E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
NASA
This satellite-based image shows Hurricane Katrina approaching the Gulf Coast in August 2005.
It's certainly not what officials had in mind when they curbed industrial aerosol pollutants, but a new study suggests that doing so has had a big effect on Atlantic Ocean temperatures -- and in the case of the U.S. can be linked to warming seas that fueled hurricanes like Katrina.
"When industrial pollution peaked over the Atlantic, this effect played a big role in cooling the ocean beneath," Paul Halloran, a study co-author and ocean scientist with the British government's Met Office weather service, said in a statement accompanying the study. "As pollution was cleaned up -- for example after the clean air legislation of the '90s -- the seas warmed."
Earlier studies found a link between sea temperatures, hurricanes and droughts. But the new study, published in the peer-reviewed journal Nature, goes beyond that to bring into the picture aerosols from the burning of fossil fuels. Those industrial aerosols can cause corrosive acid rain.
"Our study is the first to identify how significant these human emissions of aerosols are because they capture aerosol interactions with clouds," co-author Ben Booth told msnbc.com.
It turns out more aerosols make clouds brighter and longer lasting, thus reflecting sunlight back up and cooling seas. Less do the opposite, warming seas.
Using a computer model to track aerosol emissions, cloud impact and ocean temperatures, the researchers found that while volcanic eruptions also contribute aerosol pollution, the manmade effect has been much more significant.
If you're thinking that nations should increase manmade aerosols to battle hurricanes by cooling the Atlantic, the researchers say not so fast.
"While cool phases correspond to periods with lower hurricane activity in the North Atlantic," Booth said, "they are also linked with widespread persistent African drought (1970s and 1980s) -- with all the associated food and mortality related impacts."
"I think this is a very important point that we need to get across when we communicate these results," he added.
Other studies have shown that droughts in Africa and even South America are tied to changes in ocean temperature, Booth said.
"Our study focuses on how we understand these changes, previously thought to be natural oscillations," he added, and it suggests "that much of this could have been driven by human emissions and volcanic events."
More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:
Leave a Comment:
No man is an island. Everything we do affects someone else.
Maybe we should think locally. I saw a woman throw an empty chip bag out her car window yesterday. Pretty shocking that people are still littering that way. I learned not to do that when I was 5.
You gotta have something for those highway clean-up volunteers to do.
I hope you never drive into any urban area anytime soon...especially with ones with "inner cities" you are told to stay away from.
That empty chip bag pales in comparison to shells of stripped-clean automobiles, piles of old tires, old furniture, and a mound of filled trash bags. I don't recommend you get out of your car to approach them if you have flip-flops or sandals on because there are quite a few hypodermic needles and used condoms laying around.
the English author of that hogwash should clean his bong and put the medical marijuana away.
Wow, Ragge... that's brilliant. You should write useless comments like that here more often.
onejulia, you are correct.
This proves global warming was caused by cleaning up the air.
So the whole global warming thing was a LIE
So why wasn't the planet warmer before the beginning of the Industrial Age? Why was the Northern Hemisphere locked into the Little Ice Age just before we started using coal for fuel?
I've stated numerous times that global warming is likely due to more factors than just CO2. Very seldom is anything the result of just ONE thing, ever!
Objectively looking at the science we're definitely in a warming trend. There are numerous speculations as to the causes of that trend (from man-made to natural). A significant number of scientists indicate CO2 as a major warming contributor BUT the media seldom reports the very large numbers who add in other significant factors as well, often in the same report but those things are ignored. Quite a few of these factors have little to do with man but that does not mean one can rule out the effects of man on global climate. Finally, we are just beginning to increase our scientific knowledge to the level that we understand the quantity of variables that impact climate. We're still in our childhood in the ability to predict things even like the number of hurricanes per year, so what we know today will likely change in years to come. That's not to say we shouldn't reduce pollution or man's impact on the environment but we also should avoid being so arrogant that we insist that we already know it all and that anyone who speculates differently is committing heresy. That didn't work well for the church during the dark ages and it won't work well for science today!
Climate is driven by forcing agents, Mike. It doesn't 'just change' for no reason.
What are the forces driving this current climate change? Is the sun getting hotter? (no) Is volcanic activity unusually low? (again, no) Are plate tectonics speeding up? Is the Earth's core warming? Is the Earth getting closer to the sun? (no, no, and no)
Has the amount of a known greenhouse gas increased by 40% in the last 150 years due to humans digging up long-sequestered carbon in the form of fossil fuels, burning them, and releasing that gas into the atmosphere? (yes)
Can we actually measure the energy coming into our planet from the sun, the energy going back out, and show that energy is being retained (the Earth Energy Imbalance)? (yes)
What else is driving this sudden change? Something must be doing it. The climate doesn't just change for no reason.
