Global Surface Air Temperatures

[oren]

Great, so US temperatures decreased compared to the man-made hell of the dustbowl era.

[wolfpack513]

JMA places October 2019 at 2nd warmest October on record.  JMA's coverage at the poles is sparse which is a big difference from Copernicus.  Copernicus place October 2019 as the warmest just over October 2015.

[nanning]

How to recognize an anomaly in an acceleratingly changing biosphere?
How many more records before it is enough and drastic global action will be taken?

[Tor Bejnar]

Okay, 2-days ago morning wasn't a record where I live, but it was the coldest November 13 in (my) memory. (I think I remember last year...)  And besides, the heat was barely on today and I had to put on a sweater (jersey to English speakers) at work.  You expect me to focus on how hot it was, like, a month ago? Or even, you know, trust the people who carefully take measurements every day, around the world?

I say, BAU until they wrest the controls from my sweaty hands. [/sarc]

Then I shed a tear for what we are doing (to my adult kids and the next generations, to the trees I've planted, to the rocks I've studied).  We do that: cry over spilt milk, when we know we could have prevented the spill in the first place.  (And then distract ourselves with all the times we did prevent a spot of milk from spilling.)

[wolfpack513]

NOAA & Berkeley Earth also came in at 2nd warmest October behind 2015.

Here's overlapping 30-year trends for Berkeley Earth.  Trend has slowly risen from 0.18° per decade starting in the early 1970's to currently 0.20°C per decade.

[Richard Rathbone]

Tamino finds statistically significant acceleration in one dataset (Copernicus, which is actually a reanalysis, so not as strong a finding as it would be if the others were finding it too) and others not that far away from it.

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2019/11/08/global-temperature-update-6/#more-10959

[ArcticMelt2]

ENSO index remains in neutral phase:



But this year is already competing with 2016 for the title of warmest.

http://www.karstenhaustein.com/reanalysis/gfs0p5/GFS_anomaly_timeseries_global_2016.png
2016: Average temperature +0.58 С to norm 1981-2010 years

http://www.karstenhaustein.com/reanalysis/gfs0p5/GFS_anomaly_timeseries_global.png
2019: Average temperature +0.54 С to norm 1981-2010 years


The planet is entering a new phase of accelerating warming

The difference between 2016 and 2019 on today decreased to 0.007 degrees Celsius.

A month ago it was 0.04 degrees Celsius.

http://www.karstenhaustein.com/reanalysis/gfs0p5/GFS_anomaly_timeseries_global_2016.png
2016: Average temperature +0,583 С to norm 1981-2010 years

http://www.karstenhaustein.com/reanalysis/gfs0p5/GFS_anomaly_timeseries_global.png
2019: Average temperature +0,576 С to norm 1981-2010 years

2019 could be a record warm year despite the neutral phase of Pacific oscillation.

[wolfpack513]

If you correct for ENSO, 2019 could finish above 2016 but actual anomalies that's not going to happen.

Here's the running 10-month for BEST which includes October 2019.  Look how much lower this year is compared to the peak in 2016.  Even if November & December 2019 beat 2016 it still wouldn't be enough.

[ArcticMelt2]

If you correct for ENSO, 2019 could finish above 2016 but actual anomalies that's not going to happen.

Here's the running 10-month for BEST which includes October 2019.  Look how much lower this year is compared to the peak in 2016.  Even if November & December 2019 beat 2016 it still wouldn't be enough.

On other data indeed gap more. But second place is almost guaranteed.

https://twitter.com/Climatologist49/status/1201613435097600000

The Jan-Nov period was the 2nd warmest on record (see map). The Contiguous U.S. (Lower 48) is in the coolest 1/3 of all years.

[Tom_Mazanec]

ArcticMelt2:
Look at that big blue blob at the US, home of AGWdenial.

[El Cid]

ArcticMelt2:
Look at that big blue blob at the US, home of AGWdenial.

And some people deny the creative power of faith!!!

[ArcticMelt2]

ArcticMelt2:
Look at that big blue blob at the US, home of AGWdenial.

Maybe it's a consequence of cooling from aerosols burning fossil carbons?

Almost all of North America's mining industry is actually located in this area. These are the oil sands of Alberta, the oil shale in North Dakota, and the coal mines in Wyoming.

Structure of coal production in the United States:



Structure of oil production in Canada:



If true, North America will burn a lot of extra fuel to heat from the artificial cold snap, accelerating catastrophic CO2 emissions into the atmosphere.

