Instead of the lazy, hazy, crazy days of summer, we’ve got a new summer color — HEAT DOME BLUE.
Even bluer than yesterday. Hot weather patterns have much less haze now in the east (some of them, you couldn’t see the sun till 8 am). A tribute to the U.S. cleaning a true pollutant out of the sky… SO2.
Which got me to thinking…
Let’s ask the AI to isolate SO2 and WV increases: The idea is that, even without radiative forcing, these factors can explain much of the warming. I am simply doing what the CAGW crowd does. They will dismiss the simple answer and then dump everything on CO2. Well, let’s forget CO2, since we know the bands are saturated, there are diminishing returns, and it needs warming (increased OLR) to aid warming. In other words, treat CO2 the same way the CO2 pushers treat everything else that could challenge their idea: minimize it. Let’s see what this method gives us, and how I can stack the answer the same way they do.
The U.S. reduction in SO2 emissions has increased the amount of incoming solar radiation reaching Earth’s surface (a “global brightening” effect), primarily by reducing sulfate aerosols that scatter sunlight and influence cloud formation. This creates a positive (warming) radiative forcing. U.S. SO2 reductions have contributed roughly 0.1–0.3°C to global warming.
The planet has warmed about 0.7 °C over the past 40 years. Now, if we just account for the increase in water vapor in the past 40 years, using saturation mixing ratio correlations, what would that rise be?
The rise in water vapor content since 1986 correlates, via saturation-mixing-ratio physics, with roughly 0.7–1.0°C of warming. This accounts for almost all the warming. In addition, if we brought SO2 back to its 1980s level and the oceans were at their 1980s levels. Net result: substantial global cooling, potentially 1.5–3°C or more below current levels (bringing temperatures back near or below 1970s–1980s averages, depending on exact implementation and lags). That ought to get some people howling.
This is why the dew point anchor idea is so valuable. It’s not the warming air that leads to the increase in water vapor; it’s the increase in water vapor that sets the base, and then the temperature reacts. This is why looking at decreased cloud cover and the geothermal input is so important to the argument, as it can explain some of the solar, and with the idea that the input of heat into the ocean doesn’t just disappear (unless you assume it does because you don’t actually have the data to see what is going on).
So, this is a simple one plus one equals two. Two variables that, taken on their own, would account for it. And if it were this simple, it would be hugely dangerous to many people who need to be seen as able to lead the way in solving a complex problem to save mankind. No one dismisses climate change; it’s all about attribution. That it’s supposedly settled science and that all the money for research goes toward it should raise suspicion. No one is saying radiative forcing doesn’t have a role here. But the over attribution of CO2 becomes obvious if you simply apply the same kind of dismissal of CO2 that you apply to other factors, arriving at the same conclusion.