Physicist... You said "agents" not agent. That would suggest that CO2 is not the only agent?
Having studied systems in physics, how often in complex systems was there only one single factor that was responsible for change? In a simple mechanical system the equations have multiple variables, with some having a greater and some a lesser proportion in effect. In a system so complex as our environment you are saying that CO2 is the only major significant factor?
I have no issue with it being a significant factor, but as this study demonstrated it's not likely the only factor. Read some of the studies using factor analysis on various factors impacting global temperature shifts and you'll find a fair large number of variables that influence warming.
I can't recall any climate scientist saying CO2 is the only factor, but it's a fact (confirmed by NOAA/NODC and NASA) that the oceans are still warming, globally, despite relatively high sulfur emissions in recent years from China. (Keep in mind this article was only about the Atlantic.) Look up NODC's plot of 0 to 2000 m global ocean heat content ... 2011 was the highest (annual average) since the beginning of the data.
So, let me get this straight. Cleaning up the Air has caused global warming? What is Al Gore going to say now. Pollution helped lower the Atlantic's temperature and clear skies are raising them instead. What are the eco-freaks going to do now? Maybe it time to bring back real leaded hytest gas and cut the catalytic converters off the cars. Time to bring the gas guzzling muscle cars back. Al Gore needs to have a coke and a smile, then shut the F@(K up.
This sound like a Federal Bureaucrat trying the "justify" their "highly paid" job. TALK ABOUT JUNK SCIENCE AT TAX PAYERS EXPENSE, THESE PEOPLE NEED TO FIND CONSTRUCTIVE EMPLOYMENT AND STOP RIPPING OFF THE TAX PAYER. They also need to cut back on what their smoking and/or injecting.
Of course it's not the only forcing agent, Mike. I already listed several climate forcing agents in my first post: solar insolance, changes in the earth's orbit, plate tectonics, core heat, and volcanic activity.
There are others. The primary greenhouse gas in our atmosphere is not CO2 - it's actually water vapor, which accounts for about 70% of atmospheric warming. CO2 accounts for about 20%.
But guess what? Human-caused CO2 emissions have already raised global temperatures by about 1C. Warmer air holds more moisture, so the amount of water vapor (a greenhouse gas) has also risen now - by 7%.
That not only adds even more warming, it also creates extreme precipitation events - unfortunately, the excess moisture doesn't fall equally on all parts of the planet.
And we're already seeing an increase in extreme precipitation events - big enough to actually measure. From the science journal Nature (one of many, many studies on the subject):
Human contribution to more-intense precipitation extremes
As for:
I've been studying our atmosphere since I first began aerosol modeling for military sensors back during the Reagan Administration. I really do have a grasp of the complexity of that system.
Are many forces at work? Yes. Is human activity in the form of increased CO2 emissions the primary driver in changing those forces, and shifting the climate to a warmer state? Again, yes. There's no debate about this in scientific circles. The debate now occurs only in political and corporate arenas.
Agreed... Seems like we're saying similar things. My issue is mostly that the media and politicians focus on CO2 only and any comment about any other factor is screamed down by extremists as being anti-science.
Mgo, I really hope that was sarcasm, if not you should take your own advise. Yes, cleaner skies does in fact cause warming to happen. Imagine that! It's the same as having tinted windows on your vehicle. Clear windows have a greater effect of your car being hotter after sitting in the sun than having tinted windows. The same thing happens with the Earth and its atmosphere. Wow! Who woulda thunk it! :p
Joe, spouting such nonsense only confirms the fact you have no idea about the subject at hand. You should take Mgo's advise and STF up.
Habibullo Ismailovich Abdussamatov - born October 27, 1940 in Samarkand, Uzbek SSR, Soviet Union is a Russian astrophysicist. He is the supervisor of the Astrometria project of the Russian section of the International Space Station and the head of Space research laboratory at the Saint Petersburg-based Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences. He is a global warming skeptic.
Abdussamatov claims that "global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy—almost throughout the last century—growth in its intensity." He has asserted that "parallel global warmings—observed simultaneously on Mars and on Earth—can only be a straightline consequence of the effect of the one same factor: a long-time change in solar irradiance."
In early 2012, Abdussamatov predicted the onset of a new "mini-iceage" commencing 2014 and becoming most severe around 2055.
