Reproduced below is a paper, published in the March 16 edition of the
prestigious magazine Science, which argues that based on at least one
set of satellite data (AVHRR), the sun, not man-made CO2, is
responsible for the global warming 'jump' seen in the last 15 years.

The paper is a bit hard to follow for non-specialists, but essentially
it is arguing that once you strip away the aerosol sun-blocking
effects of two volcanic eruptions in ~1982 (El Chichon) and ~1992
(Pinatubo), you get a trend line that indicates the sun is shining
brighter than before on the surface of the earth. The aerosols were
blocking the sun, and once the aerosols were removed, the sun shined
through stronger than before.

The implication is that it's not man-made greenhouse gases that caused
the jump in temperatures since 1990, but less aerosols in the air
(dust, pollution like SOx, etc).

BTW this does not mean there's no global warming caused by man--there
seems to be a steady increase over the long term that suggests man is
responsible--but rather, it does suggest that the 'jump' in
temperatures in recent decades, which is what the Greens get hot under
the collar about, has been caused by fewer aerosols, not more CO2.
This is obviously good news for fossil fuel burning countries,
especially the USA which burns a lot more CO2 producing fuels like
coal than other countries, such as France (which uses more nuclear
energy instead).

Since the article was scanned into text the figure could not be
introduced.

RL

Science Vol. 315 16 March 2007
Long-Term Satellite Record Reveals Likely Recent Aerosol Trend
Michael I. Mishchenko,* Igor V. Geogdzhayev, William B. Rossow, Brian
Cairns, Barbara E. Carlson, Andrew A. Lads, Li Liu, Larry D. Travis


