Geoengineering proof from NOAA?

reply to post by luxordelphi

it's not from volcanic activity

You read wrong. Or you missed this:

Likely suspects are natural sources – smaller volcanic eruptions – and/or human activities, which could have emitted the sulfur-containing gases, such as sulfur dioxide, that react in the atmosphere to form reflective aerosol particles

www.noaanews.noaa.gov...

Perhaps not entirely from volcanic activity but mostly. The study indicates that the increase in stratospheric aerosols corresponds very closely with 4 volcanic eruptions in particular. Because there were no large eruptions in that period it was possible to see clearly see the effects of those small eruptions. Those small eruptions had greater effect than expected.

Satellite instruments provide evidence that smaller volcanic eruptions can play a more significant role in affecting the background stratospheric aerosol burden than has often been thought (16, 17).

The study does allow that some of the increase may be due to human activity.

The lack of major eruptions since 1991 has made the identification of this input [volcanic] much clearer than earlier measurements, but the data do not rule out some contribution to the increases in the stratospheric aerosol burden from anthropogenic sources [such as coal burning, see (14) as well

But the study also references other studies which showed prior aerosol increases at similar rates as those found in 2000-2010.

The input and decay of material from major volcanic eruptions is readily observed but changes in the underlying “background” have also been noted. Hofmann and coworkers (12–14) argued that the “background” stratospheric aerosol layer increased by 5-9%/year through the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, and again at about 5-7% in the 2000s. However, in the 1990s stratospheric aerosols decreased by similar magnitudes.

Source

While it may be argued that increasing jet travel may account for some of the increase, the decrease in the 1990s makes that explanation problematic. But one thing is clear, similar increases in the background levels have occurred at similar rates before anyone was talking about warming or geoengineering. What is known is that the "background" level of stratospheric aerosols (the level not the result of major eruptions) is variable. The title of the article is, after all,

The Persistently Variable “Background” Stratospheric Aerosol Layer and Global Climate Change

It is that variation which makes predicting the rate of warming problematic. If history is any indication, the rise in over the past decade could very well reverse itself at some point as it has in the past and the rate of warming may increase. Or, on the other hand, the trend could continue and warming would continue to be inhibited.

The changes in the stratospheric aerosol layer have probably affected the observed rates of decadal warming over the past decade, highlighting the importance of the variable stratospheric aerosol layer for past and future decadal climate predictability.

reply to post by Phage


Let's put the whole quote together, since she left out part and you left out part, and see what they are saying and which of your arguements are closer to what they are saying:

The reasons for the 10-year increase in stratospheric aerosols are not fully understood and are the subject of ongoing research... Likely suspects are natural sources – smaller volcanic eruptions – and/or human activities, which could have emitted the sulfur-containing gases, such as sulfur dioxide

A. Increase not fully understood = they don't know what is causing it = her arguement.
B. Likely suspects are smaller volcanic etc.. = they think it might be = your arguement.

She implies it is unknown = true.
You imply it is known ≠ true.

Definition of SUSPECT

1: regarded or deserving to be regarded with suspicion : suspected
2: doubtful, questionable

websters

Suspect = doubtful, questionable.

Now, you provide reasonable doubt that it is those other things = true.
You prove it = false.

Is there another possible explanation? YES... geoengineering. And NOAA doesn't even mention this as a possibility. They skip a logical explanation because they, like you, are toeing the company line.

Is there evidence of current geoengineering? YES.
Evidence exists in pilot testimony, whistleblowers, photographic, and now NOAA's data.

Are they conclusive? NO... only circumstantial.

The question becomes... which is more likely than not?

Many like you think it is more likely there are other sources.
Many think she and I think it is more likely they are geoengineering.

Neither one can be proved conclusively, both are logical and possible.

Even you must admit this or your non admittance shows you are not being logical.

reply to post by pianopraze

She implies it is unknown = true.
You imply it is known ≠ true.

No.
She states:

it's not from volcanic activity

False, according to the study.

I state:

Perhaps not entirely from volcanic activity but mostly.

True, according to study.

Is there another possible explanation? YES... geoengineering.

And geoengineering is a possible explanation for the same rate of increase seen in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. Right, just not a very good one.

reply to post by Phage


I found you a quote.

Stratospheric sulfur aerosols

As of 2009 there have been no explosive and climatically significant volcanic events since Mt. Pinatubo and consequently stratospheric aerosol concentrations are at the lowest concentrations since the satellite era and global coverage began in about 1980.

