Climate Models Grossly Under-estimate Earth’s Dusty Atmosphere
Dust is a key component of Earth’s climate system. When it interacts with clouds, oceans and the sun’s radiation, it has an overall impact on our planet’s living systems, affecting everything from weather and rainfall to global warming.
There are two types of dust in the atmosphere, both kicked up by high-velocity winds in dry areas.
Fine dust tends to cool because it scatters sunlight, much like clouds do. Coarse dust, which is larger in size and originates in places like the Sahara Desert, tends to warm the atmosphere, like supposed ‘greenhouse gases.’
Knowing precisely how much coarse dust is in the atmosphere is essential for understanding not only the atmospheric phenomena that dust influences but also the degree to which dust may be warming the planet.
Now, UCLA scientists report that there is four times the amount of coarse dust in Earth’s atmosphere than is currently simulated by climate models. Their findings appear in the journal Science Advances.
The researchers found that Earth’s atmosphere contains 17 million metric tons of coarse dust—equivalent to 17 million elephants or the mass of every person in America put together.
“To properly represent the impact of dust as a whole on the Earth system, climate models must include an accurate treatment of coarse dust in the atmosphere,” said the study’s first author, Adeyemi Adebiyi, a postdoctoral researcher in UCLA’s Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences and a recipient of the University of California President’s Postdoctoral Fellowship.
By plugging this amount of missing coarse dust into models, Adebiyi said, it increases the likelihood that the net amount of dust overall—both fine and coarse—is warming rather than cooling the Earth’s climate system, from air to oceans.
Coarse dust particles warm the Earth’s entire climate system by absorbing both incoming radiation from the sun and outgoing radiation from the Earth’s surface.
These particles can impact stability and circulation within our atmosphere, which may affect atmospheric phenomena like hurricanes.
Adebiyi worked with Jasper Kok, a UCLA associate professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences, to determine the actual amount of coarse dust in the atmosphere by analyzing dozens of published aircraft-based observations, including recent measurements taken over the Sahara Desert, and comparing those with half a dozen widely used global atmospheric model simulations.
“When we compared our results with what is predicted by current climate models, we found a drastic difference,” Kok said. “State-of-the-art climate models account for only 4 million metric tons, but our results showed more than four times that amount.”
In addition, Adebiyi and Kok found that coarse dust leaves the atmosphere less quickly than current climate models predict. Air has a tendency to mix more turbulently when dust is present.
In the case of the Sahara, air and dust mix in ways that push the dust upward, which can work against gravity and keep the dust in the air much longer, they said.
The scientists’ findings also show that because dust particles stay in the atmosphere longer, they are ultimately deposited further from their source than has been predicted by these models or explained by current theory.
For example, dust particles blown from the Sahara can travel thousands of miles in the atmosphere, reaching as far as the Caribbean and the United States.
When desert dust ends up in oceans, it may stimulate the productivity of ocean ecosystems and increase the amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the oceans.
Due to the way coarse dust interacts with the sun’s energy and clouds, it can also have a major impact on the timing of precipitation, as well as how much, or how little, rain falls.
“Models have been an invaluable tool for scientists,” said Adebiyi, “but when they miss most of the coarse dust in the atmosphere, it underestimates the impact that this type of dust has on critical aspects of life on Earth, from precipitation to cloud cover to ocean ecosystems to global temperature.”
Read more at Phys.org
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
jerry krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
I have begun to evaluate what I read by what I do not read. Meteorologists (atmospheric scientists) have long known that the troposphere must contain small particles of condensed matter on which the water molecules in the atmosphere can condense so the troposphere has never observed to be supersaturated with water molecules (a nonequilibrium condition).
What I do not read in this article is if computer modelers are considering the changing sizes of these condensation nuclei ( as they are termed) as the relative humidity of the atmosphere changes. There is little doubt that the troposphere contains solid dust but if water molecules condense on them they must became ever larger so we can see evidence of their presence as we see what we term ordinary clouds. Ordinary clouds which we can observe to appear out of nowhere and disappear into nowhere as their sizes change.
Can the computer modelers programs create these clouds which appear and disappear? I have no idea, but I doubt the computers can even model these tiny clouds of a scattered cloudy sky. And if there is I would like to see video where the computer spontaneously creates such clouds which appear and disappear which no been programmed to create pictures of these variable clouds.
For I am pretty sure that computers only do what they are programmed to do. That is why computers can be used to control things.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
TL Winslow
| #
[[Coarse dust particles warm the Earth’s entire climate system by absorbing both incoming radiation from the sun and outgoing radiation from the Earth’s surface.
