Why did the temperature go down during the industry boom beginning in the '40s when co2 was on the upswing?

Question

http://blip.tv/file/227958

Ok Dana fair enough.But the global temps continued to fall into the 70s.Why didn't co2 prevent that?

But Anders,co2 continued to rise and didn't stop the temp.from falling.And aresols are still with us.In lesser amounts argueably,but...

a

Trevor,has there been a string of volcanos from the 40s to the 70s to explain drop in temp?You and I know there has not.I respect your learned advice,but your not answering this Q.at all.

Bob,co2 is getting a bad rap today which doesn't seem fair at all.I mean if it was increasing,and the temps.were falling during a 35 year period,why blame co2 for warming the earth in the last decade?

Edit Bob."Though the model captures the gross features of twentieth century climate change, it remains likely that some of the differences between model and observation reflect the limitations of the model and/or our understanding of the histories of the observed forcing factors."
While you may not want me to focus on words I can't help but to key on
"limitations of the model and/or our understanding of the histories ".

323-Always better to dream of a better tomorrow than to curse today.

Thanks 3dm.See "limatations" above.

Edit 2 Bob.By your own paper's admition it accepts "limation".Read it yourself,again.The author's own words reveal this oft' quoted paper is just a theory.Thanks anyway,and don't get so angry.

Answer 1

So... Ozone COMING BACK causes global warming?

The Ozone layer was being REDUCED by CFC's in the 1960s and 1970's... and we had cooling. CO and CO2 content of the atmosphere was going up...

That seems to indicate that reduced Ozone traps heat better than CO2! (Just as valid as the way the global warming alarmists' method of analyzing the data)

Then we should get busy making and releasing CFC's to destroy that evil Ozone layer!



I love tossing stuff back at environmental nuts...

***************

Yes, we had massively increasing pollution in the 60's and 70's.
Yes the Ozone layer was decreasing
Yes we had global cooling.

So if Man drives the earth's climate... we shouldn't have quit our beneficial Ozone depletion.

*****************

Maybe we should give more credit to solar output changes and the resulting effects on our environment....

Answer 2

Industrial boom AND a world war to boot - we were burning fuel FASTER than we could make(refine) it. I don't think you'll find an answer from the alarmist crowd.

Other sources like volcanoes? Volcanism is greater post 1980 than it was in the 40s. There were considerably less eruptions during the 40s than in either of the last 3 decades.
http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/eruptionlist.cfm
Take a look at Dana's chart again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png
Volcanoes actually had a POSITIVE forcing in the 40s (ie warming effect)

And sulfates cleaned up by the Clean Air Act? Certainly helped, but look at Dana's graph again:
Sulfate negative forcing has not changed noticeably save for the late 80s. It's as bad as it ever was.

These clowns need to get their stories straight...

Answer 3

It's clearer if you don't focus on the words, but look at the numerical data cited here.

Temperatures didn't really "fall". Leveled off would be a better word.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record_png

It was because of particulate matter (dust) and sulfate aerosols from coal burning power plants. The Clean Air Act reduced those and greenhouse gases took over. See this graph, and the associated chart. All causes are considered, including the sun and volcanoes:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

Look at the data.

By the way, the effect of ozone depletion is very complex. Once again, looking at the data is essential, because there is a combination of different effects. Pretty good discussion here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion#Ozone_depletion_and_global_warming

The second chart in this post does the calculations and gives the resulting effect, a small change, cooling in the 40s, warming now. This stuff is not simple.

For the record:

The swindle movie is bogus:

"A Channel 4 documentary claimed that climate change was a conspiratorial lie. But an analysis of the evidence it used shows the film was riddled with distortions and errors."

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2355956.ece

EDIT - Philip - LOOK AT THE DATA. It tells you "why" CO2 is mostly responsible now. Science is about data, not "logical" arguments. Data has shown many things very much stranger than global warming (like quantum mechanics and relativity) to be true.

EDIT2: "And sulfates cleaned up by the Clean Air Act? Certainly helped, but look at Dana's graph again: Sulfate negative forcing has not changed noticeably save for the late 80s. It's as bad as it ever was."

This is what happens when people don't LOOK AT THE DATA. Power plant emissions of CO2 went up drastically as many many power plants were constructed. Because of the Clean Air Act, sulfate and particulate pollution went up only a little. CO2 wins, to our detriment.