Here's the situation, as I see it: the study from this OP says that sulphur in the stratosphere is cooling us. The study from Unger says that sulphur in the stratosphere is warming us. This sort of froo froo is a tactic to confuse.

Simple is better. See plane fly. See plane emit massive white billowing crap. See crap spread out over the sky. See sulphur in the stratosphere double.

reply to post by luxordelphi


Sigh...

See plane fly. See plane emit massive white billowing crap. See crap spread out over the sky. See sulphur in the stratosphere double.

You said "white billowing". (Which describes clouds, of ice particles).

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur[Sulphur (sulfur)[/url] is yellow. Purest form. But, you can check out its various compounds....and note its insolubility in water, by the way.....

Once diffuse, and well spread-out (to levels that are not harmful) could be vaguely "whitish".....but in a heavy concentration (such as when immediately "sprayed"...which is not occurring, but "if"...) then it would have a yellowish tinge.

Try again.

And one more thing.....is saying the opposite of what your source says the current trend, now?:

Then claim, from above (repeated)-

See sulphur in the stratosphere double.

Now, the source -

As of 2009 there have been no explosive and climatically significant volcanic events since Mt. Pinatubo and consequently stratospheric aerosol concentrations are at the lowest concentrations since the satellite era and global coverage began in about 1980.

(See emphasis)....

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by DerepentLEstranger

 

Interesting - bu how does exposing strips of fabric coated with e-coli, to see how long the virus will last at that location, equal "spraying"??

When I was a child a big paper and pencil game was called connect the dots, it was pretty simply you just followed the dots until you got the picture.

Poisoning people is one step from the next step, once you start at dot number one you can't help but go to dot number two.....

I believe it is not necessary here to go into the lethal effects of e-coli.
If they did that then they are doing much much more today.

Regards, iwinder

reply to post by luxordelphi

I found you a quote.

Nice quote. But I don't get the point.

The study from Unger says that sulphur in the stratosphere is warming us.

No.
Once again you have it wrong.

What she found is that more warming indeed occurs when you remove sulfur

news.discovery.com...
Less sulfur = more warming.
What she found is that by using lower sulfur fuels, more nitrate aerosols are produced. It's sort of a tradeoff, with the advantage being lower sulfate emissions which add to pollution at low altitudes.

Simple is better. See plane fly. See plane emit massive white billowing crap. See crap spread out over the sky. See sulphur in the stratosphere double.

Why did background aerosol levels drop during the 1990s? Was there a sudden decrease in the amount of fuel being used?
Yes, air travel produces aerosols. No, air travel did not cause aerosol levels to double in the past decade. According to the study of the OP, small (not large) volcanic eruptions are the primary cause of the increase.

slippery slope logical fallacy

Originally posted by Iwinder

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by DerepentLEstranger

 

Interesting - bu how does exposing strips of fabric coated with e-coli, to see how long the virus will last at that location, equal "spraying"??

When I was a child a big paper and pencil game was called connect the dots, it was pretty simply you just followed the dots until you got the picture.

there is no need to connect dots - the video title & associated comments say that e-coli was sprayed.

The video itself says that ecoli was applied to strips of fabric and exposed in several locations to gauge how long it would survive.

these are 2 completely different operations - one is spraying, the other is not.

Poisoning people is one step from the next step, once you start at dot number one you can't help but go to dot number two.....

You can if you examine the evidence and notice that there is no such "dot number two", and that even "dot number one" is actually incorrect.

I believe it is not necessary here to go into the lethal effects of e-coli.
If they did that then they are doing much much more today.

really?

They have done all sorts of things in the past - dropped A-bombs on Japan, legally supported slavery, fought a civil war - which of those are still going on?

the argument that "if they did it in the past they must be doing worse now" is a refuge for those not interested in actual evidence - it is called the

reply to post by Phage

Once again you have it wrong.

To help you with your confusion on who is wrong:

Time To Take Sulfur Out Of Jet Fuel

It’s a win-win situation: Take sulfur out of jet fuel and you can improve air quality and cool climate at the same time.

So, if doing the right thing is so easy, why isn’t it already being done? One reason has been the fear that improving air quality might actually worsen global warming.

Sulfate spewed from volcanoes, for instance, is well known to cool the atmosphere. So, removing sulfur from jet fuel might actually cause more warming—or so it seemed.

What she found is that more warming indeed occurs when you remove sulfur, but that warming is more than offset by a different cooling effect: nitrates, which form from nitrogen oxides in the jet exhaust, also reflect solar radiation back to space.

