NASA says: Aerosols=Artic Warming
Moderator: S2k Moderators
Forum rules
The posts in this forum are NOT official forecast and should not be used as such. They are just the opinion of the poster and may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. They are NOT endorsed by any professional institution or STORM2K.
- MGC
- S2K Supporter
- Posts: 5792
- Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2003 9:05 pm
- Location: Pass Christian MS, or what is left.
NASA says: Aerosols=Artic Warming
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/warming_aerosols.html
Yet another body blow to CO2 driven warming......MGC
Yet another body blow to CO2 driven warming......MGC
0 likes
- x-y-no
- Category 5
- Posts: 8359
- Age: 63
- Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:14 pm
- Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL
Re: NASA says: Aerosols=Artic Warming
MGC wrote:http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/warming_aerosols.html
Yet another body blow to CO2 driven warming......MGC
How is it a body blow? Nothing in this report contradicts the evidence of warming due to CO2. In fact, to the extent that reduced sulphate aerosols are "contributing" to warming, it's a matter of the large amounts of sulphates in past decades having masked the warming signal somewhat. (That's the reason some people discuss a geoengineering stopgap of pumping massive amounts of sulphates into the stratosphere - because we know that they can effectively mask the CO2 warming temporarily.)
Black carbon is a different issue. That's a direct contribution to warming regionally. But it's far from the whole story.
0 likes
Re: NASA says: Aerosols=Artic Warming
Anti-global warming sources tend to be groups associated with industry or conservative groups. It's less than honest to omit that aerosols are directly associated with this group because they still originate from the same sources as CO2. So it really isn't a body blow because the two are still directly related and inarguably "man-made". I would think just as equal a blow would be made to those claiming recent warming was "natural". The article's conclusion is clearly that human activity is the source.
0 likes
Re: NASA says: Aerosols=Artic Warming
Latest polling indicateds only 35% of people now believe in man mad Global warming.
And yet another body blow to GW. Artice Ice is actually expanding.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517035,00.html
And yet another body blow to GW. Artice Ice is actually expanding.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517035,00.html
0 likes
Re: NASA says: Aerosols=Artic Warming
In my opinion this is clearly influenced by politics as the initiating factor.
If you have articles saying man-made aerosols are responsible for global warming, yet polls show a decrease in belief of man-made warming, what does that tell you about the value of public opinion?
If you have articles saying man-made aerosols are responsible for global warming, yet polls show a decrease in belief of man-made warming, what does that tell you about the value of public opinion?
0 likes
- MGC
- S2K Supporter
- Posts: 5792
- Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2003 9:05 pm
- Location: Pass Christian MS, or what is left.
Re: NASA says: Aerosols=Artic Warming
Public opinion don't count for a thing as most don't have a clue about the science of the Earth's climate. Public opinion does matter when it elects politicians that want to enact a carbon tax.....MGC
0 likes
- Tampa Bay Hurricane
- Category 5
- Posts: 5594
- Age: 36
- Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 7:54 pm
- Location: St. Petersburg, FL
- x-y-no
- Category 5
- Posts: 8359
- Age: 63
- Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:14 pm
- Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL
Re:
Tampa Bay Hurricane wrote:Can someone explain? I'm confused.
Over the long-term past, the primary driver of changes in global temperature has been variations in the Earth's orbit. So in those past warming events, slightly increased insolation gradually warms the lower troposphere and as the ocean surface warms the ocean's capacity to hold carbon dioxide goes down, leading to a feedback which (based on ice core records) lags the warming event by approximately 800 years, warming the atmosphere further.
Currently, something different is happening which has never happened before (because humans only developed industry in the last two centuries.) Vast amounts of fossil carbon are bing dug up and pumped into the atmosphere, causing the climate to warm in the absence of any orbital change.
There's nothing contradictory about these two scenarios. In past events, carbon dioxide was a (rather slow) feedback, in this event it's the primary forcing.
