from aircraft bearing to normal degrees
May 23, 2012
-
Interpretation/Analysis of the Lab results(HEPA filter)
May 22, 2012
-
Has anyone here attended the The Urbino Summer School in Paleoclimatology?
May 22, 2012
-
Earthquakes: Mag 6 N. Italy and Mag 5.6 W. Bulgaria
May 21, 2012
- More from Physics Forums - Earth
More news stories
Sophisticated simulations predict future warming
The chances of our planet being hit by a global warming of 3 degrees Celsius by 2050 is as likely as it being hit by an increase of 1.4 degrees, new research shows. Presented in the journal Nature Geoscience, the British study ...
Space & Earth / Earth Sciences
May 22, 2012 |
4.4 / 5 (9) |
51
Kyoto Protocol architect 'frustrated' by climate dialogue
UN climate talks are going nowhere, as politicians dither or bicker while the pace of warming dangerously speeds up, one of the architects of the Kyoto Protocol told AFP.
May 23, 2012 |
3.7 / 5 (7) |
39
Aliens don't want to eat us, says former SETI director
Alien life probably isnt interested in having us for dinner, enslaving us or laying eggs in our bellies, according to a recent statement by former SETI director Jill Tarter.
Space & Earth / Space Exploration
May 25, 2012 |
4.4 / 5 (13) |
38
Dragon arrives at space station in historic 1st (Update 2)
The privately bankrolled Dragon capsule made a historic arrival at the International Space Station on Friday, triumphantly captured by astronauts wielding a giant robot arm.
Space & Earth / Space Exploration
May 25, 2012 |
5 / 5 (10) |
19
What's the big deal about private space launches?
(AP) -- The first private spaceship is headed to the International Space Station. Some questions and answers about the cargo mission by Space Exploration Technologies, known as SpaceX:
Space & Earth / Space Exploration
May 22, 2012 |
5 / 5 (6) |
35
Nvidia trumpets Tegra 3 phone design wins for 2012
(Phys.org) -- Nvidias competitive war paint has a name, Tegra 3. On the heels of Nvidia announcements about lowering costs of its Tegra 3 processors and Nvidia-enabled tablets running Android Ice Cream ...
Browser wars flare in mobile space
The browser wars are heating up again, but this time the fight is for dominance of the mobile Internet.
Scientist: Evolution debate will soon be history
(AP) -- Richard Leakey predicts skepticism over evolution will soon be history. Not that the avowed atheist has any doubts himself.
Dell tablet leak: 10.1-inch display, two-battery choice
(Phys.org) -- Headline after headline talks about vendors tablets in the wings as likely number-one contenders for the iPad. Such claims have justifiably been taken with a grain of salt, considering ...
Keep food safety in mind this memorial day weekend
(HealthDay) -- Picnics, parades and cookouts are as much a part of Memorial Day weekend as tributes to the United States' war veterans.
Social welfare cuts ultimately come with heavy price, researchers say
(Phys.org) -- Slashing government funding for Medicaid, food stamps and other programs that serve the poor while politically popular with some lawmakers and many conservatives may do more harm ...
Aug 01, 2011
Rank: 2 / 5 (8)
Who would've thought that such a complex system couldn't be accurately represented without a comprehensive knowledge and accounting of all it's constituents? Good to know there are some scientists out there who are still skeptical of what they've been handed and told not to question.
Aug 02, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
Aug 02, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
Aug 02, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
Aug 02, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
Aug 02, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
Aug 02, 2011
Rank: 2.3 / 5 (6)
Aug 02, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (4)
Despite the litany of things you've listed above as still being "worked on" - which is to say, are not accurately accounted for, AGW is touted as being settled science. As if that's not silly enough, AGW proponents (especially here) trumpet how anything questioning AGW must be some anti-science agenda, despite skepticism and attempts at falsification being a core tenet of scientific method, they choose to ignore that it is their anti-skepticism that is an anti-science mentality. They should welcome attempts at a greater understanding of the system. Even when a stance is as mild as mine (as you know, I believe we have some effect, I just doubt the magnitude claimed by the IPCC), it's met with frothing anger. It's absurd to me, and demonstrates data has little to do with it.
And of course, don't even try and tell people that AGW-theory is only trying to address a symptom of much more dangerous and direct threats to environmental quality. Really I'm over it.
Aug 02, 2011
Rank: 3.8 / 5 (5)
"What a good article. What good science."
Emsquared on aerosols article:
"Really, I'm over it."
I'm willing to admit climate science has a fuzz factor. But rejecting it on that basis would mean simply dropping out of the discussion. It certainly does not imply accepting or rejecting the argument on the basis of what one wants to hear.