The end result of Unger’s simulations is that desulfurization of jet fuel produced a small, net cooling effect.

What she found was that more cooling happens without sulphur.

No, air travel did not cause aerosol levels to double in the past decade. According to the study of the OP, small (not large) volcanic eruptions are the primary cause of the increase.

According to the OP study, they don't know. They're torn between volcanoes, although the choices there are dismally small, and coal, the usual China fall guy, because they seem unable or unwilling to put two and two together and come up with a realistic scenario which is that geoengineering of the stratosphere has been in full swing via aircraft and has doubled sulphur in the stratosphere. Something that Mt. Pinatubo was unable to even approach - in fact, sulphur decreased in the decade of that eruption.

And the quote was to illustrate the bi-polar nature of news in the western world for mass consumption i.e. cirrus clouds cool us; cirrus clouds warm us...jet trails cool us; jet trails warm us...sulphur in jet emissions cools us; sulphur in jet emissions warms us...and the winner: sulphur in the stratosphere has doubled; sulphur in the stratosphere is at the lowest levels since 1980...and the runner up: the climate is warming; the climate is cooling.

reply to post by luxordelphi

What she found was that more cooling happens without sulphur.

But you said:

The study from Unger says that sulphur in the stratosphere is warming us.

The study does not say it is sulfur in the stratosphere which is warming us. It is other products of standard jet fuel. Sulfate aerosols help to mitigate the warming effects of those other products by virtue of their scattering effects. What are those other products? Well, CO2 obviously. But also nitrous oxide, another greenhouse gas by virtue of its effect on ozone levels.

The worry was that in using low sulfur fuels, the mitigating impact of the sulphate aerosols would be reduced and thus increase the warming effect of aviation. Unger found that is not the case.

For desulfurized jet fuel, the net climate impact is +40 ± 10 mWm−2 on the 20-year timescale, slightly less warming than the standard fuel case due to the complex interplay between sulfate and nitrate and the competition for ammonia.

www.agu.org...

What she found is that more warming indeed occurs when you remove sulfur, but that warming is more than offset by a different cooling effect: nitrates, which form from nitrogen oxides in the jet exhaust, also reflect solar radiation back to space. Because of some complex interactions among these compounds, and their competition for ammonia, more nitrate forms when there is less sulfate around.

news.discovery.com...

Nitrous oxide (a gas which has a strong positive positive forcing effect), is able to combine with ammonia which would otherwise combine with sulfur. The result is ammonium nitrate aerosols (which, like sulfate aerosols, have a negative forcing effect) and reduced levels of nitrous oxide.

As can be seen in the charts here the primary reason for the net reduction in forcing is due to the reduction of nitrous oxide in the exhaust.
www.agu.org...

Sulfates in the stratosphere are not warming us. Other exhaust products are. Sulfates help mitigate the effects of those other products. The use of low sulfur fuels would reduce the amount of one of those other products and result in slightly less warming.

reply to post by luxordelphi

According to the OP study, they don't know. They're torn between volcanoes, although the choices there are dismally small, and coal, the usual China fall guy,

No.
There are direct observations of high levels of aerosol injection into the stratosphere by small eruptions. They are identified as the primary source with anthropogenic sources begrudgingly acknowledged as possibly contributory.
[image removed per OP request]
www.sciencemag.org...

There are corresponding peaks in global levels. Note also that aerosol levels were lower in 2010 than they were in 1994. [image removed per OP request]
www.sciencemag.org...

Another study:

Recently, the trend, based on ground-based lidar measurements, has been tentatively attributed to an increase of SO2 entering the stratosphere associated with coal burning in Southeast Asia. However, we demonstrate with these satellite measurements that the observed trend is mainly driven by a series of moderate but increasingly intense volcanic eruptions primarily at tropical latitudes. These events injected sulfur directly to altitudes between 18 and 20 km. The resulting aerosol particles are slowly lofted into the middle stratosphere by the Brewer-Dobson circulation and are eventually transported to higher latitudes.

www.agu.org...

a realistic scenario which is that geoengineering of the stratosphere has been in full swing via aircraft and has doubled sulphur in the stratosphere. Something that Mt. Pinatubo was unable to even approach

Are you kidding? Pinatubo increased aerosol levels more than 10 fold. www.pa.op.dlr.de...
What about those increases in the 60s, 70s and 80? Geoengineering?

