• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Aerosol "de-masking" is, ironically, a serious problem

multivita-man

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 30, 2021
Messages
33,384
Reaction score
35,037
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed

Aerosol demasking enhances climate warming over South Asia - npj Climate and Atmospheric Science

Anthropogenic aerosols mask the climate warming caused by greenhouse gases (GHGs). In the absence of observational constraints, large uncertainties plague the estimates of this masking effect. Here we used the abrupt reduction in anthropogenic emissions observed during the COVID-19 societal...
www.nature.com


 
I had to research this topic. Still don't quite understand the why.

What is aerosol masking?


The aerosol masking effect, or “global dimming,” is a well-documented instance of our ongoing. climate predicament: Efforts to mitigate greenhouse gas production by curbing industrial activity. or transitioning to “clean” sources such as solar or nuclear inevitably and inadvertently accelerate. planetary warming. 2022
 

What you describe as "dimming" is also referred to as "masking". The effects of sulfate aerosols closer to the surface "mask" solar radiation (forcing), which accelerates warming of surface temperatures. At the same time, the continued release of GHGs from anthropogenic industrial activity continues to trap heat that would otherwise be reflected and escape into space. De-masking induces a termination shock scenario in which surface-level heating rapidly accelerates.

This is the predicament we are in, and it is why just switching to clean sources of energy won't help, and in fact, will likely seal our fate faster than we can imagine unless we take steps to mitigate these impacts somehow. This would likely mean we need to create and use technologies at scale that basically "mask" the surface while simultaneously reducing GHGs, which are the source of the problem to begin with.
 
We're like the shade tree mechanic randomly trying to swap parts out to fix the car. The only difference here is the bill isn't a thousand dollars, its a billion dollars.
 
HIP56948 said:
Our intensions are good but you're probably right.
Click to expand...

I think this is an important point to make, even with regard to deniers or skeptics. I think outright deniers are just bored and in need of attention, but a lot of people are skeptical of some of the alarming scenarios, and I actually get that. People look outside their windows and think Pfff, the same as yesterday, don't see what all that fuss is about. Moreover, climate activists in the mainstream are asking people in power to give it up voluntarily, which never, ever happens. There's a reason democratic societies have separation of powers and term-limited offices. We're also asking people to potentially give up employment, ways of living, local and regional culture, and consumer choices. People don't like being deprived of things and lifestyles they believe they should be allowed to have. Further still, we're all hypocrites to one degree or another. We inherited all of these human systems that make it possible to (temporarily) sustain 8 billion lives. I find it harder and harder to go into lecture mode when I realize that we're all bound by these same human systems.

But the brutal reality is that our human systems are living outside the natural boundaries of sustainability. To believe that because things are going to work out because they always have is like the passengers on the Titanic believing they'll reach New York's harbor without a hitch because the first few days of the voyage had gone smoothly. To go further with the Titanic analogy, we've probably already struck an iceberg, but we're being told it's okay, not to worry, because the ship was built to be unsinkable. As passengers, we want to believe it, we want to enjoy the trip, and we will bend minds to do so, even as it's clear we're taking on water. But eventually, as with any catastrophe, there's a moment when people will realize that we're sinking and there are not enough lifeboats. We'll be panicking and jumping into the cold waters below at that point.
 
For most of the world aerosol loading peaked about 1985, and have been in decline ever since.
 
longview said:
For most of the world aerosol loading peaked about 1985, and have been in decline ever since.
Click to expand...
Where is this massive source of sulfate aerosols supposedly originating, and more importantly, where is their evidence that these aerosols exist? If they do not have actual empirical data to support the existence of aerosols and are merely inferring them (as they usually do) then it is another leftist lie. Show me the data.
 
Global dimming and brightening: A review
The problem I see, is that we have little idea what "Zero" is.
We do know that the skies dimmed from 1950 to the mid 1980, and the dimming decreased after that except in the far East.
The level of dimming globally is back to the level of about 1950, but we do not know how much total dimming had already happened
when we started looking.
 
longview said:
For most of the world aerosol loading peaked about 1985, and have been in decline ever since.
Click to expand...

The sources of aerosols and density varies from place to place. In the industrialized world, aerosols gradually started to dissipate in the 1980s due to more stringent clean air regulations. Since 2020, however, sulfate emissions have been reduced due to the regulation of sulfate emissions from shipping vessels. It is hypothesized that this reduction in emissions may be playing a role in accelerating surface temperatures on water and land. They're still investigating, but if true, that is a game-changer in terms of our understanding of how we deal with manmade climate impacts.
 
Keep in mind that any new source of positive energy imbalance identified , lowers the amount of energy imbalance that can be
attributed to added greenhouse gases.
From Dimming to Brightening: Decadal Changes in Solar Radiation at Earth’s Surface
Over the period covered so far by BSRN(1992 to 2001), the decrease in earth
reflectance corresponds to an increase of 6 W m-2
in absorbed solar radiation by the globe (22).
Click to expand...
Greenhouse gas warming is attributed by subtracting out all the other known sources of warming,
but the IPCC only considers aerosols as a cooling agent, but that is based on a reference time of 1850 to 1900.
IPCC AR6 SPM
What this does not say if how aerosols may have suppressed the warming between 1900 and 1985, and then reveled
the earlier warming as the aerosols were removed, over a much shorter time span.

We also have to consider the sheer scale of the energy imbalance actually measured by the BCRN 6 W m-2
between 1992 and 2001, and the total energy imbalance attributed to added Greenhouse gases between 1900 and 2001, ~1.9 W m-2.
 

 
Thanks for providing some source material, even though it is not what I asked for. All that study demonstrates is that there is dimming and brightening at the surface. They only infer that it must be the result of aerosols, they provide no evidence of any cause for the dimming or brightening, just that it is occurring.

I see several problems. Chief among them is how this dimming and brightening can effect the entire planet when it is not part of the stratosphere. Only the most powerful of volcanic eruptions are able to put material, like SO2 and a variety of different aerosols into the stratosphere where they can have a global impact. SSR refers specifically to the troposphere, or the surface layer of the atmosphere. No pollution that humans create ever reaches the stratosphere. It is all confined within the troposphere. Which also means that it cannot have a global impact since everything in the troposphere is washed out, often in the form of acid rain, after a few weeks.

So these imaginary aerosol sulfates that reside in our stratosphere, for which they have absolutely no evidence, could not possibly be of human origin. In fact, there may not be any aerosols at all. All they have is an inference. Aerosols could explain dimming, and the lack of aerosols could explain brightening, but without actual data that is pure speculation. Speculation is not science.
 
I am not sure the source of the dimming and brightening matter as much as the fact that if could account for most of the observed warming.
But we do see a response, or at least an apparent response to the dimming being reversed by Human changes in emissions of aerosols.
Again while the energy reaching the ground is back to ~ the 1950 level in much of the world, we really do not know the limits of
the brightening, as we do not know what ZERO is.
 
longview said:
I am not sure the source of the dimming and brightening matter as much as the fact that if could account for most of the observed warming.
Click to expand...
It matters that they are just making up this "aerosol" nonsense because they don't have a better explanation. Like I said, that isn't science.

longview said:
But we do see a response, or at least an apparent response to the dimming being reversed by Human changes in emissions of aerosols.
Click to expand...
We get back to my original question: Where is the data? I want to see where they recorded these aerosols that somehow managed to get more than 10 miles up into our atmosphere in order to travel around the planet. Because if that is not what is being asserted then their aerosol bullshit comes crashing down. A dimming or brightening of ~5 W/m² in the troposphere would do absolutely nothing. It would neither warm nor cool the planet because it would all be very localized.

longview said:
Again while the energy reaching the ground is back to ~ the 1950 level in much of the world, we really do not know the limits of
the brightening, as we do not know what ZERO is.
Click to expand...
We are talking about a standard fluctuation of the sun, not man-made aerosols. The sun does not put out a constant 1,361 W/m², it varies. Which is why the sun is classified as a G2V star, the "V" is for "variable." A far more likely explanation of the recorded dimming and brightening are fluctuations in solar radiation, but that doesn't have anything to do with blaming humans so that is why that explanation has to be completely disregarded.
 
The changes observed by the BCRS network were about 6 W m-2 globally at the surface, not at some point up in the atmosphere.
While the Sun's output does vary, it is how much of the available sunlight that reaches the surface that matters.
The fact that China and the far East are still seeing dimming, says the aerosol effects are more local, i.e. not getting into the upper atmosphere.
We can and do measure the change in the Solar output, but these do not line up with the changes in Surface insolation.
The Solar output peaked in 1958, but has gone through several 22 year cycles since.
 
If they truly are talking about it being global dimming and brightening, then it can't possibly be aerosols, and it must be fluctuations in solar radiance or something else that is external to the planet. However, that is not what they are asserting. They are asserting that the dimming and brightening are localized to specific geographical areas. If it localized to specific geographical areas, then it cannot be global.

Solar output diminishes and peaks every solar cycle, and they are 11 year cycles, not 22 years. Currently solar radiance is increasing, and it will continue to increase until around mid-2025, when it will start declining again.

Total solar output did not peak in 1958. Solar output for Solar Cycle 19 peaked in 1958, then solar radiance diminished until Solar Cycle 20 began in 1964. Solar Cycle 20 peaked again in 1968, just prior to the first manned lunar landing. NASA continued to send astronauts to the moon until 1973. Solar Cycle 20 would not end until 1976. We are currently experiencing Solar Cycle 25, which will not peak until 2025.

Furthermore, according to your own source, the Baseline Surface Radiation Network (BSRN) has only been operational since the early 1990s. So how they were able to obtain observed data between 1960 and 1990?

They still have no evidence of any aerosols in the atmosphere. None. It is entirely inferred.
 
The cause is inferred, the measurements are not. Sorry, I did not cite the reference , here it is.
From Dimming to Brightening: Decadal Changes in Solar Radiation at Earth’s Surface
The main source for data prior to 1990 in (1–5) was the Global
Energy Balance Archive (GEBA) (11), which we have updated for the 1990s in the present
work, with support from the World Radiation Data Centre (WRDC) in Saint Petersburg,
Russia.
Click to expand...
Some effect caused the a decline in the energy reaching the surface, and then a reversal and the energy reaching the surface started increasing.
The periods do correspond to changes in scattered aerosol sources.
 
Thanks for providing the reference.

Another term for "inferred" is "manufactured" and your reference was of no help. It contained between 8 and 9 data points from primarily 1992 until 2000. They are claiming that their data goes from 1990 until 2002, but only 4 of their 16 datasets includes 1990 and 2002. They also claim that they have data from 1960 through to 1990, but do not bother to provide that data or make any reference to that dataset. I looked up the papers references. They also make assumptions without supporting evidence. Such as:

Aerosols, Climate, and the Hydrological Cycle - Science, Volume 294, Pages 2119-2124 (2001)

They don't waste any time. The above paper comes right out and blames humans for all aerosols in the atmosphere, without providing any data to support their allegations. They completely ignore volcanic or other natural sources and just blame humans for absolutely everything. That isn't science either.

Or they have absolutely nothing to do with aerosols at all, such as:

Is the Hydrological Cycle Accelerating? - Science, Volume 298, Pages 1345-1346 (2002)

What does hydrology have to do with changes in solar radiation?

I often find that this is the case with bogus papers. They make all kinds of references, most of which have absolutely nothing to do with their paper. It is just another kind of fraud. Which is why I always check the references in any paper.

Furthermore, when you examine the minimal data that they do provide, you quickly discover that they only had between 8 and 9 data points during the entire 1990s, or one data point for an entire year. While they do distinguish between clear-skies and cloudy conditions, you still need more than one recorded data point per year. The readings from Barrow, Alaska, begin in 1993 and end in 2001 with only 9 recordings, for example. They do not include any dates for when this data was recorded. Presumably they took those readings sometime after January and before November, because the sun would not be shining otherwise, but they don't bother to say either way.

I cannot take this seriously with such minimal information. Nine recorded data points in an eight year period, with no metadata to show when the data was recorded, cannot be taken seriously. The deviation of just 3 W/m² over that 8 year period from 1993 until 2001 can be easily explained by the Pinatubo eruption of 1991. Of course those SO2 aerosols were not man-made (they were also not on the surface) so they immediately tossed out that possibility and began to manufacture one where humans were entirely to blame.

It does not matter how accurate their readings are, if they only take one reading per year in each location, and don't even bother recording when during that year they took the reading, then it is garbage and utterly meaningless data. So I am guessing that there has to be more than the spotty data they claim to have collected. Are they selectively choosing which data points to publish? Where is the actual data? Not even you know, or you would have provided it.
 
Last edited:
If you have a better source for Surface insolation over time, I would like to see it?
I think it is more likely the cause of the observed warming since 1978 than added greenhouse gases.
 
longview said:
If you have a better source for Surface insolation over time, I would like to see it?
I think it is more likely the cause of the observed warming since 1978 than added greenhouse gases.
Click to expand...
That is what I have been asking from you. Where is the solar radiation data that they claim to have from 1960 until 1990? Even the data they did provide was incredibly spotty. Only 9 data points in 8 years and not including any meta-data? It doesn't matter how accurate their readings are, without the meta-data it is meaningless.

This has all the hallmarks of a scam. First, they barely collect any data, and none of the critical meta-data. Then they make references to data that you don't have and can't provide. Then they make inferences without any data to support their speculation, while completely ignoring natural causes for SO2 aerosols in the stratosphere. This is more propaganda than science.
 
They cannot go back in time and establish additional recording stations, they have what they have.
How valid is it, well it does show at very different places on Earth, the Surface Insolation did decrease from
1950 to ~ 1985, and increased after that point in most places.
The decrease and increase did not match the changes in Solar output, so was likely something that changed in our atmosphere.
Smog level are something that increased and decreased in roughly the same time frame.
but correlation is not causation. I do think this is a much more likely explanation of warming since 1978
than added greenhouse gases.
 
longview said:
They cannot go back in time and establish additional recording stations, they have what they have.
Click to expand...
Then why are they claiming they have data from 1960 until 1990 when those stations did not exist before 1990?

longview said:
How valid is it, well it does show at very different places on Earth, the Surface Insolation did decrease from
1950 to ~ 1985, and increased after that point in most places.
Click to expand...
Did it? How do we know? They didn't bother to record when those measurements were taken, just the location and the year. As far as we know they could have been taking solar radiation readings in Barrow, Alaska during December, when there is no sun in the sky. I'll wager that will show a definite decline in solar radiation, its absence generally does.

longview said:
The decrease and increase did not match the changes in Solar output, so was likely something that changed in our atmosphere.
Click to expand...
How do you know? They didn't bother to record the date they took their readings, so the solar radiation at that time may be exactly what they recorded.

longview said:
Smog level are something that increased and decreased in roughly the same time frame.
Click to expand...
Smog levels in Barrow, Alaska? Seriously?

longview said:
but correlation is not causation. I do think this is a much more likely explanation of warming since 1978
than added greenhouse gases.
Click to expand...
Since the only data that I've seen is between 1993 and 2001, with 4 of the 16 data sets including the years 1990, 1991, 1992 and 2002. They showed a 3 W/m² decrease in solar radiation using their 9 data points using the "All Skies" data, all of which could be explained by the 1991 Pinatubo eruption that put several million tons of SO2 into the stratosphere.

Until I see more data, and particularly the meta-data that is part of that data, I'm writing this off as another leftist scam to blame humans for natural events. It certainly cannot be construed as science.

I see this same kind of leftist scam every year when during the Spring in Antarctica they always complain about how big the ozone hole is, and blame humans for ozone depletion. When the reality is that ozone requires UV radiation and molecular oxygen to be created. No sunlight means no UV radiation. After 90 days in complete darkness, of course Antarctica is not going to have any ozone. None is being produced for 3 months. That does not make it humanity's fault, as much as the insane left want it to be.
 
Last edited:
You know just shoving coal ash into the atmosphere has dire health effects, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…