I guess Abdussamatov hasn't seen this graph from NASA. Data trumps opinion in science.
Over the last 30 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Solar activity and climate are moving in opposite directions.
Deniers cherry pick data to show past periods when solar activity and climate move together, but always ignore more recent data from the last few decades when the two clearly diverge.
Solar activity certainly isn't causing climate change.
Maybe, retired, the astrophysicist has been reviewing other data.
"We can expect the onset of a deep bicentennial minimum of total solar irradiance (TSI) in approximately 2042±11 and the 19th deep minimum of global temperature in the past 7500 years – in 2055±11. After the maximum of solar cycle 24, from approximately 2014 we can expect the start of deep cooling with a Little Ice Age in 2055±11." -- Habibullo I. Abdussamatov, Russian Academy of Science, 1 February 2012
If you're interested, retired, Abdussamatov has submitted this paper. Includes graphs.
The effects of the upcoming solar minimum have already been calculated (many times), freedman.
A deep solar minimum - even one as great as the one that caused the Maunder Minimum - will cool the planet by (at most ) 0.3C - while global warming during that same time period will warm the planet by 3C - 6C. In other words, no new ice age - not even a 'blip' on the radar. More like a lucky break, which might reduce the impact of climate change by anywhere from 1% to 10%.
On the effect of a new grand minimum of solar activity on the future climate on Earth
As for Abdussamatov and the impact of solar activity on climate change, did you look at the graph I linked? Solar flares happen quite frequently - but they are not trending upwards over time. The planet's temperature is.
Edit:
I'm very interested, but your link requires that I disable my antivirus software. Do you have a title for his paper? I can find a safe version to read.
The paper is just a pdf file. It's entitled Bicentennial Decrease of the Total Solar Irradiance Leads to Unbalanced Thermal Budget of the Earth and the Little Ice Age.
I made you a copy.
http://76.18.148.191/physics.pdf
Got it. Thanks.
Abdussamatov is absolutely correct about the onset of a predicted grand solar minimum. NASA, the British Meteorological Society, and many other scientific organizations around the world have reached the same conclusion.
Here's where he goes wrong:
The Earth's current energy imbalance is +0.58±0.15 W/m2, or approximately 160+ TerraWatts of energy every year.
While reduced radiative forcing from a grand solar minimum may shift that imbalance by approximately -.2 W/m2, radiative forcing from CO2 during that same timeframe will increase the imbalance by +6 to +8 W/m2 during the same timeframe (see Figure 2, page 3 here).
I have read your link. I ask that you return the favor and read mine.
One minor note: Abdussamatov also says this in his paper:
The fact is that the Little Ice Age was caused by two periods of high volcanic activity, just 20 years apart from each other, that cooled the planet enough to shift the North Atlantic Oscillation - and prevent warm equatorial waters from reaching the North Atlantic.
It wasn't caused by TSI variations. A minor point, but one more thing that Abdussamatov got wrong.
I read your link right away, retired. Abdussamatov says 'Temporal changes in the power of the longwave radiation of the system Earth-atmosphere emitted to space always lag behind changes in the power of absorbed solar radiation due to slow change of its enthalpy.' Which is consistent with what I've heard before, and would also be consistent with the NASA graph.
Also, seems tough to beat the math regarding relative influence of variations of the Bond albedo and TSI on the change of the Earth effective temperature. The concurrent warming on Mars does seem to support the hypothesis.
Abdussamatov is joined by Croatian scientist Vladimir Paar -- "The cyclic variations of climate, especially in Europe during the passed millennium, were not associated with fundamental climate changes, but the changes were frequently sufficient to affect the life of nations and several states leading to economical and demographic crises. By conducting a similar research, Eugene Borisenkov (Climate variations during the last millennium. Leningrad. 1988. p. 275) has found that during each of 18 deep minima of sunspot activity similar to the Maunder minimum with quasi two hundred years period during the last 7500 years, the periods of global climate cooling were observed. The two hundred year maxima of sunspot activity were in turn followed by global warmings. These fundamental changes in the Earth climate could be caused only by the corresponding long term and considerable changes in integral power of the coming solar radiation flux, because any industrial influence was non-existent in those times."
So - if Abdussamatov & Paar are correct, enjoy it while we can!
Oh, I missed the Feulner | Rahmstorf link.
I guess the takeaway is that one can be an accomplished academician and research scientist and still disagree with the 'manmade global warming, carbon credits and cap & tax scenario' put forth by the politicians.
Settled science. Really.
Policy, not science. First suggested by the U.N. Works in some places, fails miserably in others. Probably not a real solution.