The input and decay of material from major volcanic eruptions is readily observed
but changes in the underlying “background” have also been noted. Hofmann and coworkers (12–14) argued that the “background” stratospheric aerosol layer increased by 5-9%/year through the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, and again at about 5-7% in the 2000s. However, in the 1990s stratospheric aerosols decreased by similar magnitudes

source

reply to post by Phage

Sulfates in the stratosphere are not warming us. Other exhaust products are.

When all the test tubes are tucked in for the night, the end result is that sulphur warms us and less sulphur is cooler. So now it's safe to take sulphur out of jet fuel and not worry about warming because complex reactions create a net cooling. And all that really says to me is that jet fuel is far better understood than the stratosphere which is 'little understood' and which, I'm sure, has exponentially more complex reactions than jet emissions sans sulphur because in the 1990's, without injections of sulphur, the climate was not as warm as it is now.

There are direct observations of high levels of aerosol injection into the stratosphere by small eruptions. They are identified as the primary source with anthropogenic sources begrudgingly acknowledged as possibly contributory.

Let's just back up a half sec on the observations of injections. What does that mean? The sulphur, as sulphur, stays in the stratosphere for 1 to 2 weeks. The part that becomes acid stays 1 to 2 years. So most of what is seen there will almost immediately fall back into the troposphere.

2nd, in order to verify that those lidar images haven't been fudged I'd have to go and look up those small volcanoes and see if they are strato and then look up the news reports at the time to see how many miles up the ejection went. Given the continued bi-polar nature of data coming out of officialdom, it all needs to be put under a magnifying glass.

Are you kidding? Pinatubo increased aerosol levels more than 10 fold.

That's my whole point. And that's the lie in the data. Pinatubo was a major injection into the stratosphere and yet aersol levels dropped in the 1990's. There was no major eruption in the 2000's and yet aerosol levels doubled. But did they? Or is there some weakness in the propoganda chain?

Increase in particles high in Earth's atmosphere

Stratospheric aerosol increased surprisingly rapidly in that time, almost doubling during the decade

Stratospheric Sulfur Aerosols

As of 2009 there have been no explosive and climatically significant volcanic events since Mt. Pinatubo and consequently stratospheric aerosol concentrations are at the lowest concentrations since the satellite era and global coverage began in about 1980.

What about those increases in the 60s, 70s and 80? Geoengineering?

Industry? Largely unregulated industry? The 1990's brought regulation and green. We were all out separating our trash into paper, plastic, glass and organic. We were scrutinizing gross polluters in vehicles and in industry. That was what changed and even the mighty Pinatubo wasn't able to overcome that change.

Observation is so refreshing. What we see is what it is. Attempts to paint complex pictures just get old. Back to basics: see plane fly; see plane spew stuff; see sulphur levels double.

reply to post by luxordelphi

So now it's safe to take sulphur out of jet fuel and not worry about warming because complex reactions create a net cooling.

No, you still don't have it right. Aircraft exhaust would still produce net warming. Just slightly less. And the reactions are not that complex. It's more a matter of one reaction taking precedence over another.

And all that really says to me is that jet fuel is far better understood than the stratosphere which is 'little understood' and which, I'm sure, has exponentially more complex reactions than jet emissions sans sulphur because in the 1990's, without injections of sulphur, the climate was not as warm as it is now.

In the 1990s, without the higher levels of CO2, the climate was not as warm as it is now.
www.nzinstitute.org...
Without the contribution of small volcanic eruptions in the last decade, it would have been slightly warmer in 2010 than it was.

The part that becomes acid stays 1 to 2 years. So most of what is seen there will almost immediately fall back into the troposphere.

You claim that aerosol levels would peak immediately and rapidly decline? Source please. That's not what the data shows.

I'd have to go and look up those small volcanoes and see if they are strato and then look up the news reports at the time to see how many miles up the ejection went.

When you don't like what the data says, question it. When you like what it says (or what you think it says) accept it. Good plan. News reports are not the best source of scientific data but be my guest. But as I posted, the volcanoes do not need to inject sulfur directly into the stratosphere.

That's my whole point. And that's the lie in the data. Pinatubo was a major injection into the stratosphere and yet aersol levels dropped in the 1990's. There was no major eruption in the 2000's and yet aerosol levels doubled. But did they? Or is there some weakness in the propoganda chain?