These particles can impact stability and circulation within our atmosphere, which may affect atmospheric phenomena like hurricanes.]]
For the zillionth time, all climate is local not global, and is about the SURFACE TEMPERATURE down where we live, not the temperature up in the sky in the “climate system” – what a bastard term. Because of the thermodynamic lapse rate, the air temperature systematically drops by 18.8F per mile, and a little extra heat won’t do diddly up there or down here. Only the Sun heats the Earth’s surface, and the atmosphere just helps cool it. The atmosphere isn’t a greenhouse, it’s a giant chimney. Almost all the heat in the atmosphere came from the surface, and it’s what causes winds and weather, which all cool the surface more, and never reheat it with its own heat like in a Lewis Carroll novel.
The sick U.N. IPCC CO2 hoaxers will never give up their upside-down and backwards viewpoint of our climate that pretends we all live in cloud cities and must give them all our wealth as if we’re in fear of a new coronavirus.
http://www.historyscoper.com/thebiglieaboutco2.html
http://www.historyscoper.com/newrealclimatesciencecourse.html
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi TL,
You wrote: “Coarse dust particles warm the Earth’s entire climate system by absorbing both incoming radiation from the sun and outgoing radiation from the Earth’s surface.” Without clearly indicated quotation marks. This is not to be critical of you for I see at the beginning you were having trouble with your fingers doing what you intended them to do. I have this problem all the time.
So I reread the article again and found this was indeed a quote from the article. But who wrote this statement? Lisa or UCLA scientists? Later in the article I read: “In the case of the Sahara, air and dust mix in ways that push the dust upward, which can work against gravity and keep the dust in the air much longer, they said.” Because there are no quotation marks I must conclude that the UCLA scientists did not say this.
Am I nitpicking? No!! I defend that to which I have pointed by reviewing the fact that Louis Elzevir, the Dutch publisher of Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences, had written in his preface to the reader (as translated to English by Crew and de Salvio): “For, according to the common saying, sight can teach more with greater certainty in a single day than can precept even though repeated a thousand times: or, as another says, intuitive knowledge keeps pace with accurate definition.”
I went to ‘Science Advances’ and found these UCLA scientists had written: “In addition, while fine dust particles cool the climate by predominantly scattering SW radiation, coarse dust particles warm the climate system by absorbing both SW and longwave (LW) radiation (16).” Which is even worse than Lisa’s translation. Why, you might ask?
Newton, after a brief preface to Book III of The P:rincipia listed 4 Rules of Reasoning In Philosophy. Rule II (as translated by Motte) was: “Therefore to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes.” Illustrations: “As to respiration in a man and in a beast; the descent of stones in Europe and in America; the light of our culinary fire and the sun; the reflection of light in the earth, and in the planets.”
Now, another historical fact is that in ‘The Feynman Lectures On Physics” Vol. 1, Chapter 32, Radiation Damping. Light Scattering, Section 32-5, Scattering of light we have that Feynman, during the academic year 1961-1962, taught his students about two scattering phenomena: One about the scattering of light by molecular sized matter and the other about the scattering of light by much larger particles of matter such as cloud droplets. Of which we see evidence when we see white clouds when we cannot see the water molecules in the atmosphere which condense to form cloud droplets.
And I have no explanation for the fact that I so seldom find this scattering phenomenon of the larger particle which must apply to small, as well as larger, dust particles. But what Feynma taught is there in Volume I of Feynman’s lectures. And I conclude that without this observed scattering phenomenon there can be no “accurate definition”. So I would urge anyone who pretends to be a scientist as Galileo and Newton were to read what Feynman ‘simply’ taught.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Alan
| #
Carbon dioxide and dust in the atmosphere cannot generate heat that can warm the surface.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Alan,
What evidence (data) do you used to support your statement?
You should not use carbon dioxide (a gas) in the same sentence with dust particles (solids) which, even the smallest, are much, much larger than any gas molecules.. For the scattering phenomena are very size dependent. And if you do not consider scattering phenomena you are not using the scientific knowledge learned during the 20th Century.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
geran
| #
Jerry, Alan was obviously referring to the fact that CO2 and dust are not energy sources. They do not provide new energy to the system. So Alan is correct.
Have a great day.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Geran,
I asked for Alan’s data. I refer you to (https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/surfrad/surf_check.php?site=gwn&date=2020-04-13&p1=dpsp&p2=upsp&p3=nip&p4=diff&p5=dpir&p6=upir) where you can see 4 different solar radiations being measured (downwelling solar, upwelling solar, direct-normal solar, diffuse solar).