Republican policy (created by Ronald Reagan), not science. Worked very well for CFCs. Could work for CO2.
I prefer not to mix the science with the policy. Science is based on empirical data. Policy is often based on opinion or other motivating factors.
We can agree on the science, while disagreeing on whether/how to do anything about it.
Ok. It's settled science because Georg Feulner says so.
But if the man who is supervisor of the Astrometria project of the International Space Station and the head of Space research laboratory at the Saint Petersburg-based Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences says he's seeing something different, he's a quack. He should keep his communist pinko mouth shut and go drink some more vodka.
It's settled science, Ruskie.
The following scientific organizations endorse the consensus position that "most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities":
Seems a bit harsh, doesn't it? Nice 'talking' wih you Freedman. Enjoy the rest of your Sunday.
So it's a vote then. Majority wins. Settled science.
Here are 500 scientists with documented doubts of global warming scares.
http://media.patriotpost.us/pdf/ref/500scientists.pdf
Happy Easter!
freedman,
This list has been circulating for some time. I'm afraid you're being misled by someone who assumes that you won't bother to read the actual papers.
Look at the very first one on the list:
W. Dansgaard et al., “North Atlantic Climatic Oscillations Revealed by Deep Greenland Ice Cores,” in Climate Processes and Climate Sensitivity (1984), ed., F. E. Hansen and T. Takahashi, Geophysical Monograph 29, (Washington, D.C., American Geophysical Union).
I'm linking a copy of the paper here. In the Conclusions section, page 295, the authors conclude that 'periods of low solar activity are associated with cooler climate conditions'.
Yes, they are. We've know that for some time, and Dansgaard's study of the Greenland ice core confirms it in this study.
The temperature variance between a solar maximum and solar minimum normally changes about -.8C. But then we return to a solar maximum, in an 11-year cycle, and the temperature rises by +0.8C. again. So over the cycle, the net change is zero.
Sometimes, grand solar minimums, like the Maunder Minimum, will have stronger effects. Dansgaard thinks he may have found a periodicity to grand solar minimums - although he clearly states that this periodicity is not evident in the Southern Hemisphere (Vostok ice core data).
How does this disprove human-caused climate change? It doesn't. And the person(s) compiling that list are counting on the fact that you won't dig into the details to figure that out. You can prove them wrong by reading the paper for yourself.
I personally get a little ticked when I discover that I'm being manipulated. Don't you?
That really wasn't my point, although I can see how it would be interpreted that way. My point was that there's no debate about human-caused climate change in scientific circles. When every national scientific organization in the world agrees (much like they do on Evolution, Relativity, and Germ Theory) it's rather unlikely that they've all completely overlooked or missed something.
This is not science by consensus, but (rather) a consensus of science.
Can you find scientists who really do disagree? Of course. But they are a very small minority (and 90% of dissenting scientists' work is funded by Exxon).
More than 97% of climate scientists around the world agree that human activity is warming the planet. Either they're all bad at their jobs, or they're involved in some vast, global conspiracy to fool us.
Is that really plausible?
Dr. Phil. Willi Dansgaard passed away Saturday, January 8, 2011 at the age of 88 years.
“RECENT results from two ice cores drilled in central Greenland have revealed large, abrupt climate changes of at least regional extent during the late stages of the last glaciation, suggesting that climate in the North Atlantic region is able to reorganize itself rapidly, perhaps even within a few decades. Here we present a detailed stable-isotope record for the full length of the Greenland Ice-core Project Summit ice core, extending over the past 250 kyr according to a calculated timescale. We find that climate instability was not confined to the last glaciation, but appears also to have been marked during the last interglacial (as explored more fully in a companion paper) and during the previous Saale–Holstein glacial cycle. This is in contrast with the extreme stability of the Holocene, suggesting that recent climate stability may be the exception rather than the rule." ~ W. Dansgaard
If your point is that climate fluctuations are man-made events, and that this is settled science, Dansgaard refutes this notion, positing that Dansgaard-Oeschger events, perhaps coupled with Nutation, could be be the real truth behind Global Warming.
Abdussamatov is simply another scientist who finds that man-made events have little to do with climate change.
Proponents of the anthropogenic (man-made) hypothesis have touted as their ‘best’ evidence—the Antarctic ice-core record—actually contradicts the hypothesis: changes in CO2 concentrations always follow temperature changes (not the other way around) in the 650,000 years that the ice-core record covers (known as the “CO2 lag.”)
Somebody seems to be manipulating information. That tends to tick me off.
