Posted on 04/09/2009 1:10:18 PM PDT by grundle
New research from NASA suggests that the Arctic warming trend seen in recent decades has indeed resulted from human activities: but not, as is widely assumed at present, those leading to carbon dioxide emissions. Rather, Arctic warming has been caused in large part by laws introduced to improve air quality and fight acid rain.
Dr Drew Shindell of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies has led a new study which indicates that much of the general upward trend in temperatures since the 1970s - particularly in the Arctic - may have resulted from changes in levels of solid "aerosol" particles in the atmosphere, rather than elevated CO2. Arctic temperatures are of particular concern to those worried about the effects of global warming, as a melting of the ice cap could lead to disastrous rises in sea level - of a sort which might burst the Thames Barrier and flood London, for instance.
Shindell's research indicates that, ironically, much of the rise in polar temperature seen over the last few decades may have resulted from US and European restrictions on sulphur emissions. According to NASA:
Sulfates, which come primarily from the burning of coal and oil, scatter incoming solar radiation and have a net cooling effect on climate. Over the past three decades, the United States and European countries have passed a series of laws that have reduced sulfate emissions by 50 percent. While improving air quality and aiding public health, the result has been less atmospheric cooling from sulfates.
Meanwhile, levels of black-carbon aerosols (soot, in other words) have been rising, largely driven by greater industrialisation in Asia. Soot, rather than reflecting heat as sulphates do, traps solar energy in the atmosphere and warms things up.
The Arctic is especially subject to aerosol effects, says Shindell, because the planet's main industrialised areas are all in the northern hemisphere and because there's not much precipitation to wash the air clean.
"Right now, in the mid-latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere and in the Arctic, the impact of aerosols is just as strong as that of the greenhouse gases," says Shindell.
Dirty Chinese coal to save us all?
Other scientists have recently suggested that it's not just the Arctic which is subject to aerosol effects. Boffins from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have said that aerosol levels from dust storms and volcanoes alone would account for as much as 70 per cent of the temperature rise seen in the Atlantic ocean during the past 26 years, leaving carbon simply nowhere.
Shindell's new NASA study is particularly topical, as President Obama's new science advisor has just suggested that the subject of "geoengineering" - artificially modifying the climate - must be considered as a countermeasure to global warming. One measure put forward by geoengineering advocates is the deliberate injection of sulphur particulates into the atmosphere.
There might not even be any need for action on the part of the West, with China building sulphur-belching coal power stations and diesel vehicles at a furious rate in recent times. Dr Shindell doesn't say so, but it's at least possible that this has something to do with the fact that global temperatures have actually dipped slightly over the last couple of years.
Meanwhile Dr Shindell's position at NASA's Goddard Institute in New York must now be a potentially stressful one. His boss, Dr James Hansen, is more or less the father of the carbon-driven global warming menace. He won't be pleased at the suggestion that carbon emissions may not be such an overriding concern after all. Dr Hansen has even gone so far as to travel to the UK, to add his weight to protests against the Kingsnorth coal plant.
There are of course many arguments against a deliberate policy of sulphate emissions. They cause acid rain, for one thing: the original anti-sulphur regs weren't introduced just for fun. But the appearance of aerosols at the front of the climate-science stage does indicate that the issue isn't simple, and that environmental policies can have unforeseen and unexpected effects.
The goal of simply cutting CO2 emissions by any means possible might have to be reconsidered somewhat: Shindell's research, backed by other recent studies, suggests that it might be a lot more cost-effective to tackle emissions of black-carbon aerosols. Filtering soot from exhausts would be hugely easier than capturing and sequestering CO2, building a fully wind/electric Blighty or other ambitious eco-schemes.
"There's still a lot more that we need to sort out," says Shindell, in understated style.
It’s what I’ve been saying all along:
MORE atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons = LESS global warming.
And I’ve got a few places in mind as test sites, too.
These (bucking the administration) global warming stories almost always are from news feeds outside of the MSM in the U.S.A.
Computer modeling. Just as unreliable as the greenies computer modeling. GIGO!
Unfortunately, Nasa has pretty little credibility nowadays.
Interesting, indeed.
But I would question one assumption: namely, that solar emissions can be left out of consideration.
Recent global cooling is more likely the result of decreasing solar sunspot activity, not Chinese coal burning.
For one thing, I believe the Chinese economy took a hit this past year, and and there may have been less coal burning and auto driving, yet the coolng trend has continued.
Do not mess with mother nature.
China doesn’t even need to build the power plants. They have a real problem with coal mine fires over there due to poor safety, etc. Their out-of-control fires (almost impossible to put out once they get started) put out as much CO2 every year as all of the automobiles and trucks in the United States. Of course, human “produced” CO2 has no effect on the climate, being only about 0.17% of the effective greehouse gas potential, but, if it were.....
This actually coincides with obama’s just announced plan to pollute the atmosphere in response to the Sun warming us. It agrees, within hours, of the concept. Go figure.
I agree with you about the sun. Mars is getting warmer too.
It’s one thing to gripe and complain about these things and disagree with it, but it’s quite *another* to convince your friends and neighbors and relatives and coworkers...
THEREFORE..., it’s also absolutely necessary for people to know the information in the following documentary. If there were simply *one* video that you could see and/or show people you know... this would be the *one*...
The following is an *excellent* video documentary on the so-called “Global Warming” I would recommend it to all FReepers. It’s a very well-made documentary.
“The Great Global Warming Swindle”
If you want to download it, via a BitTorrent site (using a BitTorrent client), you can get it at the following link.
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/3635222/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle
[this is a high-quality copy, of about a gigabyte in size...]
It’s worth seeing and having for relatives, friends, neighbors and coworkers to see.
Also, see it online here...
http://www.moviesfoundonline.com/great_global_warming_swindle.php
[this one is considerably lower quality, is a flash video and viewable online, of course...]
Buy it here...
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000WLUXZE
[this one would be the very highest quality version, on a DVD disk, of several gigabytes in size...]
Personally, I pay little attention to any of these (pro or con) global warming studies. Libs and science have convinced me that neither of them know what the H*ll they are talking about.
This is just another case of where “stupid” men try to play god.
From what I’ve seen it’s called: Globull Warming
DOD deploys new war buggy with a low carbon footprint to fight global warming
http://www.grouchyoldcripple.com/archives/pusse.jpg
bfl
Pay attention to the one in post #12 — you won’t be sorry...
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
OK, so it's 40 years too late, but better late than never.
If we had continued our research and use of nuclear energy generation, we could have told OPEC to go pound sand, and quite possibly avoided the financial meltdown in which we find ourselves (no billions$ to OPEC, more domestic 'taking care of business'.)
Unfortunately, the great ignorant masses (which vote), still haven't seen the handwriting on the wall.
One can only hope.
Actually, no.
Just that fruitcake, Hansen.
Has he been fired yet?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
