Planetary Radiation Balance as a Function of Atmospheric Dust: Climatological Consequences
Abstract
An analysis of several atmospheric dust-loading events at Phoenix, Arizona, under background cloudless sky conditions, allowed determination of dust-induced changes in both the net solar and net thermal radiation received at the earth's surface. The resultant climatological forcing function for surface temperature change was plotted against the ratio of diffuse to normal-incidence solar radiation. It was found that initial increases in atmospheric dust concentration tend to warm the planet's surface. After a certain critical concentration has been reached, continued dust buildup reduces this warming effect until at a second critical dust concentration a cooling trend begins. This second critical dust concentration is so great, however, that any particulate pollution of the lower atmosphere by man will have a tendency to increase surface temperatures. Thus, anthropogenically produced tropospheric aerosols cannot be looked on as offsetting the warming tendency of increased carbon dioxide: their concurrent buildups must inexorably tend to warm the planet's surface.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Other researchers concluded that aerosols would lead to warming rather than cooling.
“Adding to the confusion at the time, other researchers concluded that aerosols would lead to warming rather than cooling (Reck 1975; Idso and Brazel 1977).”
From THE MYTH OF THE 1970s GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS (2008) · cites this paper as Idso and Brazel 1977
Only two of the surveyed articles would, according to current climate science, be considered wrong in the sign of the response to the forcing they considered-one cooling (Bryson and Dittberner 1976) and one warming (Idso and Brazel 1977)-and both were immediately challenged.
“Interestingly, only two of the articles would, according to the current state of climate science, be considered 'wrong' in the sense of getting the wrong sign of the response to the forcing they considered-one cooling (Bryson and Dittberner 1976) and one warming (Idso and Brazel 1977) paperand both were immediately challenged (Woronko 1977; Herman et al. 1978).”
From THE MYTH OF THE 1970s GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS (2008) · cites this paper as Idso and Brazel 1977
Cited by
Sorted by citations
THE MYTH OF THE 1970s GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS
Peterson, T. C., Connolley, W. M., & Fleck, J. (2008) · Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society · doi:10.1175/2008bams2370.1 · Cited by 133 · see citing works
- Authors
- Idso, S. B., & Brazel, A. J.
- Affiliations
- U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory, Phoenix, Arizona 85040
- Arizona State University (US)
- Venue
- Science
- Published
- 1977-11-18
- Volume
- 198
- Issue
- 4318
- Pages
- 731-733
- ISSN
- 0036-8075 (ISSN-L)
- 1095-9203
- OpenAlex
- W2041077533
- Cited by
- 46
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 9.93
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Science (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Atmospheric aerosols and clouds
- Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Atmospheric chemistry and aerosols
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Climate variability and models
- Keywords
- atmospheric dust, surface temperature, net solar radiation, anthropogenic aerosols, tropospheric aerosols, global warming, carbon dioxide, Phoenix, Arizona
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review