Double Dipping In The Aerosols

The official story when attempting to rewrite the history of the 1970s global cooling scare goes something like this:

In 1945, after 30 years of rapid warming, humans suddenly started dumping huge amounts of aerosol pollution into the atmosphere. When the clean air act passed in the US, suddenly the whole world stopped polluting and temperatures started to rise quickly – due to CO2 (of course.)

But now that Hansen’s 1988 forecasts have bombed, he is trying to resurrect the evil aerosols for a second round of blame.

We conclude that most climate models mix heat too efficiently into the deep ocean and as a result underestimate the negative forcing by human-made aerosols.

All climate can be explained by human made CO2 and human made aerosols, except for climate which is due to human made CFCs.

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

37 Responses to Double Dipping In The Aerosols

  1. Latitude says:

    We conclude that most climate models mix heat too efficiently into the deep ocean and as a result underestimate the negative forcing by human-made aerosols.
    He just said that aerosols kept temperatures down more than they had figured.

    ….so less warming is attributed to CO2, and more warming is attributed to people using less hair spray

  2. Scott says:

    I hate all the pointing to aerosols pre-Clean Air Act to explain the lack of warming. The fact is, the measurements don’t exist then to confirm the speculation, and there are no sufficient proxies to take it into account. Sulfates cause cooling. Soot causes warming. Mixed sulfate/soot causes more warming than even pure soot. This last sentence is pretty new info and was not taken into account previously…so the amount of speculated cooling has to decrease…could even change to zero or change signs.

    Dang ad hoc explanation that many people take without batting an eye…


    • suyts says:

      But wait Scott!!! I thought volcano soot causes cooling!?!?!?

      • Scott says:

        Those aerosols are in the stratosphere. Absorbing (as opposed to scattering) aerosols cause localized heating…thus, if they’re in the stratosphere, they should warm it via light absorption. The reemission of energy after absorption will be in all directions, compared to the incoming light, which was towards the surface. Thus, less incoming light will reach the “surface”.

        Clearly, the scattering effect will be similar regardless of location.


      • U NO HOO says:

        But isn’t volcano soot hot?

      • suyts says:

        Scott, damnitt! I’ve rewrote this 3 times!!!! And I’m drunk! Don’t do this anymore!

        You said, “….Absorbing (as opposed to scattering) aerosols cause localized heating…thus, if they’re in the stratosphere,……

        Scott, I value your opines, as do many others. Do you think this explanation is sufficient for most of the readers here?

        Would it be possible for you to expound on the different aerosols, other than the ones that are stratospheric because they are localized?

        Yes, I know that isn’t what you stated, but that’s how it came out.

        Best wishes,


  3. Andy Weiss says:

    If CO2 causes warming and aerosols cause cooling, they would then largely cancel each other out and then natural causes would predominate. The fact that temperatures seem to have remained fairly constant would seem to indicate that human factors have been overplayed.

  4. Luke of the D says:

    Not to mention the small factoid that the Second World War started in 1939… not 1945. I presume that is his assumed cause of the warming, yes?

  5. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

    Look, once and for all, there’s no double dipping!

    I hate when I see it happen at parties. Ewwww!

  6. Tony Duncan says:


    we have been over this. this was no global cooling scare. There were some scientists that specifically warned of the possibility, and some of the media picked it up. Your posts of the number of media and other references to it are a tiny fraction of media coverage of other environmental issues at the time.

    I hate to say this but you are actually exaggerating when you say the narrative states that the whole world stopped polluting. I am pretty sure that there has been an awareness of the contribution from India China and things such as fires in Indonesia. But of course I could be wrong and scientists are just as stupid as you say

  7. Jimbo says:

    I forgot floods. No trend up. 🙂 When are the climate bandits going to give up???

  8. Nobama says:

    I think Hansen’s been studying the aerosols a little too closely…..He should stick to weed, or peyote like the other climate scientists.

  9. Bruce says:

    Japan (for example) had 10% more bright sunshine at weather stations in 2000 than in 1900. The air was cleaner.

    It matches up nicely with a small increase in temperature in Japan.

    10% more bright sunshine can explain ALL 20th century warming. CO2 is irrelevant.

  10. suyts says:

    Tony, my apologies. I misstated. I should have said, “Don’t tell me what I was told. I was there. From Georgia to BK Germany, to El Paso Texas, I know what I was told. The lying, political agenda bitches told me exactly what I’ve stated. I’ve forgotten much, but I haven’t forgotten what I was told. Nor has millions of others that actually cared to pay attention. Anal? Maybe, but true nonetheless.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s