You said that Pinatubo was unable to double aerosol levels. That is nonsense. Pinatubo increased aerosol levels by a factor of more than 10. Did you even look at the chart? It took 4 years for those levels to return to background levels and those levels continued to decline to below those before the eruption. That means there was a net decline in background levels through the decade.

Industry? Largely unregulated industry? The 1990's brought regulation and green. We were all out separating our trash into paper, plastic, glass and organic.

Were all the developed and developing regions of the world so diligent in the 1990s? Since you are so concerned about the ability of sulfur from small volcanic eruptions to reach the stratosphere, can you explain how sulfur from industry would be able to do so? You scoff at anthropogenic sources (other than aircraft) as being a possible source of the increase in the past decade yet you declare it was industry which was responsible for the increase in prior decades.

Besides not being able to convincingly dispute the evidence for volcanic activity as the primary cause of the increase in the past decade you have not explained the increases in background in the 60s, 70s, and 80s.

You seem concerned about the "doubling" of aerosols. You understand that when a very low number is doubled, you get a very low number. In 2000 aerosol levels were extremely low (being 9 years after a major eruption). So, even with that (near) doubling, in 2010 levels were still as low as they were 30 years ago. And, if you look at data from before the "satellite era" they were as low as they were 60 years ago.
www.columbia.edu...

reply to post by Phage

No, you still don't have it right.

I had it right the first time. Trouble is you don't want to deal in bottom lines. And why is that? Because the bottom line in this case would mean that the elevated sulphur levels are for nothing and the 'proposals' for sulphur to 'cool' us are the ditherings of idiots.

In the 1990s, without the higher levels of CO2, the climate was not as warm as it is now.

Carbon dioxide is another bi-polar media event i.e. now it's bad and now it's not. On this one, I'm going to agree with you and follow the money to see who benefits by a mass perception that carbon dioxide is not at fault.

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

You claim that aerosol levels would peak immediately and rapidly decline? Source please. That's not what the data shows.

Volcanic Sulfur Aerosols...USGS

The most significant impacts from large explosive eruptions come from the conversion of sulfur dioxide (SO2) to sulfuric acid (H2SO4), which condenses rapidly in the stratosphere to form fine sulfate aerosols. The aerosols increase the reflection of radiation from the Sun back into space and thus cool the Earth's lower atmosphere or troposphere; however, they also absorb heat radiated up from the Earth, thereby warming the stratosphere.

The eruption of El Chichon, Mexico, in 1982 conclusively demonstrated this idea was correct. The explosive eruption injected at least 8 Mt of sulfur aerosols into the atmosphere, and it was followed by a measureable cooling of parts of the Earth's surface and a warming of the upper atmosphere.

A similar-sized eruption at Mount St. Helens in 1980, however, injected only about 1 Mt of sulfur aerosols into the stratosphere. The eruption of Mount St. Helens injected much less sulfur into the atmosphere--it did not result in a noticeable cooling of the Earth's surface.

Volcanic Gases

The amount of SO2 released by volcanoes is much less compared to man-made sources but the impact of some eruptions might be disproportionately large. The gases emitted by most eruptions and by man-made sources never leave the troposphere, the layer in the atmosphere from the surface to about 10 km.

The impact of eruptions may not last very long. The aerosols in the stratosphere from mid-range eruptions (St. Helens, Alaid) settled back to the troposphere in about 5-8 months (Kent and McCormick, 1984).

For large eruptions like El Chichon it takes about 12 months for SO2 levels in the stratosphere to return to pre-eruption levels.

Pinto and others (1989) suggested that at high eruption rates aerosols tend to make larger particles, not greater numbers of same size aerosol particles. Larger particles have smaller optical depth per unit mass, relative to smaller particles, and settle out of the stratosphere faster.

When you don't like what the data says, question it. When you like what it says (or what you think it says) accept it. Good plan.

That's unfair. When the data, because of conflict with other data or conflict with observation, belongs in a carnival, I'm not going to run with it. Almost all of the data coming out of official sources these days meets that criteria - it is in direct conflict with other data and it is in direct conflict with observation. To me, that's not data, it's propoganda. It's designed to get me to feel and think a certain way.
(I'll get to the rest of your post later.)

reply to post by luxordelphi

No. You had it wrong from the beginning. You said that Unger says that reduced sulfur fuels would have a net cooling effect. That is not true. It would result in less warming by aircraft exhaust products. It would be wonderful if the positive forcing of air travel could be reversed, but it can't be (at least, not by something as simple as running low sulfur fuel). This has nothing to do with the proposals regarding SRM because those proposals increase aerosol levels without changing (in either direction) the positive forcing factors (CO2, N2O).