Recent observations of downward solar radiation fluxes at Earth's
surface have shown a recovery from the previous decline known as
global "dimming" (1), with the 'brightening" beginning around 1990
(2). The increasing amount of sunlight at the surface profoundly
affects climate and may represent certain diminished counterbalances
to greenhouse gas warming, thereby
making the warming trend more evident during the past decade.
It has been suggested that tropospheric aerosols have contributed
notably to the switch from solar dimming to brightening via both
direct and indirect aerosol effects (1, 2). It has further been
argued
(3) that the solar radiation trend mirrors the estimated recent trend
in primary anthropogenic emissions of SO2 and black carbon, which
contribute substantially to the global aerosol optical thickness
(AOT). A similar increase of net solar flux at the top of the
atmosphere (TOA) over the same period appears to be explained by
corresponding changes in lower latitude cloudiness (4), which
confounds the interpretation of the surface radiation record.
Therefore, it is important to provide a direct and independent
assessment of the actual global long-term behavior of the AOT. We
accomplish this by using the longest uninterrupted record of global
satellite estimates of the column AOT over the oceans, the Global
Aerosol Climatology Project (GACP) record (5). The record is derived
from the
International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP) DX radiance
data set composed of calibrated and sampled Advanced Very High
Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) radiances. A detailed discussion of the
sampling resolution, calibration history, and changes in the
corresponding satellite sensors can be found in
(6).
The global monthly average of the column AOT is depicted for the
period August 1981 to June 2005 (Fig. 1, solid black curve). The two
major maxima are caused by the stratospheric aerosols generated by
the
El Chichon (March 1982) and the Mount Pinatubo (June 1991) eruptions,
also captured in the Stratospheric Aerosol and Gas Experiment (SAGE)
stratospheric AOT record (7). The quasi-periodic oscillations in the
black curve are the result of short-term aerosol variability.
The overall behavior of the column AOT during the eruption-tree
period
from January 1986 to June 1991 (Fig. 1, red line) shows only a hint
of
a statistically significant tendency and indicates that the average
column AOT value just before the Mount Pinatubo eruption was close to
0.142. After the eruption, the GACP curve is a superposition of the
complex volcanic and tropospheric AOT temporal variations. However,
the green line reveals a long-term decreasing tendency in the
tropospheric AOT. Indeed, even if we assume that the stratospheric
AOT
just before the eruption was as large as 0.007 and that by June 2005
the stratospheric AOT became essentially zero (compare with the blue
curve), still the resulting decrease in the tropospheric AOT during
the 14-year period comes out to be 0:03. This trend is
significant at the 99% confidence level.
Admittedly, AVHRR is not an instrument designed for accurate aerosol
retrievals from space. Among the remaining uncertainties is radiance
calibration, which, if inaccurate, can result in spurious aerosol
tendencies. Similarly, substantial systematic changes in the aerosol
single scattering albedo or the ocean reflectance can be
misinterpreted in terms of AOT variations. However, the successful
validation of GACP retrievals
using precise sun photometer data taken from 1983 through 2004 (8, 9)
indicates that the ISCCP radiance calibration is likely to be
reliable. This conclusion is reinforced by the close correspondence
of
calculated and observed TOA solar fluxes (4). Furthermore, the GACP
AOT record appears to be self-consistent, with no drastic
intrasatellite variations, and is consistent with the SAGE record.
The advantage of the AVHRR data set over the data sets collected with
more advanced recent satellite instruments is its duration, which
makes possible reliable detection of statistically significant
tendencies like the substantial de¬
crease of the tropospheric AOT between 1991
and 2005. With all the uncertainties, the troposphere AOT decrease
over the 14-year period is estimated to be at least 0.02. This change
is consistent with long-term atmospheric transmission records
collected in the former Soviet Union (5).
Our results suggest that "the recent downward trend in the
tropospheric AOT may have contributed to the concurrent upward trend
in surface solar fluxes. Neither AVHRR nor other existing satellite
instruments can be used to determine unequivocally whether the recent
AOT trend is due to long-term global changes in natural or
anthropogenic aerosols. This discrimination would be facilitated by
an
instrument like the Aerosol Polarimetry Sensor (APS), scheduled for
launch in December 2008 as part of the NASA Glory
mission (10). It is thus imperative to provide uninterrupted
multidecadal monitoring of aerosols from space with dedicated
instruments like APS in order to detect long-term anthropogenic
trends
potentially having a strong impact on climate.
References and Notes
1. 2. R. T. Pinker, B. Zhang, E. G. Dutton, Science 308, 850
(2005).
3. D. G. Streets, Y. Wu, M. Chin, Geophys. Res. Let!. 33,
L1S806 (2006).
4. Y. Zhang, W. B. Rossow, A. A. Lacis, V. Oinas,
M. I. Mishchenko,]. Geophys. Res. 109, Dl910S (2004).
5. I. V. Geogdzhayev, M. I. Mishchenko, E. I. Terez,
G. A. Terez, G. K. Gushchin,]. Geaphys. Res. 110,
D2320S (2005); and references. therein.
6. W. B. Rossow, R. A. Schiffer, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soe. 80,
2261 (1999); and references therein.
7. ]. Hansen et al.,]. Geophys. Res. 107, 4347 (2002).
8. L. Liu et al.,]. Quant. Spectrase. Radiat. Tronsfer 88, 97
(2004).
9. A. Smirnov et aI., Geophys. Res. Lett. 33, L14817
(2006).
10. M. I. Mishchenko et al.,]. Quant. Spectrose. Radiat.
Transfer 88,149 (2004).
11. This research is part of NASA/Global Energy and Water Cycle
Experiment GACP and was funded by the NASA Radiation Sciences
Program,
managed by H. Maring and D. Anderson.
24 October 2006; accepted 20 December 2006 10.1126/science.1136709

On Mar 27, 12:53 pm, "raylopez99" wrote:
Reproduced below is a paper, published in the March 16 edition of the

Unequivocal, Ray Lopez, "warming of the climate system is unequivocal"

http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...603320,00.html
Warming May Create Climates, Cut Others

Some climates may disappear from Earth entirely, not just from their
current locations, while new climates could develop if the planet
continues to warm, a study says. Such changes would endanger some
plants and animals while providing new opportunities for others, said
John W. Williams, an assistant professor of geography at the
University of Wisconsin, Madison.

Using global change forecasts prepared for the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change, researchers led by Williams used computer models to
estimate how climates in various parts of the world would be affected.
Their findings are being published in this week's online edition of
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The IPCC, representing the world's leading climate scientists,
reported in February that "warming of the climate system is
unequivocal, as is now evident from observation of increases in global
average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice
and rising global average sea level."

Tropical regions in particular may face unexpected changes,
particularly the rain forests in the Amazon and Indonesia, Williams'
researchers concluded.

This was surprising, Williams said in a telephone interview, since the
tropics tend to have little variation in weather.

But that also means temperature changes of 3 or 4 degrees in these
regions might have more impact than a change of 5 to 8 degrees in a
region that is accustomed to regular changes.

Species living in tropical areas may be less able to adapt, he said,
adding that that is speculative and needs further study.

Areas like the Southeastern United States and the Arabian Peninsula
may also be affected, the researchers said, adding that mountain areas
such as in Peruvian and Colombian Andes and regions such as Siberia
and southern Australia face a risk of climates disappearing
altogether.

That doesn't mean these regions would have no climate at all - rather
their climate would change and the conditions currently in these areas
would not occur elsewhere on Earth.

That would pose a risk to species living in those areas, Williams
observed.

If some regions develop new climates that don't now exist, that might
provide an opportunity for species that live there, Williams said.
"But we can't make a prediction because it's outside our current
experience and outside the experience of these species

On Mar 27, 4:53 pm, "raylopez99" wrote:
Reproduced below is a paper, published in the March 16 edition of the
prestigious magazine Science, which argues that based on at least one
set of satellite data (AVHRR), the sun, not man-made CO2, is
responsible for the global warming 'jump' seen in the last 15 years.

Ray - I'm impressed. I guess I better see if I can get a copy of the
article (not that I don't trust you completely, although I don't) and
see how much it tracks your argument.

Without knowing more about the article, though, I'd like to suggest
that it probably still makes sense for the governments of the Earth to
work for reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases, including CO2
and methane, if they want to avoid significant warming of the climate.

The reason being that human civilization can't do anything that we
know about to affect the intensity of the sunlight reaching the
earth. But we might be able to affect the climate through
concentrations of greenhouse gases. So if we want to look at what we
can do to fix the problem (assuming that it is a problem,
which I think most climate scientists would agree is the case), it
makes sense to take the actions that are within our power, not those
that we find impossible to accomplish.

Of course, this same logic would also apply in the event -- the pretty
inevitable event, from what I've read -- that the current
"interglacial" warming period we're living through starts to come to
an end, and the planet again faces the onset of another ice age.

When and if it looks as if the planet is facing another period of
catastrophic cooling, or even the apparently mild onset of such a
period, it may well make sense for humans to start injecting lots of
CO2 into the atmosphere again. Or painting the polar icecaps black,
assuming we still have iceaps by then.

Both extreme environmentalists and extreme devotees of "free market"
mythology tend to be fatalistic
in their rhetoric; both tend to think that we should bow to the weight
of "natural laws," whether these are the laws of Nice Old Mother
Nature (yeah, right!) or the Invisible Hand of the Market.

The fact is, though, that both Mother Nature and the Free Market can
roll right over human societies and wreck them, unless the members of
those societies react and resist effectively. So in the long term,
we ought to be thinking about adjusting greenhouse gas emissions --
and whatever other factors
we can control -- to control both global warming and global cooling.

Yes, this is a bit of a digression, but it ties back to my main point
- - which is that this Science article about sunlight intensity is
very interesting, assuming that it holds up, but it points us away
from factors that we might control to other factors that we can't
control. And if we want to avoid the various ills that the enviros
associate with climate change, we need to look at what we can fix, and
how.

Cheers -
TWJ (Toothless Wino John) Fernbach

On Mar 27, 2:09 pm, "john fernbach" wrote:
On Mar 27, 4:53 pm, "raylopez99" wrote: Reproduced below is a paper, published in the March 16 edition of the
prestigious magazine Science, which argues that based on at least one
set of satellite data (AVHRR), the sun, not man-made CO2, is
responsible for the global warming 'jump' seen in the last 15 years.

Ray - I'm impressed. I guess I better see if I can get a copy of the
article (not that I don't trust you completely, although I don't) and
see how much it tracks your argument.

Without knowing more about the article, though, I'd like to suggest
that it probably still makes sense for the governments of the Earth to
work for reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases, including CO2
and methane, if they want to avoid significant warming of the climate.