Before midday there was only a total overcast which produced only diffuse and upwelling solar. Shortly after middiday the overcast began to break up and the density of the density of patches clear sky began to increase untill all the traces of these four solar radiations became smooth decreasing trends.
But for a hour or so, the measured downwelling solar far exceeded the measured direct-normal solar because diffuse radiation (scattered radiation) from the entire partially cloudy sky was be being measured by the instrument measuring the downwelling solar plus the direct-normal solar passing through a cloudless break between the scattered clouds.
This is just one data sample of cloud conditions which can increase the incident solar radiation upon the Earth’s surface due to light scattering by cloud droplets.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
geran
| #
Correct Jerry, that data supports Alan’s comment. As you stated ”…where you can see 4 different solar radiations being measured…”
CO2 and dust particles do not create energy. As we like to remind the Warmists, “It’s the sun, stupid”.
Have a great day.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Geran,
That rights Geran. Ignore the data that shows how clouds can naturally magnify the intensity of solar radiation incident upon the earth’s surface just as an artificial magnifying lens can concentrate the incident solar radiation on paper so its temperature is increased to its combustion temperature.
The issue is clouds can increase the maximum air temperature of a day, as conventionally measured, over the maximum air temperature of a cloudless atmosphere. Same source (the sun) of energy.
Of course, the clouds are not only influencing the solar radiation. They are also influencing the longer-wave IR radiations being continuously emitted by the earth’s surfaces according to the temperatures of its surfaces.
You must accurately describe (define) the total system involved in the earth’s radiation balance system. Which is what Arrhenius did not do as he ignored the scattering influence of cloud particles upon the upwelling IR being continuously emitted.by earth’s surfaces according to the temperatures of its surfaces .
Have a good day, Jerry.
Reply
geran
| #
That’s funny, Jerry — believing the atmosphere is a “magnifying glass”. I haven’t heard that one before. It’s funny, but it’s not science.
At least you are claiming Sun as the source. That puts you ahead of others that don’t understand the relevant physics.
Have a great day.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
But Geran,
How can the sun warm anything when the heat flux in the photosphere is so small? lol
geran
| #
Sun’s photosphere flux = 64,000,000 Watts/m^2.
lol.
Zoe Phin
| #
Geran,
That’s the emergent flux!
This is based on sT^4.
That’s not the internal heat flux.
The internal heat flux is computed by:
k(Thot-Tcold)/L
So what you need to do is find the temperature difference between two heights of the photosphere and multiply by the thermal conductivity coefficient.
You need to compare like with like.
Your ears are the same temperature, therefore the heat flux through your head is 0 W/m^2. According to you, your ears can’t melt an ice cube.
geran
| #
That’s hilarious, Zoe.
That simple equation applies to conductive heat transfer through a solid. It has no application to a plasma.
And trying to link me to something inaccurate just shows your desperation. That’s what Norman does. Are you Norman’s sister?
Hilarious.
More please.
Zoe Phin
| #
Plasma or not doesn’t matter.
One measure is based on an absolute, and another is based on a differential.
You have to compare like with like.
Here you go:
https://i.ibb.co/YhNq3Jq/postmafallacy.png
There’s an infinite permutations that produce ~100 mW/m^2 heat flux.
Don’t you think it matters whether the flux is between 1010C and 1000C vs. 10C and 0C?
The “heat flux” doesn’t tell you what the top can be or is!
Think.
geran
| #
Yup, reality doesn’t matter to zany Zoe.
Hilarious.
More please.
jerry krause
| #
Hi Simplico (Geran),
I question myself as to the profit of replying to your comments. I ask myself: Is it an ego thing? But I finally remember that Galileo used a character named Simplico to parrot the wrong reasoned ideas by the great Greek reasoner Aristotle who evidently did not see the need to supplement his reasoning with actual observations.
It seems to me that you have not yet considered the one day of observations by NOAA’s SURFRAD project which I drew your attention and more importantly to the attention of PSI readers. For it is for the PSI readers, not for you, that I did this. For if I do not call this quality data of this NOAA project to their attentions, they might not be aware that it exists. As I was not aware of it until maybe 5 years ago, when its data began to be measured more than 20 years ago.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
geran
| #
I suspect it is your ego, Jerry, combined with some incompetence. And being frustrated because you are unconvincing, causes you to lash out with name-calling.
Reply
geran
| #
I almost forgot,
Have a great day!
jerry krause
| #
Hi PSI Reader and Simplico (Geran),
I hope you both know that Galileo had to lie that ‘the Earth stood still’ to save his life so he could write his classical book for our information.
I believe we should not forget what this man, with such courage and passion, wrote.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply