So what did I not understand?

The body of the paper was excellent, but there was nothing in it that supported their speculative conclusion that it unmasked “down-dwelling longwave energy from the enhanced greenhouse effect of the 1980’s”

They correctly admitted that “the absence of dimming since the 1980’s may profoundly affect surface climate” but failed to realize that the brightening meant that the earth’s surface would naturally warm up because of the cleaner air, and not due to unmasked greenhouse gasses.

And the amount of warming is approx. .02 deg. C. for each net Megatonne of reduction in SO2 aerosol emissions!

No, it appears that you are the one who is incapable of understanding the paper.

Discussion done, at least from my side. I have no interest going around in circles with you not understanding scientific papers.

You do a good job of holding my feet to the fire!

1. I was not clear in my remarks. What I intended to convey was that the amount of backgound warming since 2010 has been about .04 deg. C per year (representing a decrease of about 2 Megatonnes in SO2 emissions per year, the same as in 2011). This would be 10 Megatonnes, which is probably too, low based upon current temps., so I
estimated an additional 5 Megatonnes, giving an 0.3 deg. C rise 2010-2015. Eventually, hard data should be available.

With respect to the 15 year period 2000-2015, reductions in SO2 emissions totaled about 18.7 Megatonnes, giving an expected background temp. rise of about 0.37 deg. C, to 0.77 deg. C (from 2000’s 0.4 deg. C.)(avg. temp. for 2015, Jan-Jul is 0.76 deg. C)

2. No time to do any more searching, but the paper is out there

3.I read the papers that you pointed to, and found the later (2005) paper “From Dimming to Brightening: Decadal Changes in Solar Radiation at Earth’s Surface” to be the most informative.

All of their reported data supported what I have been saying.

There were a couple of interesting statements:

Regarding the brightening, they stated “This is found under all-and clear-sky conditions, indicating that processes in both cloud-free and cloudy atmospheres conntributed to the brightening”

This eliminates any contributon from clouds as a cause of the brightening.

They also spoke of “the dramatic increase in the planetary albedo…for 2002/2003” but did not offer an explanation. This is the period when net SO2 emissions temporarily increased because of pollution from the East, which would have increased the planetary albedo, SO2 being a reflective aerosol..

In spite of numerous suggestions in the paper that reduced aerosols should have a climatic effect, in their PEER-reviewed conclusions, they stated “The absence of dimming since the mid-1980’s may profoundly affect surface climate. Whereas the decline in solar energy could have counterbalanced the down-welling longwave energy from the enhanced greenhouse effect before the 1980’s, this masking of the greenhouse effect and related impacts may no longer have been effective thereafter, enabling the greenhouse signals to beome more evident in the 1990’s ”

What nonsense! They did not even consider the fact that cleaner air will cause greater insolation.

Greg, I borked the formatting on a couple of posts in moderation. Can you leave the last and delete the others?

Thanks.

There.

Hiatus.

2) Read also:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/348/6242/1469

http://www.usclivar.org/sites/default/files/documents/2015/Variations2015Summer-1_0.pdf (pp 6-9)

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2015/04/30/slowdown-skeptic/

and

3)

study further.

Repeat 1-3 as necessary until understanding takes root.

1. 0.04 degrees a year is 0.6 degrees of warming over the past 15 years (twice as much as you stated earlier), and double the warming rate you claimed for the period of 1972-2000. Again, get your story straight, Burl.

2. you originally claimed the Atlantic was warming fastest. Now the best you can do is stating that the Atlantic is warmer than the Pacific…and only around the US coast. Of course, scientists know these differences have to do with ocean currents, but what do them scientists know, eh? They dun no nuffin’!

3. funny to just dismiss a paper you have not read, because you know it will contradict your deeply held belief. Thanks for letting us see the way you think.

1) read this slowly and carefully:

There.

Hiatus.

2) Read also:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/348/6242/1469

http://www.usclivar.org/sites/default/files/documents/2015/Variations2015Summer-1_0.pdf (pp 6-9)

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2015/04/30/slowdown-skeptic/

and

3)

study further.

Repeat 1-3 as necessary until understanding takes root.

1. I believe that I had stated that there was no statistically significant warming for the past 15 years, or so, based upon the comments of others (The Pause). This may still be true because of the temporary temperature excursions due to El Ninos and La Ninas.

However, there is also a continuing small upward trend because of the continued net decrease in global SO2 emissions (about 2 Megatonnes per year), leading to around .04 deg. C.
of temp. increase in the “background” temp. per year.

2. I believe that information came from a paper discussed on ClimateEtc. but I was unable to find it. However, if you Google “Is the Atlantic warmer than the Pacific” one receives the following answer:
“Although it might seem illogical, the Atlantic Ocean is warmer. For any given latitude, the Atlantic proved to be about 16 degrees F (9 degrees C.) warmer than the Pacific Ocean off the US. coast–quite a difference.”

3. No, I have not yet read the paper, but it is moot. Regardless of what it says, Global Brightening occurred when global Clean Air efforts eliminated Megatonnes of SO2 emissions that were in the atmosphere and had not previously
fallen out.

But I’ll take a look at it now.