Carbon dioxide is another bi-polar media event i.e. now it's bad and now it's not.

Carbon dioxide is not "bi-polar" (and neither are the effects of increased stratospheric aerosols). Carbon dioxide causes positive forcing. The study in the article you linked does not say it doesn't. It's unfortunate that you have chosen a study which has been heavily criticized and disproven.The model which the study utilized (to demonstrate that the models don't work) was overly simplified, to the point of being completely ineffective. While the article really doesn't say much more than we don't know everything there is to know about climate, it was flawed. So much so that the editor-in-chief of the journal which published it resigned over it.

Prof Wolfgang Wagner wrote in an editorial published on Friday in Remote Sensing that he felt obliged to resign because it was now apparent to him that a paper entitled On the misdiagnosis of surface temperature feedbacks from variations in Earth's radiant energy balance by Roy Spencer and Danny Braswell, was "fundamentally flawed and therefore wrongly accepted by the journal". Spencer has frequently appeared in the right wing media in the US criticising "climate alarmism" and is the author of a book called The Great Global Warming Blunder.

www.guardian.co.uk...

I fail to see the relevance of your first source (USGS) to the question I asked. Yes, SO2 gas forms H2SO4 in the and it condenses into aerosols. That's what we are talking about. The study(ies) show that small eruptions are have major influence on background levels of aerosols. Large eruptions (El Chichon, Pinatubo) inject enough aerosols to have a net cooling effect and temperatures actually dropped. Small eruptions do not inject enough to have a net cooling effect but they do increase aerosol levels.

I'm not sure of the point you're trying to make with your second source either. The references are quite dated (the most recent being 1989) and don't seem to reflect what the data actually shows. Aerosol levels did not return to pre El Chichon levels until at least 4 years afterwards and Pinatubo was similar. But in any case what we are seeing in the past decade was not large, widely spaced in time eruptions but:

a series of moderate but increasingly intense volcanic eruptions primarily at tropical latitudes.

www.agu.org...
We don't see a major spike in aerosols, we see a gradual, unsteady climb. The peaks in that climb correlate with volcanic eruptions. The satellite data shows the injection of aerosols into the stratosphere by those eruptions.

reply to post by Phage

That means there was a net decline in background levels through the decade.

Yes and that's the bottom line in this case which illustrates my point that you have trouble grappling with the implications of conclusions whether flawed, fudged or artificially isolated.

Since you are so concerned about the ability of sulfur from small volcanic eruptions to reach the stratosphere, can you explain how sulfur from industry would be able to do so?

Neither can reach the stratosphere and remain there in amounts large enough to explain a doubling of sulphur in the 2000's and a decrease in sulphur in the 1990's. Geoengineering in full swing with a fleet of delivery systems more than adequately explains it. It's a case of another inconvenient study.

You scoff at anthropogenic sources (other than aircraft) as being a possible source of the increase in the past decade yet you declare it was industry which was responsible for the increase in prior decades.

Prior to 1980, statistics are said to be unreliable.

Stratospheric Aerosol and Gas Experiment I

The Stratospheric Aerosol and Gas Experiment I (SAGE I) instrument was launched February 18, 1979, aboard the Applications Explorer Mission-B (AEM-B) satellite (McCormick et al., 1979). The SAGE I instrument had four spectral channels centered at wavelengths of 1000, 600, 450, and 385 nanometers for nearly global measurement of aerosol extinction profiles and ozone and nitrogen dioxide concentration profiles.

So it's really only 3 decades that we're concerned with. It was in the 1980's that a scientific data bottleneck was established. It was not until the 2000's that independent researchers and scientific communities from other countries began in earnest conducting their own studies and launching their own data gathering apparatus. The propoganda machine was in full swing by then and discrediting 'Spanish scientists' and 'Russian scientists' etc. became the new M.O. rather than deal with the inconvenient truths that these groups found.

Also, prior to 1980, the primary concern was carbon dioxide. And the ozone hole. So a decrease in the 1990's despite Pinatubo, IMO, was the result of a society alarmed and forcing industry to regulate emissions.

You said that Unger says that reduced sulfur fuels would have a net cooling effect. That is not true. It would result in less warming by aircraft exhaust products.

