GLOBAL COOLING

Hehehe, hihihi.

So now we have a global cooling theory (R.J. Charlson, S.E. Schwartz, and 6 others, "Climate forcing by anthropogenic aerosols," Science, 1/24/92, pp. 423-430 -- "anthropogenic" means "man-caused"). The eight scientists have impeccable credentials and are based at several universities and government labs such as NASA and NOAA.

Their theory, supported by large amounts of references from the literature, amounts to the following. The terrestrial (or any other) albedo is the ratio of reflected to incident light of the earth (or any other heavenly body). It is a number lying between 0 (all light absorbed) and 1 (all light reflected). Typical values are 0.40 for the earth, 0.07 for the moon, 0.70 for Venus.

The light is measured as luminescence, but rather than go into the side alley of light units, let's not talk about albedo, but about the ratio of reflected to incident energy and call it the energy reflec-tivity. This will disagree numerically with the concept of albedo, but will keep the main idea completely intact.

If, as the greenhoaxers claim, part of the incident energy is trapped as heat in the greenhoax, that amount of energy will decrease the normal reflectivity, because it will fail to get reflected. On the other hand, if the reflectivity grows, it means that more energy is reflected, therefore less is transmitted to the earth, and the earth will cool.

That is exactly what the authors claim happens due to man-made sulfate aerosols (fine, suspended particles) in the atmos-phere. They affect the reflectivity in two ways: first, directly, by scattering short-wave incoming radiation back out into space, and indirectly, by acting as bodies on which water vapor condenses and thus forms clouds ("nucleation"). White clouds will, of course, reflect much of the incoming solar energy.

The authors estimate the size of the effect at -1 to -2 watts per square meter, which is of the same order as the greenhoax effect, but has the opposite sign. However, the authors are careful to point out that in computer simulations and other calculations the sulfate cooling effect cannot be included as a simple difference be-tween greenhoax and cooling effects, for the two differ geographi-cally, diurnally and seasonally (greatest in the daytime and in summer), and must be taken into account as separate factors.

Should we believe the new theory?

No, or at least not yet. Every new theory has to undergo many tests before it is accepted. First, there have been no replies yet from either honest climatologists or the Stephen-Schneider type media monkeys, either of whom might very well come up with counter-arguments which have to be examined.

Second, and more important, a new theory has to undergo ex-perimental and crucial tests, the "crucial" meaning that the experi-ment is so designed that the results will not only support the new theory. but also refute its rivals.

Al first blush, even I, a non-climatologist, can see some weak spots. First, the paper is well reasoned, but short on experimental data.

Third, the solar energy influx is about 1200 W/sq.m., of which about 900 W/sq.m. reaches the earth. Out of that 1 to 2 W/sq.m. is to be ascribed to one of man's activities when globally averaged? This seems to me pure and unmitigated megalomania, Like saying that spitting into the sea will raise the sea level worldwide by 2 inches.

Nevertheless, Like any other new theory, this one deserves a fair hearing by all the parties, if possible in the professional literature without the benefit of the Sunday supplements and Tom Brokaw's debilitated chatter. It does, after all, so far have one great ad-vantage over the greenhoax theory: it has not yet been refuted.