The reason being that human civilization can't do anything that we
know about to affect the intensity of the sunlight reaching the
earth. But we might be able to affect the climate through
concentrations of greenhouse gases. So if we want to look at what we
can do to fix the problem (assuming that it is a problem,
which I think most climate scientists would agree is the case), it
makes sense to take the actions that are within our power, not those
that we find impossible to accomplish.

Of course, this same logic would also apply in the event -- the pretty
inevitable event, from what I've read -- that the current
"interglacial" warming period we're living through starts to come to
an end, and the planet again faces the onset of another ice age.

When and if it looks as if the planet is facing another period of
catastrophic cooling, or even the apparently mild onset of such a
period, it may well make sense for humans to start injecting lots of
CO2 into the atmosphere again. Or painting the polar icecaps black,
assuming we still have iceaps by then.

Both extreme environmentalists and extreme devotees of "free market"
mythology tend to be fatalistic
in their rhetoric; both tend to think that we should bow to the weight
of "natural laws," whether these are the laws of Nice Old Mother
Nature (yeah, right!) or the Invisible Hand of the Market.

The fact is, though, that both Mother Nature and the Free Market can
roll right over human societies and wreck them, unless the members of
those societies react and resist effectively. So in the long term,
we ought to be thinking about adjusting greenhouse gas emissions --
and whatever other factors
we can control -- to control both global warming and global cooling.

Yes, this is a bit of a digression, but it ties back to my main point
- - which is that this Science article about sunlight intensity is
very interesting, assuming that it holds up, but it points us away
from factors that we might control to other factors that we can't
control. And if we want to avoid the various ills that the enviros
associate with climate change, we need to look at what we can fix, and
how.

Cheers -
TWJ (Toothless Wino John) Fernbach

Unequivocal, john fernbach, "warming of the climate system is
unequivocal"

http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...603320,00.html
Warming May Create Climates, Cut Others

Some climates may disappear from Earth entirely, not just from their
current locations, while new climates could develop if the planet
continues to warm, a study says. Such changes would endanger some
plants and animals while providing new opportunities for others, said
John W. Williams, an assistant professor of geography at the
University of Wisconsin, Madison.

Using global change forecasts prepared for the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change, researchers led by Williams used computer models to
estimate how climates in various parts of the world would be affected.
Their findings are being published in this week's online edition of
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The IPCC, representing the world's leading climate scientists,
reported in February that "warming of the climate system is
unequivocal, as is now evident from observation of increases in global
average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice
and rising global average sea level."

Tropical regions in particular may face unexpected changes,
particularly the rain forests in the Amazon and Indonesia, Williams'
researchers concluded.

This was surprising, Williams said in a telephone interview, since the
tropics tend to have little variation in weather.

But that also means temperature changes of 3 or 4 degrees in these
regions might have more impact than a change of 5 to 8 degrees in a
region that is accustomed to regular changes.

Species living in tropical areas may be less able to adapt, he said,
adding that that is speculative and needs further study.

Areas like the Southeastern United States and the Arabian Peninsula
may also be affected, the researchers said, adding that mountain areas
such as in Peruvian and Colombian Andes and regions such as Siberia
and southern Australia face a risk of climates disappearing
altogether.

That doesn't mean these regions would have no climate at all - rather
their climate would change and the conditions currently in these areas
would not occur elsewhere on Earth.

That would pose a risk to species living in those areas, Williams
observed.

If some regions develop new climates that don't now exist, that might
provide an opportunity for species that live there, Williams said.
"But we can't make a prediction because it's outside our current
experience and outside the experience of these species

On Mar 27, 3:09 pm, "john fernbach" wrote:
On Mar 27, 4:53 pm, "raylopez99" wrote:
Reproduced below is a paper, published in the March 16 edition of the
prestigious magazine Science, which argues that based on at least one
set of satellite data (AVHRR), the sun, not man-made CO2, is
responsible for the global warming 'jump' seen in the last 15 years.

Ray - I'm impressed. I guess I better see if I can get a copy of the
article (not that I don't trust you completely, although I don't) and
see how much it tracks your argument.


As you wish John.


Without knowing more about the article, though, I'd like to suggest
that it probably still makes sense for the governments of the Earth to
work for reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases, including CO2
and methane, if they want to avoid significant warming of the climate.


