Cooling of the planet

A study by Dr Robert Kaufmann and his colleagues, and which was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on July 5 th, has proposed an explanation why increasing levels of carbon dioxide have not lead to ever increased atmospheric temperature during the period 1998 t0 2009. During that period global average temperatures have not increased as much as they should have done according to climate models. The reason, concludes Dr Kaufmann, is that coal fired power stations have doubled the amount of coal burned during this period , and this coal burning has not only substantially increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere but it has also substantially increased the amount of sulphur dioxide. It is an irrefutable fact that carbon dioxide acts as a greenhouse gas and that, with all other things being equal, an increase in the concentration of this gas in the atmosphere will warm the planet. It is also an irrefutable fact that, all other things being equal, an increase in the concentration of sulphur dioxide in the atmosphere will cool the planet.

During the period 1998 to 2009 the effect of the concentration of one gas in the atmosphere offset the effect of the other. Therefore, the mean temperature of the planet did not show a substantial increase or decrease.

Climate change sceptics have jumped upon the fact that the planet has not been warming up as predicted is evidence that global warming caused by man's activities does not exist. Clearly they are wrong: Dr Kaufmann's findings are not inconsistent with global warming or cooling theory or climate science in general.

We should not be relieved by the fact that global warming has temporarily been arrested by pumping industrialised quantities of sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere. Sulphur compounds are quickly removed from the atmosphere by rain. If and when coal burning and other sources of human produced sulphur dioxide are reduced or eliminated the atmosphere will quickly warm up. The carbon dioxide is not so easily or quickly removed from the atmosphere.

Carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide should not been seen as pollutants; they are part of the natural cycles of the planet and are naturally released into the atmosphere by both living and geological processes including volcanoes. Without carbon dioxide the planet would become too cold to support much of the life on our planet as we know it today, including ourselves. The danger to the environment does not stem from the fact that carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide are in the atmosphere per se, but from the rate of change of their concentration. If the rate of change is too fast, plants and animals, including ourselves, may not have enough time to change to the new atmospheric circumstances and become extinct.


Some scientists and engineers have proposed that pumping sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere could be used as a solution to global warming. Other scientists have opposed this as being potentially dangerous. It seems that we have been conducting an unwitting experiment with the atmosphere by increasing the concentration of both sulphur dioxide and carbon dioxide to dangerous levels and very quickly. What happens if a sudden volcanic eruption rapidly increases the level of sulphur dioxide to an even higher level? We could be faced with a sudden and unexpected global cooling for two, three years or more years; one that is not offset by the global warming and our harvests could be devastated.

We must do something to tackle the increased production, by our own activity, of both carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide before it is too late, otherwise we could be faced with having to artificially maintain our planet's atmosphere. There is no room left for climate sceptic complacency.