NASA says: Aerosols=Artic Warming

[MGC]

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/warming_aerosols.html

Yet another body blow to CO2 driven warming......MGC

[x-y-no]

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.

[Sanibel]

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.

[caneman]

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

[Sanibel]

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?

[MGC]

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

[Tampa Bay Hurricane]

I'm not arguing for either side here- I am actually confused:

the 380 ppm CO-2 highest level may mean AGW, but the graph says it is cyclical?


Can someone explain? I'm confused.

[x-y-no]

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.

[caneman]

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.

[Sanibel]

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.

[MGC]

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

[Sanibel]

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.

[MGC]

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

[Tampa Bay Hurricane]

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!

[Sanibel]

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:

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?