Update 4/4/2014: Under pressure from IPCC’s Climate Mafia author, Bjorn Stevens was forced to recant finding of is own study. Those who understood the results contradicted the IPCC models were subjected to media character assassination by climate fraud autocrats as lowly “right-wing media”.
Climate Scientist: No, My Study Is Not A “Death Blow To Global Warming Hysteria”
Scientist Responds To Right-Wing Media’s Distortion Of His Research
April 3, 2015 – Denise Robbins – Daily Caller (Complete article)
“Conservative media are grossly distorting a recent study on aerosols’ climate impact as a “death blow to global warming hysteria.” But the study’s author himself stated in response that his research does not contradict the scientific consensus on global warming.
A recent study provided new estimates for the rate at which aerosols — tiny particles of matter suspended in the atmosphere – deflect the sun’s rays, measuring what is known as aerosol “radiative forcing.” The study from Germany’s Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, which analyzed data from 1850 to 1950, found that the level of radiative forcing from aerosols is “less negative” than commonly believed, suggesting that aerosols do not cool the atmosphere as much as previously thought.
According to right-wing media, the study represents a “death blow to global warming hysteria.” The reasoning behind the claim, which originated in a Cato Institute blog post, is that climate models rely on aerosols to offset much of the projected greenhouse gas effect from carbon dioxide. So if aerosols offset less warming than commonly believed, Cato claims “the amount of greenhouse gas-induced warming must also be less” and “we should expect less warming from future greenhouse gas emissions than climate models are projecting.” The Cato blog post was picked up by the Daily Caller, American Thinker, Alex Jones’ Infowars, Investors’ Business Daily, and Rush Limbaugh. Daily Caller even claimed that the recent study directly disputes the scientific findings of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, writing: “Basically, the IPCC says aerosols deflect a lot of warming — the opposite of the Max Planck study’s finding.”
Rethinking the lower bound on aerosol radiative forcing
“Based on research showing that in the case of a strong aerosol forcing, this forcing establishes itself early in the historical record, a simple model is constructed to explore the implications of a strongly negative aerosol forcing on the early (pre 1950) part of the instrumental record. This model, which contains terms representing both aerosol-radiation and aerosol-cloud interactions well represents the known time history of aerosol radiative forcing, as well as the effect of the natural state on the strength of aerosol forcing. Model parameters, randomly drawn to represent uncertainty in understanding, demonstrates that a forcing more negative than −1.0 W m−2 is implausible, as it implies that none of the approximately 0.3 K temperature rise between 1850 and 1950 can be attributed to northern-hemispheric forcing. The individual terms of the model are interpreted in light of comprehensive modeling, constraints from observations, and physical understanding, to provide further support for the less negative ( −1.0 W m−2 ) lower bound. These findings suggest that aerosol radiative forcing is less negative and more certain than is commonly believed.”
* Corresponding author address: Bjorn Stevens, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Bundesstrasse 53, 20146 Hamburg, Germany. E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Rethinking the lower bound on aerosol radiative forcing by Bjorn Stevens
Climate alarmists have attempted to use the aerosol forcing produced by burning carbon (fossil) fuel and natural volcanic emissions to explain-way the failure of IPCC models to predict draconian increases in global temperatures.
Now, the IPCC’s excuse for these failed predictions has been challenged in a paper called: Rethinking the lower bound on aerosol radiative forcing by Bjorn Stevens of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, Germany and published in the American Meteorological Society journal.
The study finds that the effects of aerosols on cooling the climate are much smaller (in the direction of warming) than almost all of those used in data selected by IPCC scientists and promoted by policy-makers.
It may be too soon to speculate that data used by the IPCC was a product of “selection bias”, however the history of fraud revealed in the climate-gate scandal remains significant and such manipulation cannot be easily ruled-out.
Importantly, this new study could also challenge the expectations of the atmospheric manipulation industry promoted by atmospheric aerosol geoengineers, David Keith and Ken Caldeira.
To mitigate the effects of increased heating predicted by IPCC’s increasingly dubious models, Keith and Caldeira are proposing that jet aircraft be used to spray hazardous sulfuric acid aerosols into the atmosphere to reflect sunlight back into space.