FerdiEgb <ferdinand.engelbeen@pandora.be> wrote:
Yes, this is a bit OT, but...
> The theory behind the program, that more sunlight is reflected, due to
> (sulphate) aerosols is proven false.
> As you may know, we have some satellites flowing around out of the
> atmosphere, which measure reflected sunlight (SW reflection) and heat
> (LW emission) from below.
> For the (sub)tropics, in the period 1985-2001 the amount of sunlight
> reflected by clouds reduced with ~2 W/m2. (see:
> http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/csrl/publications/pub_exchange/Wielicki_et_al_2002.pdf
> , confirmed for the 30N-30S (sub)tropics in
> http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2002/2002_ChenCarlsonD.pdf )
I could be mistaken, but I believe that the data above do _not_
counter the "dimming" argument.
IIRC, the data presented by those arguing for "dimming" suggest that
the effects of particulates rose from approximately 1965 to 1985, and
then levelled off and began to decline. Which is in line with the
data you indicate. (The scientists presenting the theory may be
wrong, but they are not stupid or ignorant, and I very much doubt that
they are unaware of satellite data.)
That is, the period of maximum "dimming" is already _past_. The
problem is that, if their data (and interpretation) is correct, the
past effects of "dimming" have led to an underestimation of the
already-existing (and future) effects of C02.
--
greg byshenk - gbyshenk@byshenk.net - Leiden, NL
|
|