The scientist do the math. The scientists say global warming is mostly caused by us (not "100%" a phony strawman argument). The skeptics throw words around. But the words are refuted BY THE DATA.

IThis is all covered, in great detail and precision in:

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

with NUMBERS, not words. It's called 'science" not "debate".

EDIT 3: Phillip - thank you. You've sharpened my thoughts and words. See my question.

Answer 4

Ever notice in that GW Swindle video that it is just a series of sound bites taken out of context? I don't think a single person on there made a complete statement about anything. I have seen better Star Trek commercials.

In any case ... the answer is that weather has cyclical patterns but not the same from year to year. New "daily records" are set all the time. Whether Dec in 1997 was as warm as December in 1927 or February in 1937 isn't really a definitive pattern.

The definitive pattern related to global warming isn't simply an increase in average temperature, it is also the severity of the weather patterns created by the excess energy. When it's hot, it'll be hotter; when it's cold, it'll be colder; the wind will be stronger; the lightning more frequent; flooding commonplace (homeowner's insurance NOT).

How many days out of the year will there have to be a weather record broken in order to convince you?

Answer 5

Because, the ideal of goble warming is an outright lie, lead by fools and charlatans who hope to scare the American public into destroying our ecomny. I base this on the following facts that any 5th grader can easily check out if they really want to know the truth, instead of being lead by the nose like a complete fool.
1. The alarmist claim that burning fossil fuels is the cause of recent warming, however most of the warming took place before most of the increase of CO2. There was actually a significant cooling period from the mid-1940s to the late 1970s, while CO2 was increasing rapidly, and there was another increase from 1979 to 1998. In fact there has been no warming since 1998 – an eight-year period, and even a slight statistically cooling, despite the fact that CO2 has continued to rise.
2. The correlation between co2 emissions effecting global warming is extremely small compared to the correlation between global temperature and sun cycles. The sun cycles affect temperature in two ways first by the cycling up and down of actual heat energy that is emitted by the sun. This has a small effect on global temperature. The more important one is cycling in solar winds. Solar wind blocks cosmic radiation from coming into the Earth’s atmosphere. The more cosmic rays come in the more low level clouds there are and low-level clouds reflect solar heat energy back into space. If there are more clouds the earth is cooler and if there are fewer clouds, the earth is warmer. As solar wind cycles up cosmic rays cycle up and down in reverse and clouds up and down. So the solar window is very important to earth’s temperature, but you will not change.

Answer 6

A better question might be, why did the temperature go up for 200 years prior to the Industrial revolution?

Check out the Oregon Petition, in which 17,100 scientist have signed and believe it is not good science.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm...

More information on the poor science of man made GW from a PhD in Climatology:

http://www.sitewave.net/news/s49p1828.ht...

I don't think the Earth is the fragile planet that others do. I have spent a lot of time outdoors in my 48 years of life and I have noticed more vigorous plant life as well as much more wildlife in the past 15 to 20 years. I fish and hunt every year, so I spend a lot of time in the woods and on the rivers and lakes. I see about twice as many deer, quail, squirrels, coyotes, bobcats, raccoons, wild turkeys, hawks, owls, blue herons, beavers, ducks, geese, (just to name a few), as I did 20 years ago. CO2 could be a contributing factor to the increase in plant life as well as the animal life that feeds on them.

"Human activities are believed to be responsible for the rise in CO2 level of the atmosphere. Mankind is moving the carbon in coal, oil, and natural gas from below ground to the atmosphere and surface, where it is available for conversion into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of the CO2 increase. Our children will enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life as that with which we now are blessed. This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the Industrial Revolution. "

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm...

I believe the Earth and the solar system were designed to take care of themselves. The Earth has been warming for at least 300 years, well before the Industrial Revolution.

Answer 7

Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases trap heat within the Earth's atmosphere whereas sulphur dioxide and similar gases have a cooling effect. The reason for this is that thay reflect solar radiation (heat from the sun) back into space.

Following major volcanic eruptions the Earth cools down because of the amount of SO2 that is ejected into the atmosphere. The most recent major eruption occurred in 1991 when Mount Pinatubo erupted and in the wake of the eruption global temperatures fell by 0.4 degrees C.

Sulhour dioxide is produced in huge quantities by industrial processes and power generation and until the Clean Air Acts were passed billions of tons of this poisonous gas were released into the atmosphere which blocked out the sun. The more SO2 there was the more sunlight was blocked out and the more cooling there was.

Things came to a head in 1952 when dense pollution, including large quantities of SO2, setteld over London and formed what has become known as the London Smog. At it's height thousands of people a day were dying. The UK Government were forced to act and the first Clean Air Acts were passed, in the following years other countries around the world followed suit.

This resulted in the elimination of most of the SO2 from the atmosphere and ironically the world began warming up again.

The more industry was booming the more pollution was being emitted and the greater the cooling effect.

----------------

Re your addit details:

Volcanoes emit vast amounts of SO2 when they erupt and I used this to illustrate my point. Human activities in the past also produced vast amounts of SO2, this has now been banned and smoke stacks etc have to be fitted with scrubbers. If we were to restart spewing SO2 into the atmosphere and provided we emitted enough chemical then the world would start to cool*

Similarly, if there were a series of major volcanic eruptions over a period of years the world would cool again. SO2 has a comparatively short atmospheric lifespan and is soon dissipated out of the atmosphere by a three stage chemical procedure* so the cooling effect doesn't last long; on the other hand CO2 has a 115 year atmospheric lifespan so it keeps retaining heat long after it first entered the atmosphere.

* It has been suggested that sulphur be used to combat global warming, the idea put forward being to release SO2 into the ionosphere (80km + above the Earth) where it would reflect sunlight back into space.

* Sulphur dioxide dissolves in water vapour and is hydrolised through a series of equilibrium reactions. One of the byproducts being sulphuric acid - hence the term acid rain.

Answer 8

Because CO2 does not effect the global temperature enough to make a difference. It all depends on the Sun's output, which is variable.

Answer 9

In general, I agree on the particulates. That type of pollution reflects heat back and causes Global Cooling. So we can defeat warming by lots of belching smokestacks, or blowing up millions of tons of sand into a silica layer, etc.

But I also see in the unsmoothed curves on the sunspot cycle activity published that if they were smoothed like the rest of the curves, it would show a lot of parallelism.

I think the curves that show bad things happening in parallel are fiddled with to smooth out and fill in dips, while the ones that would show other causes are left raw and un-tampered with by smoothing functions, so their contribution is not obvious. The exact statistical smoothing function used can have a very significant impact on the shape of the resulting curves!! Especially if the end-points lie at discontinuities or at changes of slope.

I have yet to be convinced by the rhetoric that the sun's energy output in all bands does not affect the Global Climate. Tho I think uniformly those who are calling Global Warming 100% due to CO2 automatically discard any and all other influences, positive or negative, in a single-minded pursuit of data to support their single cause and piece de resistance.

And we are going to monocultures to get biofuels, leaving us open to a mutated bacterium or virus wiping out our fuel supplies, knowing as well that the monocultures are less efficient at policing up CO2...so we give with biofuels, and take with monocultures.

An unexplored side effect of which is to eliminate plants and animals yet unchecked for medicines and other beneficial uses.

AND, I keep hearing about some "asteroids" 15-30 years away, that will involve potential hits on the earth, or very near misses. I am sure a large asteroid hitting the earth will change things significantly...and any "progress" in combating "Global Warming" and keeping the ocean out of New York City and the glaciers scenically in Glacier National Park will be wiped out also.

MIGHT it be more prudent to allow for changes in the ocean levels...shallow seas over present coastal plains would make very good fishing grounds, and fish are supposed to be healthy to eat. And a lot of new farmland would be opened in the higher latitudes, farmland much less polluted than our old and over-treated stuff.

AND spend our money getting man into space in a real way with real capabilities so we are prepared to deflect these solar bodies that menace everything...much more of a menace I think than disputed estimates of the globe warming up based on statistically altered evidence, theories that are politically espoused by committees liberally sprinkled with politicians and endorsed by a UN that can't even get small nations not to blow each other up, theories that do not fully cover data even from 2000 years ago, as opposed the scientific tracking of the orbits of asteroids that can kill the earth in one impact...no time to "adapt" when they hit!

Would not one asteroid hitting the earth wipe out 10's of years of expensive changes to make the "Global Warming" go away? And I ask, where would we be left then??

Something to think about. At least I do. By the light of the huge natural gas flares producing CO2 from our oil-producing friends.





.

Answer 10

Anders - you sound very confident..The trouble here is that you are gravely wrong. Aerosols have had nothing to do with Global Warming. We still use aerosols today but with a different propellant. The propellant today is one that is environmentally friendly and it replaces freon which is a chlorofluorocarbon.