I urge you to comprehend what you are saying. The bottom line is that less sulphur = cooler. It's inconvenient to the sulphur proposals and very inconvenient as far as what's actually, clandestinely, being done. Still...there it is. And extrapolating from that jet fuel into the exponentially more complex environment of the stratosphere, we find that temperatures where I am are in the 80's in March. Something that has never happened before. Stratigically, sulphur injections into the stratosphere were a collosal mistake. They had the opposite effect.

It's unfortunate that you have chosen a study which has been heavily criticized and disproven.

I chose it on purpose to illustrate the folly of a bottleneck for scientific data in a global age. When observation meets propoganda, who wins? Who wins when an immovable object meets an unstoppable force? We're going to see.

I'm not sure of the point you're trying to make with your second source either. The references are quite dated (the most recent being 1989) and don't seem to reflect what the data actually shows.

Kind of surprised at that...aggregates mean nothing to you? Fall speeds and times of aggregates are incidental? And I got the point of tropical latitudes and don't you think that this information at this time is just a bit too convenient? I'm all for effects by latitude...we've been around this block before...but, again, are they strato volcanoes? And Pinatubo is at 15 degrees latitude which qualifies as tropical and yet sulphur levels dropped. It's not adding up for me. And it's not adding up because I've done my homework.

reply to post by luxordelphi

Neither can reach the stratosphere and remain there in amounts large enough to explain a doubling of sulphur in the 2000's and a decrease in sulphur in the 1990's.

But you claimed the opposite, that increases in prior decades were due to industry and that the decrease in the 1990s was due to regulation of emissions.

Originally posted by Phage
What about those increases in the 60s, 70s and 80? Geoengineering?

Originally posted by luxordelphi
Industry? Largely unregulated industry? The 1990's brought regulation and green. We were all out separating our trash into paper, plastic, glass and organic. We were scrutinizing gross polluters in vehicles and in industry. That was what changed and even the mighty Pinatubo wasn't able to overcome that change.

You have provided nothing which contradicts the direct evidence of the increase in the 2000s being closely tied to volcanic activity.

Prior to 1980, statistics are said to be unreliable.

You're again claiming the data is bad? That there were no increases in the 60s and 70s?
Said by whom? How unreliable? Unreliable enough to be completely disregarded?

So it's really only 3 decades that we're concerned with.

Ok, let's only look at three decades. Now explain why, after a decade or more of geoengineering, aerosol levels in 2009 were lower than they were in 1980? You posted it yourself. Remember?

Originally posted by luxordelphi
Stratospheric Sulfur Aerosols

As of 2009 there have been no explosive and climatically significant volcanic events since Mt. Pinatubo and consequently stratospheric aerosol concentrations are at the lowest concentrations since the satellite era and global coverage began in about 1980.

It was in the 1980's that a scientific data bottleneck was established. It was not until the 2000's that independent researchers and scientific communities from other countries began in earnest conducting their own studies and launching their own data gathering apparatus.

Now you want to reject the data in the study of the OP entirely because it can't be trusted. What does that leave you with? Nothing. You just rejected your "proof."

Also, prior to 1980, the primary concern was carbon dioxide. And the ozone hole. So a decrease in the 1990's despite Pinatubo, IMO, was the result of a society alarmed and forcing industry to regulate emissions.

So now you're back to saying that the reduction of aerosols in the 1990s was the result of a reduction of industrial emissions. Did I misunderstand this?

Neither can reach the stratosphere and remain there in amounts large enough to explain a doubling of sulphur in the 2000's and a decrease in sulphur in the 1990's.

It seems that you directly contradicted yourself again. If it wasn't a lack of volcanic activity or industry, why did aerosol levels drop to below their 1990 levels. BTW, didn't the geoengineering you speak of supposedly begin in the mid 1990s? I thought it was supposed to work fast.

I urge you to comprehend what you are saying. The bottom line is that less sulphur = cooler.

I urge you to understand that the reason low sulfur fuels would produce less warming is because less nitrous oxide (a lot less) is released into the atmosphere, it is not because there are less aerosols. This discussion is about aerosols.

And Pinatubo is at 15 degrees latitude which qualifies as tropical and yet sulphur levels dropped. It's not adding up for me. And it's not adding up because I've done my homework.

Yes, after 4 years the aerosols produced by Pinatubo returned to their prior low levels. Aerosols do not stay suspended indefinitely. They continued to drop to their very low background levels because there were no major eruptions to cause a major increase. From a bottoming out around 2000, small contributions from several volcanic eruptions increased levels but they remained below levels of 30 years before.

