Where does the Equilibrium Sensitivity lie for a Doubling of CO2?

[csnavywx]

I highly doubt that aerosols are driving the recent hiatus in temperatures, considering that the net forcing from SO2 remained largely unchanged when the decadal temperature trends significantly changed. This can be seen in a figure from Kaufmann et al. 2011.

Note that there is no change in the SO2 forcing (purple line) during the hiatus.

Once again, you jump to conclusions and cherry pick what YOU want to believe.

From the paper (which I linked just last week to SUPPORT my argument.... ):

"Increasing emissions and concentrations of carbon dioxide receive

considerable attention, but our analyses identify an important

change in another pathway for anthropogenic climate change

—a rapid rise in anthropogenic sulfur emissions driven by large

increases in coal consumption in Asia in general, and China in

particular. Chinese coal consumption more than doubles in the

4 y from 2003 to 2007 (the previous doubling takes 22 y, 1980–

2002). In this four year period, Chinese coal consumption

accounts for 77% of the 26% rise in global coal consumption (8).

These increases are large relative to previous growth rates. For

example, global coal consumption increases only 27% in the

twenty two years between 1980 and 2002 (8). Because of the resultant

increase in anthropogenic sulfur emissions, there is a

0.06 W∕m2 (absolute) increase in their cooling effect since 2002

(Fig. 1). This increase partly reverses a period of declining sulfur

emissions that had a warming effect of 0.19 W∕m2 between 1990

and 2002."

Did you catch that part about falling SO2 emissions? Me neither. And where has coal from China since the end of this study (2007) ? Up... by 50%. Easily provable with EIA data that anyone can get.

It's also interesting that skepticalscience did a piece on this paper (and related papers):

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Why-The-Hottest-Decade-Was-Not-Hotter-.html

So, let me get this straight. You cherry picked a piece of data out of a paper that refutes what you're saying in this thread, and then failed to even get that right?

It seems to me that you need to do a wholesale re-evaluation of what you've been posting in this forum, because it isn't holding up, and the hollowness of your arguments have become extremely transparent.

[ORH_wxman]

I am also highly skeptical that aerosols are the main driver of the temperature fall from 1945-1975 and then the subsequent increase to the 2000s and then the flat lining since 2001-2002.

I think they play a role, but are the secondary driver behind the mutli-decadal ocean oscillations in the Pacific ocean.

I also don't buy snowlover's solar argument either.

[Snow_Miser]

Once again, you jump to conclusions and cherry pick what YOU want to believe.

From the paper (which I linked just last week to SUPPORT my argument.... ):

"Increasing emissions and concentrations of carbon dioxide receive

considerable attention, but our analyses identify an important

change in another pathway for anthropogenic climate change

—a rapid rise in anthropogenic sulfur emissions driven by large

increases in coal consumption in Asia in general, and China in

particular. Chinese coal consumption more than doubles in the

4 y from 2003 to 2007 (the previous doubling takes 22 y, 1980–

2002). In this four year period, Chinese coal consumption

accounts for 77% of the 26% rise in global coal consumption (8).

These increases are large relative to previous growth rates. For

example, global coal consumption increases only 27% in the

twenty two years between 1980 and 2002 (8). Because of the resultant

increase in anthropogenic sulfur emissions, there is a

0.06 W∕m2 (absolute) increase in their cooling effect since 2002

(Fig. 1). This increase partly reverses a period of declining sulfur

emissions that had a warming effect of 0.19 W∕m2 between 1990

and 2002."

Did you catch that part about falling SO2 emissions? Me neither. And where has coal from China since the end of this study (2007) ? Up... by 50%. Easily provable with EIA data that anyone can get.

It's also interesting that skepticalscience did a piece on this paper (and related papers):

http://www.skeptical...ot-Hotter-.html

So, let me get this straight. You cherry picked a piece of data out of a paper that refutes what you're saying in this thread, and then failed to even get that right?

It seems to me that you need to do a wholesale re-evaluation of what you've been posting in this forum, because it isn't holding up, and the hollowness of your arguments have become extremely transparent.

The charts speak for themselves. I find it extremely hard to attribute the hiatus to SO2 and particulate matter, when, according to their own graph, there isn't much going on with the SO2 forcing. (-0.06 w/m^2). Do you really expect such a minor forcing to be able to cancel a significant portion of the warming impact from Greenhouse Gases?

What appears more likely to explain the hiatus, as their graph shows is the rapid increase of the SOI levels, indicative of a strong La Nina, probably associated with the flip to the -PDO.

That was actually a pretty violent response from you. I wasn't expecting that.

[Snow_Miser]

And you continue to post this nonsense. You declare "it's too early to determine what the exact sensitivity is", which is true, but then stretch out a time-tested minor forcing to claim this? Give me a break. There's a mountain of research pointing against this notion.

The indirect solar forcings are not minor forcings, and have been observed to have a significant impact on the parameters of the climate system.

[Snow_Miser]

I am also highly skeptical that aerosols are the main driver of the temperature fall from 1945-1975 and then the subsequent increase to the 2000s and then the flat lining since 2001-2002.

I think they play a role, but are the secondary driver behind the mutli-decadal ocean oscillations in the Pacific ocean.

I also don't buy snowlover's solar argument either.

I also agree that aerosols play a role, but I can't see how they can play a significant role in the hiatus, considering that the forcing from aerosols was -0.06 w/m^2 during the hiatus.