This stired such debate a couple of hours ago I had to ask again.?

Question

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

Couldn't resist answering the female only Q either could you Bob?

Thankx Trev for clarifing that.I sort of got your point the first time but the added info is a good thing.Just wanted others to wiegh in like Jim Z.I asked this question early in the day,so I thought asking it again would give more opp.to others.

Answer 1

Let's take AGW alarmists' DH, Bob's graph, and look at the scientific data - because it IS all about science, isn't it?

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

1940s - GHG's, solar, and even volcanoes produced a positive force. Ozone was at a small negative forcing (due to decreased volcanic aerosols?) the lowest in 70 years. Sulfates were at their least amount of negative forcing during the last 70 years (also due to decreased volcanism?)

Temperature decrease due to sulfates? The increased negative forcing is almost linear from 1940 to the end of this graph. If this was the determining factor, then there is no support for the hypothesis that pollution controls in the 50's -70's are responsible for the up-tick in temperature. Look at the graph. Clean Air Act did not make a dent. Is this a Sun-Earth conspiracy to disregard the laws of physics with respect to sulfates from 1975 to present? Or could this data set be invalid?

Well, then, it must be ozone. But look at the graph again. Ozone positive forcing rose as quickly as temperatures dropped from 1940 to 1950. There's more. Ozone started driving negatively (cooling) from 1950 to 1960 at the same time that global temperatures rose slightly. Hmmm I have not done a statistical correlation, but this looks as FAR from promising as can be imagined.

Volcanoes we already mentioned, but to rehash: volcanic forcing was POSITIVE (warming) from about 1915 to 1960. Water-tight alibi. It was most positive around 1940.

Both solar and especially GHGs had positive and increasing -or in the case of solar, minimally decreasing - forcings. But wait again! A slight decrease in solar forcing? That must be it!

Well, if that's your culprit for this cooling period, then what would be the effect of the relative SKYROCKETING of solar forcing from ~1972? Could it be that someone has devalued the effect of the Sun in the overall warming picture?

Gee, I don't think I've ever heard THAT one, before (eyes rolling)...

Good job at not letting this one rest, Philip!

Answer 2

Because CO2 is not the only variable affecting climate change. There are all sorts of things that can force the temperature up and down, some are natural, some aren't. So it's perfectly possible to have temperatures drop while CO2 levels continue to rise so long as the new forcing is powerful enough to overwhelm the CO2 signal.

This is exactly what is believed to have happened with the cooling trend from the 1940's through the early 70's (which is what people who mention the 'global cooling scare' are talking about). There was a sharp rise in the use of aerosols and other particulate pollutants during this time. These aerosols generally have a net cooling effect, and the sheer amount of them temporarily overwhelmed the warming signal from the CO2 and cooled the atmosphere.

In the early 70's stricter regulations were placed on the use of the potent chemicals, which lead to a sharp drop in the amount being used. So the warming trend once again began to dominate.

Answer 3

What caused it is the sun. Historically there is a better correlation between sun activity and temperatures than co2 and temperatures. Here is a good explanation of the study and notice the correlation in the graph. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/The_Geologic_Record_and_Climate_Change.pdf

What is the most telling is that global warming alarmists, can not explain the correlation and want us to believe it is a coincidence.

Notice the graph that they use to support their theory. They give you a bunch of graphs to masquerade their bad science. If sulphates are the culprit, then why did temperatures start to rise during the early part of the century when you had low levels of co2 and high levels of sulphates?

Jan Veizer was politically motivated to find this explanation fore the mid century cooling thus to prove that co2 is the cause of the 20th century warming. But after countless studies of his own and others determined:

While the climate can be affected by the many factors , it is the sun and its effects that have caused changes in climate for 4 billion years. and noted, “Personally, this last decade has been a trying period because of the years of internal struggle between what I wanted to believe and where the empirical record and its logic were leading me.”

I say he was politically motivated because he concluded:

"I conclude this paper with the following comments. There is sufficient evidence to conclude that the IPCC and other champions of greenhouse theory have miscalculated why the Earth is warming. On the other hand, it really does not matter because it will not be long before the fossil fuels that the greenhouse theorists say are the cause of global warming will run out. It would be absolutely irresponsible for the people of the world to ignore this reality and do nothing while the debate continues. Regardless of the outcome of this debate, there is common ground that both sides can find that will lead to solutions. I would be the first person that would point to overpopulation as a root cause and yell, “STOP HAVING BABIES!!!” I would also point out that when the oil and coal have run out there needs to be a system of energy production in place to satisfy the world's energy needs, and that such a system of energy production will be just as profitable as the system in place today. I would point out to the wealthy oil people and countries, that their children are going to be poor and broke unless they start to invest some of their profits in wind, geothermal, solar and etc. very soon."

Answer 4

Hello Philip,

I answered your earlier question and explained why temperatures had dipped during the middle of the last century. If you didn't understand then by definition it's my fault for not having explained it properly and I apologise.

Back in the 1940's, 50's etc there was a great deal of heavy industry producing vast amounts of pollution. No doubt you'll have seen photographs from the time showing chimneys belching out clouds of dirty black smoke. Not only was industry producing lots of pollution but so too was power generation, coal burning fires and domestic gas supplies.

One of the biggest pollutants was sulphur dioxide, a gas which is poisonous to breath in large quantities and one which was being pumped into the atmosphere in huge quantities.

One of the properties of sulphur dioxide is that it reflects sunlight back into space so as the atmosphere become more and more polluted there was more and more sunlight being reflected into space and this lead to global cooling.

There came a point when there was so much pollution and thousands of people were dying that Clean Air Acts were passed which forced industry to clean up it's act. As a consequence the atmosphere we breath today is much cleaner than the polluted air of 50 years ago. Many of the pollutants have gone but so too has the sulphur dioxide which was cooling our planet down. Had these Clean Air Acts never been passed then Earth would probabl be some 2 to 5 degrees Celsius cooler than it is now and the atmosphere would be so thick with pollution that it would be difficult to breathe at times.

What you say about CO2 emissions beong on the upswing is quite true, and not just CO2 but the other greenhouse gases as well. These would have been contributing to global warming but the effect would have been overwhelmed by the cooling caused by the presence of sulphur dioxide.

The term used to describe this phenomena is Global Dimming, I'm sure a search for this will turn up a lot more info.

Answer 5

I find it interesting that when confronted with an obvious inconsistency to their religiously held beliefs, the alarmists quite creatively come up with other man-made factors which we are to believe are no longer of consequence to explain why the man made climate change had a slight pause. Of course they blame humans and of course it is related to industry. I would like some actual numbers and sources on just how much sulfur we are and have been producing and how much sulfur volcanoes and the world (now including an industrialized third world with India and China) is producing. I am surprised they don't blame the US for bombing Japan and Germany to explain the cooling. I should be careful about giving them any absurd ideas. They will definitely run with them.

Answer 6

It will come as no surprise that I don't take grizzbr1's very sensible position.

To continue our discussion:

This graph explains it in terms of the importance of the various factors at various times:

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

The "limitations" of this graph are simply acknowledging the fact that it does not precisely match the observed temperature rise. But it's plenty close enough to persuade virtually all scientists that the story it tells about the relative importance of the various factors is accurate.

The flattening you're interested in is largely a combination of the effects of greenhouse gases (increases T), pollution ("sulphate", decreases T), solar variation (decreases T), volcanoes (decreases T), and ozone (pretty even). In the time period you're interested in, that all pretty much canceled each other out.

But thanks to our skill in generating greenhouse gases, we've now left the other factors in the dust.

I can do words, too.

Answer 7

intense high quality How approximately writing on one element of an envelope "For suprise turn over" and then writting an identical element on the different element. It does artwork had somebody sitting there for hours and that they didnt discern it out till i advised them

Answer 8

Obviously you didn't pay attention the first time, so why answer you a second time?

LOL@Bob ... well said.

Answer 9

could be because there wasnt enough oxygen in the air, humidity went up. so there for the temp. had to drop. i was born in the fiftys so i really dont know.

Answer 10

Its a solar thing....variation in solar temperature are very well known phenomena.