In the first instance I was mislead by the note in Science on this article; I then turned to the original paper in Nature after the reply by Kaicun Wang
I could only read the Abstract and Supplement of the paper in Nature
My 1st comment: the paper's main conclusion is that the temperature change is for 80% linked to the indirect aerosol effect, thus not to haziness / clear-sky-visibility.
The article is very controversial because no other model gives a similar fit of temperature trend and aerosol trend. The indirect aerosol effect is stronlgly under debate, see the leaked draft AR5 of IPCC for its reduced value relative to AR4.
comment: There is a trend lately in Nature to accept papers on Climate Change that are highly controversial. It seems that this is of interest to the journal rather than to the scientific community
The reference period for the data is the whole period, i.e., 1973-2007. The data I used from National Climate Data Center. This dataset does not have visibility data during 2003-2005 in Europe.
My recent paper in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics answers why there is a increase in Europe, primarily from forest fire emission due to drought and heatwave.
Wang, K.C., R. E. Dickinson, L. Su, and K. Trenberth (2012), Contrasting trends of mass and optical properties of aerosols over the Northern Hemisphere from 1992 to 2011, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 12, 9387-9398.