Jet contrails as seen by satellite. Credit: NASA Langley Research Center
Posted on 04/26/2016 11:50:20 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
The article “US Senate Considering Albedo Modification Geoengineering Proposal” appeared as I finished this article. It commented on the plan to introduce particles into the atmosphere to increase the reflective capability of the Earth’s atmosphere known as the albedo. Most responses correctly identified it as unwise. Isn’t it already happening? Jet contrails from commercial airline flights reduce the amount of sunlight that makes it to the surface, as this satellite image shows:
Jet contrails as seen by satellite. Credit: NASA Langley Research Center
The Senate proposal is not new. In 2009, John Holdren pushed the same idea as a Daily Mail story headlined “Obama may fire pollution particles into stratosphere to deflect sun’s heat in desperate bid to tackle global warming” (Figure 1).
The controversial experiment was touted yesterday as a possible last resort to help cool the Earth’s air by the president’s new science advisor John Holdren.
‘It’s got to be looked at. We don’t have the luxury of taking any approach off the table,’ said Mr Holdren, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology.
Figure 1, Original caption: “Sunscreen: Could its rays be deflected as a last resort to beat global warming?”
Actions without thought or concern for the consequences are the pattern as political agendas ignore facts or logic. Adding particulates to the atmosphere is another dangerous and unnecessary proposal.
Issues about particulates all relate to a lack of data or knowledge about their role in the atmosphere and their effect on climate and climate change. The challenge is underscored because changing albedo is just one component of their role.
First, there is the issue of the difference between aerosols and particulates. The IPCC only makes the distinction between Working Groups. In the Physical Science Basis Report of Working Group I (WG-I) they only refer to aerosols. The Impact, Adaptation, and Vulnerability Report of Working Group II (WG-II) refers to particulates. The WG-I Glossary only lists a definition of aerosols.
A suspension of airborne solid or liquid particles, with a typical size between a few nanometres and 10 μm that reside in the atmosphere for at least several hours. For convenience the term aerosol, which includes both the particles and the suspending gas, is often used in this report in its plural form to mean aerosol particles. Aerosols may be of either natural or anthropogenic origin. Aerosols may influence climate in several ways: directly through scattering and absorbing radiation (see Aerosol–radiation interaction) and indirectly by acting as cloud condensation nuclei or ice nuclei, modifying the optical properties and lifetime of clouds (see Aero- sol–cloud interaction).
The use of the term particulates in WG-II is apparently related to the health impacts. This is primarily a function of particle size and the ability to enter the lungs.
The atmosphere is composed mostly of gases, but also contains liquid and solid matter in the form of particles. It is usual to distinguish these particles according to their size, chemical composition, water content and fall velocity into atmospheric aerosol particles, cloud particles and falling hydrometeors. Despite their small mass or volume fraction, particles in the atmosphere strongly influence the transfer of radiant energy and the spatial distribution of latent heating through the atmosphere, thereby influencing the weather and climate.
Wikipedia offers a compromise definition.
Atmospheric particulate matter – also known as particulate matter (PM) or particulates – are microscopic solid or liquid matter suspended in the Earth’s atmosphere. The term aerosol commonly refers to the particulate/air mixture, as opposed to the particulate matter alone.
Either way, the IPCC acknowledges the importance of aerosols.
Aerosol particles interact with solar radiation through absorption and scattering and, to a lesser extent with terrestrial radiation through absorption, scattering and emission.
An early attempt to classify aerosols by size and therefore their effect is shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2; Source: Encyclopedia of Climatology
The problem is each particle reacts differently depending on its size, shape, molecular structure and the angle of incidence of the solar radiation among other things. The reactions are physical and chemical, and they change all the time. For example, a cloud has H2O as a gas, liquid and solid, as well as dust particles of varying sizes and all are constantly changing in volume and form. What happens to the reactive properties of a cloud when water vapor surrounds one of those dust particles (condensation nuclei) and becomes a water droplet? What happens when convective motion takes the cloud above the freezing level and ice crystals form?
Particle differences are important as they affect shortwave (SWR) incoming solar radiation and long-wave outgoing radiation (LWR) as the IPCC acknowledge in Figure 3 from AR5
Figure 3.