[El Cid]

No, in all likelihood, it is the jetstream and other waves becoming wavier. Warmer air can push into previously cold/icy, blocked areas, that are now warmer/open water areas, creating bigger waves (shown on my picture with black). Warming in the chukchi-alaska region creates a ridge there and there is trough in the USA. One more ridge in the Beaufort (Atlantification) keeps Europe warm, but Siberia colder.

[ArcticMelt2]

The difference between 2016 and 2019 on today decreased to 0.007 degrees Celsius.

A month ago it was 0.04 degrees Celsius.

http://www.karstenhaustein.com/reanalysis/gfs0p5/GFS_anomaly_timeseries_global_2016.png
2016: Average temperature +0,583 С to norm 1981-2010 years

http://www.karstenhaustein.com/reanalysis/gfs0p5/GFS_anomaly_timeseries_global.png
2019: Average temperature +0,576 С to norm 1981-2010 years

2019 could be a record warm year despite the neutral phase of Pacific oscillation.

December is rapidly warming in the forecasts. Without 20 days, 2019 is already ahead of 2016 by 0.004 degrees Celsius.

http://www.karstenhaustein.com/reanalysis/gfs0p5/GFS_anomaly_timeseries_global_2016.png
2016: Average temperature +0,583 С to norm 1981-2010 years

http://www.karstenhaustein.com/reanalysis/gfs0p5/GFS_anomaly_timeseries_global.png
2019: Average temperature +0,587 С to norm 1981-2010 years

[ArcticMelt2]

No, in all likelihood, it is the jetstream and other waves becoming wavier. Warmer air can push into previously cold/icy, blocked areas, that are now warmer/open water areas, creating bigger waves (shown on my picture with black). Warming in the chukchi-alaska region creates a ridge there and there is trough in the USA. One more ridge in the Beaufort (Atlantification) keeps Europe warm, but Siberia colder.

Are you sure this is accurate information? Note that the cold spot in Asia almost coincides with the largest coal producer in the world - China. In addition, Russia is also increasing coal production as oil and gas production.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/265456/coal-production-in-russia-since-1998-in-oil-equivalent/

Most of the mining industry in Russia is concentrated in Western Siberia. Obviously, it is in winter that most fuel is burned for heating. In Siberia, the coldest, and there is more fuel to burn.

The cooling off the coast of Greenland is explained by the fact that the excess of fresh water from the melting of glaciers slows the Gulf stream.

[gerontocrat]

A nice temperature graph from this article in skepticalscience.com

https://skepticalscience.com/3-climategate-myths-not-aged-well.html

[kassy]

For AM2:

The graphic in 2108 uses year ranks. 
So i would suggest finding the year ranks for the last 5, 10 or 20 years.
Are these two spots always relatively cold in that metric?

I think you can easily argue that both must be valid but the fact that this year ended up so purple definitely has to do with the wavy jet streams and where the cold poles are moving.

This does not mean you can not see it as a cold spot in the yearly year rank data. Or that you will see it. It basically depends if those local effects are big enough to overcome the global effects in the resolution the year ranking model (which is lets say crude).

Basically it would be an examination of the metric used to see if you can tease out data to support your claim.

[ArcticMelt2]

For AM2:

The graphic in 2108 uses year ranks. 
So i would suggest finding the year ranks for the last 5, 10 or 20 years.
Are these two spots always relatively cold in that metric?

I think you can easily argue that both must be valid but the fact that this year ended up so purple definitely has to do with the wavy jet streams and where the cold poles are moving.

This does not mean you can not see it as a cold spot in the yearly year rank data. Or that you will see it. It basically depends if those local effects are big enough to overcome the global effects in the resolution the year ranking model (which is lets say crude).

Basically it would be an examination of the metric used to see if you can tease out data to support your claim.

Cold spots will not be permanent and stationary in the case of the aerosol hypothesis. Depending on the winds, aerosols can both rise to a great height or quickly fall to the surface. Every year different winds.

In general, winter cold spots over Eurasia and North America appeared only in recent decades, when fuel production and a large population in these regions reached maximum sizes. In the first half of the 20th century, these regions, on the contrary, experienced warming in the winter months.

http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/T_moreFigs/SeasTrend.png

Only the cold spot near Greenland is permanent, as it is associated with the slowing of the Gulf stream due to the fresh water of melted glaciers.