I can certainly say I don't want to hear that climate change is really happening, but even given a fuzzy prediction the centroid of the fuzzball seems to say "warming" to some lesser or greater degree whether I like it or not.
Now if there's some "conspiracy" that's pushing people to say that -- could you please let me know who I can contact to get my payoff? Right now I'm doing it for nothing.
Aug 02, 2011
Rank: 1.8 / 5 (5)
While solar variance only results in a .1-.2% variation of total output, how well are the interactions between solar radiation and all layers of our atmosphere understood? It's already known that net solar irradiance has much higher variability via it's interactions with aerosols, cloud formation and those effects on albedo. What other atmospheric mechanisms differ from a weaker or stronger solar wind, i.e. the upper atmosphere?
There are little details like the purported problems with surface weather stations used by the IPCC data sets not meeting criteria for ambient locations.
Not to mention that no matter what we do, humanity will burn every last fossil fuel on earth. That's economics and reality. That anything can be accomplished through focusing on CO2 is highly debatable due to this fact.
Also, it's a falsehood that a warmer earth is a less healthy earth. Enviro quality degradation comes from the other results of consumerism.
Aug 02, 2011
Rank: 1.8 / 5 (5)
I just hope a fraction of those-who-refuse-to-engage carry even just a fraction of the conviction they display on this forum into their every-day lives and actually DO something about their beliefs. My sneaking suspicion though is that the vast majority do not.
That is the nature of the AGW message and the AGW movement: I don't have to change, it's industry that's destroying things and needs to change. Well, guess what? You create industry, you are the problem. You need to fix yourself and your relation with your use of the earths resources. It's tragic and comical at the same time.
Aug 02, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
I'd never claim there's a conspiracy. However it's just as obvious that there is an economic impetus to find evidence for AGW for some, just as there is for others to find against it.
Care to discuss either of these items, Y8Q412VBZP21010?
Or tell us what you have done in your life, as a result of your belief in AGW, that has bettered environmental quality?
Aug 02, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Aug 02, 2011
Rank: 2 / 5 (4)
Not for me. I make not a penny either way. Personally, I don't have a dog in the fight. I just want to know the facts.
"Or tell us what you have done in your life, as a result of your belief in AGW, that has bettered environmental quality?"
Nothing that I can think of. What I'm interested in is what is supported by the evidence ... what is done about it is another (uglier) question.
I'm not 100% convinced of the AGW case, but the evidence I've seen tilts towards it. And the arguments against it seem heavily populated, if not absolutely dominated, by "them scientists don't know nuthin!"
Aug 02, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Fortunately, there are multiple efforts to better define these issues in the models. As you probably know, there are nearly a dozen satellites looking only at the sun to find out what it is doing. At the same time, there are hundreds of ground stations looking up to see how the atmosphere is interacting at multiple wavelengths. Papers are being published every day on these subjects. Watch the SpaceWeather.com site for daily updates on the sun. Continued
Aug 02, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Continued:
Aug 02, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Your main effort at getting people to follow their ecological message is commendable. I am trying to follow your lead on that. It is not easy but it can have the most significant short-term impact on fossil fuel burning. We should also be looking at other sources of pollution from heavy metals to medicines and everything in between. Continued
Aug 02, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
The only point of your issues I draw unbrage with is that you seem to think that climate scientists are satisfied with the models or that they are missing issues. They are not.
Aug 03, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
I realize this. But it's also things like the graphs, say of historical CO2 where they truncate the x-axis, starting at say 250 ppm, it visually overstates the magnitude, it is designed to mislead, and that bothers me, it indicates an agenda. And I realize you are not one of the people in the group I am about to make a gross generalization about, but...
With all of these things that we've talked about that are still being refined, why do people react so hostile to skepticism, especially that as mild as mine or GSwift?
The answer is those people are driven by the religion-like aspect of AGW. It's not a reaction to the science, it's a reaction to what they see as an affront to their singular world view.
And while I've given up trying to get them to acknowledge that, I've never been more certain of it.
Aug 03, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
Aug 03, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
In much the same way, people might argue that a Nigerian email scammer's story might be true, but the betting odds are too low to be considered. If he is telling a true story, one is likely to hear it from more reputable sources and THEN it might be worth taking seriously.
Aug 06, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
Climate models need to handled the same way. How many remember the nuclear winter model, and its limits.
Aug 07, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
"The polar bears will be fine." - Freeman Dyson
Who obviously knows a bit more than something, about nothing. But I get your meaning. I would also mention Russell Seitz and Jerry Pournelle as two others who know more about something, than otherwise, yet remain unconvinced. Neither have financial game at stake.
Aug 07, 2011
Rank: not rated yet