You are caught up in your confirmation bias. You continue to attempt to twist or reject the data (with no valid reason other than "it must be wrong") in order to demonstrate that a change in background levels of stratospheric aerosols is evidence that geoengineering is occurring. You reject the data used in the very study which you say shows proof of geoengineering. For you, the only data which is good is the data that, to your mind, shows that geoengineering is occurring.

You are trying so hard to make it fit your preconceived notion that you repeatedly contradict yourself.

reply to post by Phage

But you claimed the opposite, that increases in prior decades were due to industry and that the decrease in the 1990s was due to regulation of emissions.

If you've run out of arguments, just say so. No need to get ridiculous. I don't expect you to ever agree with me because a body in motion tends to stay in motion.

You have provided nothing which contradicts the direct evidence of the increase in the 2000s being closely tied to volcanic activity.

Nice try. You've provided no evidence that it is. All you've provided are the mumblings of a community that can't explain it.

Ok, let's only look at three decades. Now explain why, after a decade or more of geoengineering, aerosol levels in 2009 were lower than they were in 1980? Remember?

Yes, I do remember. I supplied that quote in direct contradiction to the NOAA study as an example of how useless data from a propoganda machine is.

BTW, didn't the geoengineering you speak of supposedly begin in the mid 1990s? I thought it was supposed to work fast.

Stick to the facts. There is no evidence of sulphur being mainlined via jets into the stratosphere prior to the 2000's. Why? Because sulphur levels dropped in the 1990's and doubled in the 2000's. Despite Pinatubo in the 1990's and no Pinatubo equivalent in the 2000's. So why did they double - simple, geoengineering injecting sulphur directly into the stratosphere as per the carefully planned proposals.

This discussion is about aerosols.

From the OP article:

NOAA study: Increase in particles high in Earth's atmosphere

The reasons for the 10-year increase in stratospheric aerosols are not fully understood and are the subject of ongoing research, says coauthor Ryan Neely, with the University of Colorado and the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES). Likely suspects are natural sources – smaller volcanic eruptions – and/or human activities, which could have emitted the sulfur-containing gases, such as sulfur dioxide, that react in the atmosphere to form reflective aerosol particles

It's definitely sulphur they're fixated on and why would that be? Because they have a lot of explaining to do about the sulphur in light of no Pinatubo.

The whole propoganda point of the article is yeah, sulphur doubled, but isn't it wonderful, because we were all cooled because of it. Your're just not happy that Unger found it ain't so. And it also ain't so where I am. There's been no cooling here - just escalated warming.

You are trying so hard to make it fit your preconceived notion that you repeatedly contradict yourself.

No. You have no data to support small volcanoes other than you think someone might have said that this could be the reason sulphur doubled. My suspect is far more viable. I appreciate that because I have shown 180 degree swings by the powers that be on all these issues, you have to show that it's me and not them. Still...I'm not in the habit of shooting myself in the foot - something that these guys seem to do on a daily basis.

reply to post by luxordelphi

If you've run out of arguments, just say so.

And thus you brush off your self contradiction?

This is what you said:
1) Unregulated industry (not volcanic activity) led to increased sulfur in the 60s, 70s, and 80s.
2) Neither volcanic activity nor industry can explain the decrease of sulfur in the 90s because they cannot inject enough sulfur into the stratosphere.
3) The regulation of industry in the 90s led to the decrease of aerosols in the 90s.

Yes, I do remember. I supplied that quote in direct contradiction to the NOAA study as an example of how useless data from a propoganda machine is.

It does not contradict the NOAA study, it confirms it. Aerosol levels in 2009 were lower than they were in 1980.

Yes, aerosol amounts nearly doubled between 2000 and 2010. They did so in the 60s. They did so in the 70s and they did so in the 80s. But if you start with a very low number and double it, you get a very low number. That very low number was lower than the number from 1980. Aerosol levels in 2009 (from the wiki article) were lower than they were in 1980. Aerosol levels in 2010 (from the data in the NOAA study) were a teensy bit higher than 2009 as a result of the eruption of Sarychev but they were still no higher than in 1980.


The data is there. Either you haven't looked at it, you don't understand it, or you reject it. If you reject it you are rejecting the data which you claim is proof of geoengineering. If you reject the data you...have...nothing.

reply to post by Phage

Ok, let's only look at three decades. Now explain why, after a decade or more of geoengineering, aerosol levels in 2009 were lower than they were in 1980? You posted it yourself. Remember?

see 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens.

en.wikipedia.org...