[ArcticMelt2]

http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/T_moreFigs/SeasTrend.png

And an important point in favor of the aerosol hypothesis. Only in the winter months in the 21st century is there a significant cooling over the continents. That is, when the combustion of fuel is carried out at maximum rates. In other seasons, such cold snap is not observed.

[El Cid]

No, in all likelihood, it is the jetstream and other waves becoming wavier. Warmer air can push into previously cold/icy, blocked areas, that are now warmer/open water areas, creating bigger waves (shown on my picture with black). Warming in the chukchi-alaska region creates a ridge there and there is trough in the USA. One more ridge in the Beaufort (Atlantification) keeps Europe warm, but Siberia colder.

Are you sure this is accurate information? Note that the cold spot in Asia almost coincides with the largest coal producer in the world - China. In addition, Russia is also increasing coal production as oil and gas production.

I am quite sure you are not right.

1. That cold spot in Asia is NOT in China. It is in Russia. And

2. Russian cold production is miniscule vs China:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_coal_production
Actually China produces more than the 8 following countries

If you were right there would be a huge cold spot over China, but China is warmer than it was

3. The EU is warming fast although it produces 70% as much coal as the USA

So, nothing supports the aerosol theory, waves ( deeper troughs and ridges due to Arctic Ice changes) explain everything

EDIT:  I attach the above map with Mongolia and China shown (handdrawn - sorry)

[ArcticMelt2]

1. That cold spot in Asia is NOT in China. It is in Russia. And

2. Russian cold production is miniscule vs China:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_coal_production
Actually China produces more than the 8 following countries

If you were right there would be a huge cold spot over China, but China is warmer than it was

This can be explained by the rose of winds that lift Chinese aerosols to a great height already over Russia. In addition, do not forget that Russia is number one in oil and gas production.

3. The EU is warming fast although it produces 70% as much coal as the USA

Probably less than half. In addition, North America produces many times more oil and gas.

https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/business-sites/en/global/corporate/pdfs/energy-economics/statistical-review/bp-stats-review-2019-coal.pdf

Coal: Production in 2018 (Million tonnes oil equivalent)

Total North America 400.7
Total Europe 170.0
Total CIS 276.0

In addition, it is obvious that environmental standards in Europe are the best in the world. Therefore, there are minimal emissions of aerosols.

So, nothing supports the aerosol theory, waves ( deeper troughs and ridges due to Arctic Ice changes) explain everything

And the global cooling of the 50-70's of the 20th century is also explained by Arctic winds or still aerosols?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling



I think the aerosol hypothesis is much more likely.

[El Cid]

1. The global cooling was caused by sulphur aerosols.
2. US coal production peaked between 1990-2010 and yet there was no cooling then:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_mining_in_the_United_States#/media/File:US_coal_production_1870_to_2018.png
Coal production is now less than 30 years ago!

But there is something that happened from cca 2005-2019: arctic ice loss, making weather patterns wavier. This explains everything and the timing is right unlike with aerosols

+1: "This can be explained by the rose of winds that lift Chinese aerosols to a great height already over Russia."

That is also very unlikely to say the least. During wintertime we have the extremely powerful Siberian High which pushes everything OUT OF Siberia. If anything, those Chinese aerosols should be pushed into the sea/towards Japan.

[El Cid]

To summarize:

We have no cooling above China where we should have the most. We have cooling above US and Siberia where we should have much less, and we have warming instead of cooling above Europe (esp. Poland and Germany) where we should have a lot. You can't explain this away.

[Tom_Mazanec]

kassy:

The graphic in 2108 uses year ranks.

Where do we get these graphics from the 22nd Century? 

[blumenkraft]

Tom, you are a sharp observer.

This time the post number 2108 was meant though, not the year. Confused me too.

[ArcticMelt2]

2. US coal production peaked between 1990-2010 and yet there was no cooling then:
Coal production is now less than 30 years ago!

But there is something that happened from cca 2005-2019: arctic ice loss, making weather patterns wavier. This explains everything and the timing is right unlike with aerosols

Sulfur is found not only in coal, it is also in oil and gas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sour_crude_oil
Oil and gas production in the US, Canada and Russia is now at record highs. Moreover, with the depletion of deposits, the sulfur content increases.

That is also very unlikely to say the least. During wintertime we have the extremely powerful Siberian High which pushes everything OUT OF Siberia. If anything, those Chinese aerosols should be pushed into the sea/towards Japan.