0 likes
Re: NASA says: Aerosols=Artic Warming
MGC wrote:Public opinion don't count for a thing as most don't have a clue about the science of the Earth's climate. Public opinion does matter when it elects politicians that want to enact a carbon tax.....MGC
Valid point; however, most people know when they are being sold a bill of goods, sky is falling and can spot a political agenda such as carbon tax, go green, etc... Without getting into too much politics GE/MSNBC would be a big benefactor and are big supporters of the current administration. So, while there may be some truth to man made GW, I believe and as most people believe it isn't near as catasrophic, sell the farm as some would have you believe. History is replete with mistakes when acting on implsue such as this.
0 likes
Re: NASA says: Aerosols=Artic Warming
I read a NY Times Magazine article discussing a Columbia University study analyzing how people process information and what influences their decisions. They found that people think in the short term when it comes to long term things like global warming. The study found most people would take $10 now rather than $20 a few months from now. As long as global warming isn't drastically changing their lives people will have an unlimited variety of short term arguments to justify their indifference.
To me, I think the wait and see people are motivated by politics. Clearly with China preparing to add even more coal source power and other economies building CO2 emitting infrastructure, those making a strong case for doing nothing and watching have to ignore a lot of obvious realities.
To me, I think the wait and see people are motivated by politics. Clearly with China preparing to add even more coal source power and other economies building CO2 emitting infrastructure, those making a strong case for doing nothing and watching have to ignore a lot of obvious realities.
0 likes
- MGC
- S2K Supporter
- Posts: 5792
- Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2003 9:05 pm
- Location: Pass Christian MS, or what is left.
Re: NASA says: Aerosols=Artic Warming
Perhaps if a carbon tax is enacted, it should be made optional. As a man made GW disbeliever, I would strongly oppose any sort of green tax, carbon tax, what ever you want to call it tax. So, if you belive in GW then you can pay the tax. There are countless companies lobbying for a carbon tax as they will profit from it. Almost like a defense company hopeing for a war to break out so they can sell more tanks. What some people will do for a dollar......MGC
0 likes
Re: NASA says: Aerosols=Artic Warming
If find it sort of a good example of cognitive dissonance to post a thread showing evidence of man-made aerosols influencing Global Warming and then claim disbelief in man-made Global Warming.
Those aerosols come from the same burning sources as CO2.
Those aerosols come from the same burning sources as CO2.
0 likes
- MGC
- S2K Supporter
- Posts: 5792
- Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2003 9:05 pm
- Location: Pass Christian MS, or what is left.
Re: NASA says: Aerosols=Artic Warming
I guess you missed the statement in the article that mentioned naturally occuring aerosols. Of course, like many who worship at the AGW altar, summarily dismissing critical segments of a statement to support a distorted view, I find this typical. Nice ad hominem fallacy there Sanibel, but I feel my cognitive processes are just fine thank you.....MGC
0 likes
- Tampa Bay Hurricane
- Category 5
- Posts: 5594
- Age: 36
- Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 7:54 pm
- Location: St. Petersburg, FL
x-y-no wrote:Tampa Bay Hurricane wrote:Can someone explain? I'm confused.
Over the long-term past, the primary driver of changes in global temperature has been variations in the Earth's orbit. So in those past warming events, slightly increased insolation gradually warms the lower troposphere and as the ocean surface warms the ocean's capacity to hold carbon dioxide goes down, leading to a feedback which (based on ice core records) lags the warming event by approximately 800 years, warming the atmosphere further.
Currently, something different is happening which has never happened before (because humans only developed industry in the last two centuries.) Vast amounts of fossil carbon are bing dug up and pumped into the atmosphere, causing the climate to warm in the absence of any orbital change.
There's nothing contradictory about these two scenarios. In past events, carbon dioxide was a (rather slow) feedback, in this event it's the primary forcing.
Thank you for the explanations!
0 likes
Re: NASA says: Aerosols=Artic Warming
I think a study of aerosols would find those in question were man-made and came from the same burning sources as CO2 sources. To me the argument that ALL Global Warming influences are natural is a violation of the science behind putting underground carbon into the atmosphere from human activity. I refer to the part of the article that specifically focuses on sulfates and black carbon. The article clearly says these are the worst culprits and both are man-made:
Ad hominem?
Though there are several varieties of aerosols, previous research has shown that two types -- sulfates and black carbon -- play an especially critical role in regulating climate change. Both are products of human activity.
Ad hominem?
0 likes
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 79 guests