I don't know what rock Anthony's been hiding under all this time. (Despite his recent misplaced outrage, he can't have read any of the previous IPCC reports.) It's not as if he doesn't boast that his blog is "...the world's most viewed climate website" - which is, of course, wrong. WUWT may be the world's most viewed anti-science website, but it would be most inaccurate to describe WUWT as a "climate" website. At best it's a disinformation resource for hard line climate science deniers and extremist right wing ideologues.Back to the smog. There was a paper presented by O'Dowd et al at a recent AIP international conference. The paper was called: Cleaner air: Brightening the pollution perspective? Here is the abstract (my paras):
Clean-air policies in developing countries have resulted in reduced levels of anthropogenic atmospheric aerosol pollution. Reductions in aerosol pollution is thought to result in a reduction in haze and cloud layers, leading to an increase in the amount of solar radiation reaching the surface, and ultimately, an increase in surface temperatures.
There have been many studies illustrating coherent relationships between surface solar radiation and temperature however, a direct link between aerosol emissions, concentrations, and surface radiation has not been demonstrated to date.
Here, we illustrate a coherence between the trends of reducing anthropogenic aerosol emissions and concentrations, at the interface between the North-East Atlantic and western-Europe, leading to a staggering increase in surface solar radiation of the order of ∼20% over the last decade.
A couple of things are of interest. Firstly, the paper seems to have put a number on the amount by which reduction in aerosols has contributed to an increase in surface solar radiation. Secondly they appear to be defining an area to which the number applies: the "interface" between the North-East Atlantic and western-Europe. I'm not sure what they mean by that exactly. Probably they are referring to an area of land and ocean and maybe have a map in the paper itself, or the presentation. They probably indicate a time period in the paper, too. Could be since the 1960s, which is when most developed nations started to introduce clean air regulations.
The comments are weird.
Anthony Watts rejects the Greenhouse Effect and becomes a Little Ice Age Bouncer
Anthony Watts is now stepping away from his acceptance of the greenhouse effect. See his inline response to this comment:
August 19, 2013 at 1:02 pm If i get this right, industrial pollution masked the natural warming from the Little Ice Age and the clean air initiatives caused the earth temperatures to rebound to normal levels.
REPLY: Bingo. – Anthony
There are more "it's magic" Little Ice Age Bouncers in among the comments, like RobRoy, who says:
August 19, 2013 at 1:13 pm That natural warming trend seen in the temp records as recovery from the LIA is so often dis-regarded. How many times do warmist types crow over record high temps. Or a record in record high temps. Record high temps would be expected with even with ZERO CO2 effects, through the oft forgotten natural warming trend we have enjoyed since the LIA.
WUWT-ers and aerosols
Lots of WUWT commenters have never heard of the fact that aerosols reflect incoming solar radiation. You've got to wonder at their ignorance, particular that displayed by the WUWT regulars. For example Peter Miller says:
August 19, 2013 at 1:23 pm Seems to make a lot of sense, so the Global Warming Industry will do their very best to ensure this theory is stillborn. C’mon trolls, do your best..
Some of them have read about this before but don't accept the idea. Mike Jonas says:
August 19, 2013 at 1:42 pm Count me out. This smells just like the claims that the ~1940-70 cooling was caused by (man-made, unmeasured) aerosols. This hypothesis only runs marginally OK from ~1940 onwards. It has no explanation for the ~1910-40 warming, or for the cooling before that. To me, it’s a non-starter.
Cleaner air is down to technology, not regulation?
One person has decided that regulations had nothing to do with cleaning up air pollution. They put it all down to technology. Chip says:
August 19, 2013 at 4:32 pm I would disagree with one point. The air didn’t get cleaner because of laws, but because technology and wealth enabled us not to pollute.
Anthony Watts is unfamiliar with scientific conferences
Anthony Watts understands very little about scientific research. He mistakes the conference paper for a peer-reviewed journal article, responding to a query from John W, who asks:August 19, 2013 at 1:51 pm Is this a peer review paper….? I could not tell from the link.
REPLY: yes, it is in the American Institute of Physics (AIP) website – Anthony
A few more choice comments from WUWT
A few more comments - chosen for different various reasons, mostly amusement:
Other_Andy asks about UHI:
August 19, 2013 at 2:15 pm Also wondering, as many stations are in or near cities\ airports, how this will affect UHI for weather stations.
ntesdorf's brain can't conceive that more than one thing affects climate:
August 19, 2013 at 3:32 pm This theory is far more convincing than the CAGW due to CO2 and other ‘greenhouse’ gases. However, first, I would like to check some temperature records that have not been surgically renovated to support the CAGW cause..
highflight56433 reckons scientists should not be the ones reviewing science (he probably thinks it should be judged by the scientific illiterati):
August 19, 2013 at 8:43 pm …peer review? Like having 12 bank robbers as jurors to pass judgment over a bank robbery case.
In fact that thread is so chock-full of denier weirdness I'm having a hard time picking out the most choice comments.
Colin O'Dowd, Darius Ceburnis, Aditya Vaishya, S. Gerard Jennings, and Eoin Moran (2013) Cleaner air: Brightening the pollution perspective? AIP Conf. Proc. 1527, pp. 579-582; doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4803337