Perhaps then the cold spot over Siberia is explained only by Russian production of oil, gas and coal. And Chinese aerosols are rapidly washing out over the Pacific ocean.

Interestingly, in the range of 2000-2018, the cold spot is located over Kazakhstan, and not over Siberia.

http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/T_moreFigs/SeasTrend.png

[Tor Bejnar]

There is published support for the "wavier" theory (Jennifer Francis*).  Is there published support for the 'more coal aerosols' theory?
_______________
* - I know, this link is to an interview with J. Francis published in Scientific American, but she publishes proper papers.

[ArcticMelt2]

Is there published support for the 'more coal aerosols' theory?

Rather, the hypothesis of oil aerosols. Or do you also think that sulfur is found only in coal, and it is not in oil?

Millions of scientific papers have been written about the fact that sulphurous aerosols cool. For instance:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040609009000169

Sulfur dioxide initiates global climate change in four ways

Abstract
Global climate change, prior to the 20th century, appears to have been initiated primarily by major changes in volcanic activity. Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is the most voluminous chemically active gas emitted by volcanoes and is readily oxidized to sulfuric acid normally within weeks. But trace amounts of SO2 exert significant influence on climate. All major historic volcanic eruptions have formed sulfuric acid aerosols in the lower stratosphere that cooled the earth's surface ~ 0.5 °C for typically three years. While such events are currently happening once every 80 years, there are times in geologic history when they occurred every few to a dozen years. These were times when the earth was cooled incrementally into major ice ages. There have also been two dozen times during the past 46,000 years when major volcanic eruptions occurred every year or two or even several times per year for decades. Each of these times was contemporaneous with very rapid global warming. Large volumes of SO2 erupted frequently appear to overdrive the oxidizing capacity of the atmosphere resulting in very rapid warming. Such warming and associated acid rain becomes extreme when millions of cubic kilometers of basalt are erupted in much less than one million years. These are the times of the greatest mass extinctions. When major volcanic eruptions do not occur for decades to hundreds of years, the atmosphere can oxidize all pollutants, leading to a very thin atmosphere, global cooling and decadal drought. Prior to the 20th century, increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) followed increases in temperature initiated by changes in SO2.

By 1962, man burning fossil fuels was adding SO2 to the atmosphere at a rate equivalent to one “large” volcanic eruption each 1.7 years. Global temperatures increased slowly from 1890 to 1950 as anthropogenic sulfur increased slowly. Global temperatures increased more rapidly after 1950 as the rate of anthropogenic sulfur emissions increased. By 1980 anthropogenic sulfur emissions peaked and began to decrease because of major efforts especially in Japan, Europe, and the United States to reduce acid rain. Atmospheric concentrations of methane began decreasing in 1990 and have remained nearly constant since 2000, demonstrating an increase in oxidizing capacity. Global temperatures became roughly constant around 2000 and even decreased beginning in late 2007. Meanwhile atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide have continued to increase at the same rate that they have increased since 1970. Thus SO2 is playing a far more active role in initiating and controlling global warming than recognized by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Massive reduction of SO2 should be a top priority in order to reduce both global warming and acid rain. But man is also adding two to three orders of magnitude more CO2 per year to the climate than one “large” volcanic eruption added in the past. Thus CO2, a greenhouse gas, is contributing to global warming and should be reduced. We have already significantly reduced SO2 emissions in order to reduce acid rain. We know how to do it both technically and politically.

In the past, sudden climate change was typically triggered by sudden increases in volcanic activity. Slow increases in greenhouse gases, therefore, do not appear as likely as currently thought to trigger tipping points where the climate suddenly changes. However we do need to start planning an appropriate human response to future major increases in volcanic activity.

[SteveMDFP]

Is there published support for the 'more coal aerosols' theory?

Rather, the hypothesis of oil aerosols. Or do you also think that sulfur is found only in coal, and it is not in oil?

There is plenty of sulfur in *crude* oil.  Oil refining removes that sulfur.  They don't burn the removed sulfur.
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/fsc432/content/sulfur-and-nitrogen-content

[Tor Bejnar]

"Coal" slipped into my question without much thought.  Ocean-going ships have been know to burn sulfur-rich oil at sea.  Of course aerosols affect the weather, locally and globally.  (Don't think I ever doubted this, despite my crude question.)