That seems to be the consensus--except for one thing: nobody really
knows if CO2 warming is 'significant' (notice the range in mean sea
level rise in the IPCC report--at the lower bound it's a mere 2
inches, insignificant). The best argument made for CO2 reduction is
emotional: since we don't know how CO2 will affect the environment,
better to err on the side of caution and not produce as much. But
this argument is emotional, not scientific, as the smarter AGWers
admit.


The reason being that human civilization can't do anything that we
know about to affect the intensity of the sunlight reaching the
earth. But we might be able to affect the climate through
concentrations of greenhouse gases. So if we want to look at what we
can do to fix the problem (assuming that it is a problem,
which I think most climate scientists would agree is the case), it
makes sense to take the actions that are within our power, not those
that we find impossible to accomplish.

Do you assume that adopting Kyoto will 'fix the problem'? I think
not, and neither do most AGWers.


Of course, this same logic would also apply in the event -- the pretty
inevitable event, from what I've read -- that the current
"interglacial" warming period we're living through starts to come to
an end, and the planet again faces the onset of another ice age.

When and if it looks as if the planet is facing another period of
catastrophic cooling, or even the apparently mild onset of such a
period, it may well make sense for humans to start injecting lots of
CO2 into the atmosphere again. Or painting the polar icecaps black,
assuming we still have iceaps by then.

You assume man can change the environment. This itself is an
assumption that may not be warranted. But, since I share that view,
why not accept that in 100 years, when humans are even richer (but
only if we continue on today's pro-growth path), humans may be able to
remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere using technology?


Both extreme environmentalists and extreme devotees of "free market"
mythology tend to be fatalistic
in their rhetoric; both tend to think that we should bow to the weight
of "natural laws," whether these are the laws of Nice Old Mother
Nature (yeah, right!) or the Invisible Hand of the Market.

The fact is, though, that both Mother Nature and the Free Market can
roll right over human societies and wreck them, unless the members of
those societies react and resist effectively. So in the long term,
we ought to be thinking about adjusting greenhouse gas emissions --
and whatever other factors

I see your point, but ponder this: free market economists have
concluded that a homogeneous society that promotes free trade policies
has greater growth than a heterogenous society with the same policies
(i.e. Sweden grew faster than the USA, historically). Should we send
all blacks back to Africa then? Like according to one story Abraham
Lincoln himself considered? I think not, since it's illiberal in the
long run IMO (though I can't prove it).


we can control -- to control both global warming and global cooling.


Control seems to be a popular word with socialists.

RL

Unequivocal, Joe Fischer, "warming of the climate system is
unequivocal"

http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...603320,00.html
Warming May Create Climates, Cut Others

Some climates may disappear from Earth entirely, not just from their
current locations, while new climates could develop if the planet
continues to warm, a study says. Such changes would endanger some
plants and animals while providing new opportunities for others, said
John W. Williams, an assistant professor of geography at the
University of Wisconsin, Madison.

Using global change forecasts prepared for the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change, researchers led by Williams used computer models to
estimate how climates in various parts of the world would be affected.
Their findings are being published in this week's online edition of
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The IPCC, representing the world's leading climate scientists,
reported in February that "warming of the climate system is
unequivocal, as is now evident from observation of increases in global
average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice
and rising global average sea level."

Tropical regions in particular may face unexpected changes,
particularly the rain forests in the Amazon and Indonesia, Williams'
researchers concluded.

This was surprising, Williams said in a telephone interview, since the
tropics tend to have little variation in weather.

But that also means temperature changes of 3 or 4 degrees in these
regions might have more impact than a change of 5 to 8 degrees in a
region that is accustomed to regular changes.

Species living in tropical areas may be less able to adapt, he said,
adding that that is speculative and needs further study.

Areas like the Southeastern United States and the Arabian Peninsula
may also be affected, the researchers said, adding that mountain areas
such as in Peruvian and Colombian Andes and regions such as Siberia
and southern Australia face a risk of climates disappearing
altogether.

That doesn't mean these regions would have no climate at all - rather
their climate would change and the conditions currently in these areas
would not occur elsewhere on Earth.

That would pose a risk to species living in those areas, Williams
observed.

If some regions develop new climates that don't now exist, that might
provide an opportunity for species that live there, Williams said.
"But we can't make a prediction because it's outside our current
experience and outside the experience of these species