When determining anthropogenic global warming or climate change, it is inadequate to say that you can work out the net effect at the top or bottom of the cloud or the atmosphere. Effectively isolating AGW to a single cause forces us to know the effects of change of every single variable. However, as the IPCC note,
Owing to inter-annual variability, long-term trends in aerosols from natural sources are more difficult to identify (Mahowald et al., 2010).
So they are forced to conclude,
Thus, confidence is low for global satellite derived AOD (Aerosol optical depth) trends over these relatively short time periods.
You can’t identify the human influence if you don’t know the natural. In a good summary of the problems associated with aerosols NASA concludes;
Scientists have much to learn about the way aerosols affect regional and global climate. We have yet to accurately quantify the relative impacts on climate of natural aerosols and those of human origin. Moreover, we do not know in what regions of the planet the amount of atmospheric aerosol is increasing, is diminishing, and is remaining roughly constant. Overall, we are even unsure whether aerosols are warming or cooling our planet.
Wow, warming or cooling is unknown?
Contrary to popular understanding, virtually all numbers used in climate studies are estimates. Look at the values assigned to different components of the energy flow diagram based on Trenberth’s original (Figure 4). The values for “Absorbed by Atmosphere” is 67 Wm2. Others provide a different value. Figure 5 is a recent work of WG-I Co-chairs of the IPCC Report, Martin Wild and Norman Loeb. It shows a value of 79 Wm2 for atmospheric absorption, but this is with a range of estimates from 74 to 91 Wm2.
Figure 4
The role and impact of aerosols in the atmosphere is large. 107 Wm2 reflected and 67 Wm2 absorbed is 174 Wm2 is the crude estimate of the total of 342 Wm2 incoming solar radiation that either doesn’t heat the Earth or indirectly heats the atmosphere. Only a small variation in these variables causes energy balance variations that swamp those attributed to human produced CO2. Apparently there is no value for the amount of long wave absorbed by aerosols in the atmosphere. Is it part of the Back Radiation?
Original Caption: Best estimates of the global mean energy balance components together with their uncertainty ranges, representing present day climate. Surface estimates based on the analyses presented in this study. TOA estimates from Loeb et al. (2009). Units Wm-2 (From Wild et al., submitted)
Figure 5.
The values given in Figures 4 and 5 are for energy flows, but what is not explained is the amount of aerosols. The IPCC only examines human sources of aerosols as their mandate dictates, but there is a massive and constantly varying volume of materials in the atmosphere. There are very few estimates of the actual amount of atmospheric material. Mitchell (1973) estimated the total amount of dust, smoke and other particles as approximately 40 million tons. In 1970 Hubert Lamb published an important article, “Volcanic dust in the atmosphere; with a chronology and assessment of its meteorological significance.” From this he evolved a Dust Veil Index (DVI), a quantification of changes in atmospheric composition and its impact on the Earth’s energy balance.
It appears that some of the AGW proponents realize the DVI is important. As Bob Tisdale reported apparently, Michael Mann saw it as an opportunity to sway the statistics and data on global warming. Simple theory says particulates reduce sunlight reaching the ground. The reality is we have little idea how the DVI varies over time or how aerosols affect temperature as Steve Goddard discussed around the Mauna Loa data in Figure 6.
Figure 6
Compare this with the latest data plot in Figure 7. The word “Apparent” is significant.
Major issues not generally considered are how the changing atmospheric content alters the percentages of effects on incoming solar and outgoing long wave radiation. There are three major effects when radiation strikes the aerosol, absorption, reflection, and scattering. Any changes in the numbers and form of the aerosol will create a different response; for example, the phase change of H2O between gas, liquid and solid.
The effect of change, such as an increase in the DVI, will differ depending on the trend of temperature at the time. There is a study of a historical example of what happens when a singular event exacerbates cooling.
In 1992 we organized a conference in Ottawa to analyze the climate impacts of the Indonesian volcano Tambora. It was the largest eruption in historic times and considered the cause of the history-changing record cold year of 1816, the “The Year Without a Summer.” John Eddy presented the keynote paper.
Eddy identified the cooling associated with the lack of sunspots from 1790 to 1830 known as the Dalton Minimum. This meant global temperatures were falling before volcanic cooling was added in 1815. The cooling due to the volcanic dust injected into the atmosphere amplified a cooling trend. What would be the difference if the global trend was warming?
One factor not considered is the impact of changes on the frequencies of sunlight in the visible spectrum. Whether the solar radiation is absorbed, reflected, or scattered is primarily determined by the relationship between the wavelength of the spectrum and the size of the particle. The sky is blue because the size of the most prominent molecules in the atmosphere is the same as the wavelength of blue light. Change the size of the particles in the atmosphere and the sky colour changes as evidenced by red skies in the lower atmosphere with a low sun angle.
Much volcanic ash that reaches high altitudes is sulfur. There it becomes condensation nuclei that create yellow water droplets, which filter out the yellow portion of the sunlight. I witnessed the effect while driving across the Canadian Prairies in the fall of 1992. The eruption was in 1991, but it takes a year for the global distribution of the high altitude effect. Most crops were still unripened in the first week of September because the yellow portion of the spectrum is critical. This is why you need special neon tubes to grow plants. Farmers resorted to adding a desiccant to dry out the plant to facilitate harvesting.
Wind speed is another weather variable that receives inadequate attention. It is a major determinant of the amount of dust in the atmosphere. Deserts are the windiest climate regions and therefore contribute a great deal of atmospheric dust. Similarly, evaporation increases with wind speed over the ocean thus increasing salt particles in the atmosphere.
Aerosol effects are generally measured by comparing observations of reflected and transmitted sunlight between satellite sensors and ground sensors. The few observations available produce columnar data, which are then used in models to simulate what they think is happening. The Global Earth Observation and Monitoring GEOMON started in 2006 underscored the inadequacies.
The wider question is,
“What are the global trends of atmospheric composition from ground-based and satellite observations assimilated in modelling studies, and what key measurements should be added for reducing uncertainties on surface emissions and atmospheric processes?”
Many factors cause climate change, but only a few are considered in the current scientific debate and most are based on estimated or inadequate data. The role of aerosols in the atmosphere are little known, measured or understood.
The proposal to add particulates to offset warming is the environmental equivalent of adding to the debt to get out of debt, only worse. Despite this, politicians demonstrate their lack of knowledge of the science by proposing to play God. Maybe they should wait until there is enough space debris to block the sun and cause cooling.
[1] This article is a composite of two published at the Friends of Science web page and on
More info here:
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/
Jet contrails are merely high clouds, made up of exactly the same stuff as cirrus clouds (water vapor supercooled below the fusion point of water), and have approximately the same effect. They do scatter solar radiation, and so dilute the effects of solar fluctuations, but they have little effect in actually reflecting it back out to space.
The effects of water vapor on the degree of either global warming or cooling is still one of the most misunderstood factors in climatology, and yet is is vastly more important than practically any other physical component of the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is statistically insignificant in comparison to water vapor.
[[may fire pollution particles into stratosphere to deflect sun’s heat in desperate bid to tackle global warming”]]
Why? What is the ‘correct temperature’ of the Earth supposed to be? (hint, there isw no correct temperature- The world has survived for 1000’s of years- millions if you bleeive in evolution- and temps were much warmer and much colder than they are now- all without any ‘help from man’- were those warmer and colder climates ‘wrong temperatures’ then?
Man’s CO2 production amounts to just 0.00136% of the atmosphere- that’s it- (nature and man’s CO2 amount to 0.04% roughly- man’s % of that 0.04% is 3.4%- 3.4% of 0.04% = 0.00136%)
There simply is not enough CO2 by al sources- let alone by man’s piddly 0.00136% to affect global climates-
Take a piiece of cloth that is 0.00136% of your body- and use it as aq ‘blanket’ at night, and see how warm you are on a frigid evening-
The point being that htere simply is not enough ‘blanket’ in EITHER case to capture and retain nearly enough heat to keep either the planet or the body in this scenario warm- almost 200% of the heat that escapes our body- goes right on up to ceiling because there would be nothing preventing it from doing so if our ‘blanket’ were 0.00136% the size of our body, and almost 100% of the heat escaping from earth goes right on past that 0.00136% dot of CO2 that man has produced-
The rest of the atmosphere has NO CO2 in it- almost 100% of the atmosphere is free from CO2- infact 99.96% is fre4e from all CO2- and 99.9964% of the atmosphere is free from cO2 created by man
Can someoen please explain how 0.00136% of our atmosphere can capture enough heat to cause global climate change?
Where are the figures? How much heat is captured? What % of that captured/produced heat actually gets back radiated i nthe right direction? (Most gets radiated out away from the earth- not back at it- so really, even a smaller % even actually makes it’s way back to earth or remains in atmosphere)
The movie “Snowpiercer” has a pretty good take on the possible outcomes of such immense stupidity!
Geoengineering
Children with matches.
That book from the 70s touting the coming ice age stated that so many contrails from aircraft were reflecting sunlight back into space that it would affect our climate.
We should have glaciers down to Vermont by now.
that blanket is over 90% coverage- not 0.00136% coverage- I guess i didn’t word the example well enough- take that space age blanket, cut it down to cover 0.00136% of your body, and see how well it keeps the heat in
Not in the atmosphere, above the atmosphere.
And Not over us. Over the polar regions.
Send reflector confetti in orbit over polar regions and the temperature goes down 1 or 2 degrees. Melting reverses. Glaciers and icebergs grow.
Of course, only do this if serious about cooling the planet.
Those of the climate religion wont support this because they dont really want to cool the planet. They want to increase the power of their religion.
I went by weight.
My point is that it’s not the size, it’s the reflectivity.
CO2 for oen doesn’t reflect CO2 it absorbs, and creates heat, and radiates that heat outwards in all directions- the blanket you showed reflects heat directly back at whatever is underneath it- and CO2 is nowhere near as efficient as space blanket, not does it blanket the globe like you example blankets the body- there simply isn’t enough of it
IF CO2 were reflective, and covered as much as the blanket does- then you would have a point- but most of the heat absorbed gets radiated right out into space- only a very small fraction of what little heat is actually captured/created makes it’s way back towards the earth or remains in the atmosphere-
Again, it’s easy to claim things like ‘CO2 reflects heat’ but it’s the nubmers that count- IF it does, which it doesn’t- it absorbs- then how much actual heat does it reflect? What is the % comapred to the cooler mass of air back on earth? or cooler air in atmosphere for thaqt matter?
See- climate change ideologues are always claiming thigns in a very very general manner- “CO2 absorbs IR and creates heat”
Yep- it do- But, what they are not telling us is that there is so little CO2 that what little IR it does absorb and turn into heat amounts to nothing- practically,- barely even record able- yet they generalize and make it appear like there’s a giant space heater cranking out heat in space heating us all up to dangerous levels-
Size matters- Amount matters- numbers matter- climate agendists avoid then umbers because they do not fit the hysteria-
Perhaps a better analogy would have been to take a 5 gallon bucket of 100 degree water, drop it into an olympic sized pool of 90 degree water, and see if it raises the temp of the pool ‘to dangerous levels’ like the climate- alarmists claim is happening to the climate-
Maybe an even better example would be to have a heater that heats up just 0.00136% of the pool once a year, and see if it ‘raises the pool’s temps to dangerous levels’- but also we’d have to figure out a way to account for most of the extra heat begin radiated out of the pool so that it doesn’t effect the pool water- only allowing a fraction of the 0.00136% of heat to actually remain in the pool
FYI, I’m not a climate believer. My only point was reflectivity is often not a function of weight, because I thought you were equating the two. But of course you’re right about the total amount of human-affected CO2 versus the rest. The alarmists have nothing to back their theories, even if they invoke the butterfly effect (and I say that as a big fan of the butterfly effect, lol).
The cloth in my first example would absorb and hold heat (although CO2 absorbs and creates heat cloth of course wouldn’t)- the alarmists make it seem as though there is a huge thick blanket of CO2 around the world, trapping most of the heat, and holding it in causing warming- that just isn’t the case- most of the heat escapes without ever being trapped, and what little does get trapped gets radiated out in all directions and very little remains in atmosphere of gets back radiate to earth
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.