More specifically, are there papers suggesting hydrocarbon emissions affect the jet stream amplitude and occasional stuck-ness? It is possible (in my imagination) that aerosols in Alberta affect the jet stream 'more' than aerosols in China.  (As a corollary, I expect a 100 mm (~4") rain event in Hawaii's (the big island) desert will have much less surface 'consequences' than a 100 mm rain event in Arizona's desert - one desert will absorb it more than the other.)  Just because it is possible in my imagination doesn't make it real. 

[Tom_Mazanec]

Tom, you are a sharp observer.

This time the post number 2108 was meant though, not the year. Confused me too.

There are a lot of typos in this forum (some of them mine).
Since I am such a bad typist, I usually let them pass, but this straight line was just too good to pass up.

[El Cid]

  Ocean-going ships have been know to burn sulfur-rich oil at sea....

This is where it gets interesting. Sulphur aerosols are well known coolers of climate and likely contributed to the cool period of WW2 to cca 1987. So2 emissions peaked at around 1980, shown on attached pic. An especially big drop happened in Europe, probably contributing to warmer winters between 1990-2000.

Shipping is responsible for 13% of So2 emissions, but the new regulation IMO2020 drastically cuts So2 emissions from ships:

"The International Maritime Organization (IMO), the industry's regulator, will require all ships to reduce the level of sulphur in their engine emissions from 3.5% currently to 0.5% or less from 1 January 2020"

This will probably help warm the world further...

[blumenkraft]

Since I am such a bad typist

Don't talk to me about typing. The only F i ever 'earned' was in business school in the typing class.

[El Cid]

IMO2020 is HUGE, there should be no misunderstaning of that.

Starting on Jan1st, ships' So2 emissions will drop by 85%!!! This will probably have an immediate effect on temperatures in 2020, as global So2 emissions will fall by 10% next year (since shipping is responsible for 13% of  global So2 emissions).

Besides, since they will need to use more expensive (almost sulphurfree) fuel, they will need to raise transport prices of pretty much everything, so anything coming from another country will be more expensive.

This is a very important piece of regulation indeed.

[wolfpack513]

November 2019 tied 2016 on Copernicus for warmest November on record. 

This is an interesting time of the year because the ENSO cycle lag on GMST is either ramping up or ramping down.  In the 2015-2016 super Niño the 2 highest monthly anomalies were in February & March 2016.  That's why it took until 2015 to break 1998's February record on GISS.

[Tom_Mazanec]

IMO2020 is HUGE, there should be no misunderstaning of that.

Starting on Jan1st, ships' So2 emissions will drop by 85%!!! This will probably have an immediate effect on temperatures in 2020, as global So2 emissions will fall by 10% next year (since shipping is responsible for 13% of  global So2 emissions).

Besides, since they will need to use more expensive (almost sulphurfree) fuel, they will need to raise transport prices of pretty much everything, so anything coming from another country will be more expensive.

This is a very important piece of regulation indeed.

I posted a report in my early days here that it could trigger an energy crisis as bad as in the Seventies.

[ArcticMelt2]

"Coal" slipped into my question without much thought.  Ocean-going ships have been know to burn sulfur-rich oil at sea.  Of course aerosols affect the weather, locally and globally.  (Don't think I ever doubted this, despite my crude question.)

More specifically, are there papers suggesting hydrocarbon emissions affect the jet stream amplitude and occasional stuck-ness? It is possible (in my imagination) that aerosols in Alberta affect the jet stream 'more' than aerosols in China.  (As a corollary, I expect a 100 mm (~4") rain event in Hawaii's (the big island) desert will have much less surface 'consequences' than a 100 mm rain event in Arizona's desert - one desert will absorb it more than the other.)  Just because it is possible in my imagination doesn't make it real.

I think crude oil and gas is often burned in production areas. Cleaning costs money, as does storing crude oil. In addition, in cold winter, the equipment of oil and gas pipelines often breaks down, and it is tempting to burn oil and gas for heating on the spot, without cleaning. Now the situation is even worse, as the profitability of oil companies has fallen dramatically. And the sulfur content in depleted deposits is growing rapidly.

I think crude oil and gas are burned in small batches in different places to make it harder to see from satellites. Regions of cold winter spots are quite sparsely populated, so there is not much follow environmental standards.

I have no references to scientific publications about this situation. But this hypothesis seems quite acceptable.

[oren]

AM2, not only is your theory very speculative and IMHO, simply wrong, while the wavy Jetstream has been discussed for some years now - but also you are hijacking this periodically-updated data thread with this theory. If you want to discuss further I suggest you move to another thread or open a new one.

[ArcticMelt2]

AM2, not only is your theory very speculative and IMHO, simply wrong, while the wavy Jetstream has been discussed for some years now - but also you are hijacking this periodically-updated data thread with this theory. If you want to discuss further I suggest you move to another thread or open a new one.

I think everyone has expressed their views, and the topic is exhausted.

https://climate.copernicus.eu/surface-air-temperature-november-2019

Globally, the twelve-month period from December 2018 to November 2019 was 0.58°C warmer than the 1981-2010 average. The warmest twelve-month period was from October 2015 to September 2016, with a temperature 0.66°C above average. 2016 is the warmest calendar year on record, with a global temperature 0.63°C above that for 1981-2010. The second warmest calendar year, 2017, had a temperature 0.54°C above average, while the third warmest year, 2018, was 0.46°C above the 1981-2010 average.

[Archimid]

A nice temperature graph from this article in skepticalscience.com

https://skepticalscience.com/3-climategate-myths-not-aged-well.html

Whoever said 2C was "safe" didn't get a chance to look at that graph. 

[ArcticMelt2]

Global mean sea surface temperature anomalies so far this year  ---> 2nd warmest on record (after 2016)

[Data from @NOAA ERSSTv5 averaged over January to November]

https://twitter.com/ZLabe/status/1202627021941010432

[Tom_Mazanec]

I researched Sam Carana just to find a semireasonable estimate for how much sulfate particles cool the Earth.
I got 1.9 degrees:
http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2019/02/a-rise-of-18c-or-324f-by-2026.html
So there might be a 0.2 degree heating in 2020?

[ArcticMelt2]

I researched Sam Carana just to find a semireasonable estimate for how much sulfate particles cool the Earth.
I got 1.9 degrees:
http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2019/02/a-rise-of-18c-or-324f-by-2026.html
So there might be a 0.2 degree heating in 2020?

According to official satellite data, the anthropogenic emission of sulfur aerosols has fallen by about 2 times since 2005, and is almost equal to volcanoes.

India and Russia were estimated to emit more SO2 than China in 2018.

In 2018, emissions from thermal power plants are equal to emissions from volcanoes, and emissions from oil and gas fields are about 4 times less.

The exact figures can be seen at the link:

https://so2.gsfc.nasa.gov/kml/OMI_Annual_EMI_AMF_Summary_2005-2018.pdf

One can only doubt how accurate these figures are, since the mass of these emissions is hundreds of times less than the mass of carbon dioxide emitted.  As main oil and gas fields with the cold winter very well coincides with winter cold spots in the 21st century.

[Tom_Mazanec]

I was referring to reply #2133 above.

[ArcticMelt2]

I was referring to reply #2133 above.

I wrote because the estimate of cooling due to aerosols at 2 degrees is not confirmed by the official figures. After 2005, SO2 emissions decreased by 2 times, and the global temperature has increased by about 0.2 degrees Celsius since then.

[Tom_Mazanec]

So that another bit of horsefeathers from Sam Carana?

[kassy]

I was referring to reply #2133 above.

I wrote because the estimate of cooling due to aerosols at 2 degrees is not confirmed by the official figures. After 2005, SO2 emissions decreased by 2 times, and the global temperature has increased by about 0.2 degrees Celsius since then.

You cannot use global temperatures like that.
They are composed of many inputs so they do not tell you anything about the SO2 unless you know all the other stuff but we don´t.

PS: Tom i went to see what he said about the 1,9 but it is just in a graph. And probably it is just some total which is not valid for the period. I have no data to back that up but the text above the graph states: many doubt that there will be any life left on Earth by 2026.

You should be able to recognize that people that write drivel like that do not help and probably not produce the best graphs.

Some of the local effects the pollution has:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tug-of-war-between-air-pollution-and-co2-masks-warmings-impacts/

[Tom_Mazanec]

Yes, kassy, that is why I said only getting a semi-reasonable estimate for the degree of sulphur particulate cooling, and why I asked here if it was a good estimate.

[El Cid]

Anyways, next year is going to be a nice experiment to see the actual effect of So2 aerosols on temperatures. We should thank the shipping industry

[Tom_Mazanec]

I think it is regulators, not the industry, we should thank.