Absolutely not, freedman. No scientist makes that claim. Refer to comment #1.14 above, for example.
The Younger Dryas is a prime example of abrupt (and relatively recent) climate change that had no human fingerprint. But the fact that humans have not changed the global climate in the past does not mean they aren't doing it now.
We know what caused past climate changes. And we know what's causing this one.
Some have argued that Dansgaard-Oeschger (D-O) events could be causing the current global warming. Dansgaard himself, however, has never made that claim.
But D-O events occur with a 1,470-year period. The most obvious flaw in this argument is that the planet wasn't warming 1,470 years ago. The previous warm event was the Medieval Warm Period, approximately 1,000 years ago.
Bond et al. (1999) shows that the timing of D-O events disqualifies them from being responsible for the current warming, by showing that the most recent D-O event may have contributed to the Little Ice Age (LIA):
Rahmstorf (2003) also concludes that the LIA may be the most recent cold phase of the D-O cycle, and his research suggests that the 1,470-year periodicity is so regular that it's more likely due to an orbital
cycle than a solar cycle (a possibility that Dansgaard himself mentions):
Braun et al. (2005) points out that D-O events could be caused by a combination of solar cycles and freshwater input into the North Atlantic Ocean. But their study also concludes that D-O events are not expected to occur during the Holocene (i.e., now).
The bottom line is that regardless of whether or not the D-O cycles are triggered by the Sun, the timing is clearly not right for this cycle to be responsible for the current warming.
Particularly since solar output has not increased in the last 60 years, and has only increased a fraction of a percent in the last 300 years.
Okay - now you're just spouting WUWT talking points. I'm out.
You might want to check the work of notable astrophysicist Habibullo Abdussamatov regarding this.
And continuing to spout 'settled science' I presume.
p.s. - I had never heard of the WUWT prior to our discourse. I just did check 'em out. Thanks for the tip.
I can just hear the big oil companies yelling "SEE-SEE-WE TOLD YOU IT WASN'T US!!!
The only thing to fear is all the opposing opinions, taking incomplete research as the absolute truth and
MAN!
AGW is incomplete too.
Actually I can hear the aerosol companies yelling about the contradiction. Aerosol was causing the depletion of the ozone layer which was causing global warming but at the same time cooling the Atlantic Ocean. The clouds only reflect the sun back over the ocean??????
Studies only serve the people that conduct them. You can interpret your result in any way. First pollution is going to fry us and now it was going to freeze us. Scientists need work just like any other consultant and making it up as they go along seems to be working just fine. BTW, does getting rid of this polution in the U.S. really take care of the entire globe? Last I saw the air wasn't looking very clean over China.
How about we all settle on one fact, the earth is a huge rock within billions of stars and planets. We are fleas on its back and are not going to change whatever the planet decides it wants to do. Arrogance and greed are the operatives of humans in this day and age and it will be our doom.
Have a Happy Easter.
And I thought I tilted at WIND MILLS !!
First it was global Warming causing all the problems . Now the warming is caused by us cleaning up the atmosphere . Make up my mind, PLEASE . WHICH IS IT ?????
different types of pollution do different things and understanding all of those interactions is part of climate science
aerosols in the upper atmosphere seem to have some cooling affects(in addition to contributing to acid rain and destroying ozone), but we are certain that Co2 increases temperature that it has gone up from 280-390 ppm over the last 100 years, that 9 of the last ten years were the warmest on record, and that this march was 10-15 degrees F above average over most of the country
At Browns Backer-We may be fleas on the earth individually but together we are a swarm and have terraformed the majority of the surface of the planet from it's original state, this study like so many others show we are more than capable of changing our planets atmosphere and climate as well as the surface even if we don't fully understand how all the pieces connect yet
Browns Backer - As an atmospheric scientist, let me assure you that is *not* how science works (barring typically isolated exceptions that occur in every field). First off, aerosols are any small particle that can, in a basic sense, "float" around in the air. Dust is an aerosol, as is sea salt (those two are actually very common and widespread aerosols). You are thinking of "aerosol" as in the aerosol spray cans that have largely been phased out after the Montreal Protocol. Meteorologically, however, and in terms of atmospheric chemistry, CFCs (which was targetted when aerosol spray cans were modified) are just one type of aerosol. When you have a big bonfire outside, you are releasing aerosols. Of course, on that small scale, the impact is negligible. When we discuss industrial production, however, the impact can be significant. It's been known for a while now that aerosols *tend* to decrease incoming solar radiation at the earth's surface, which in turn has a cooling effect. Of course, the health effects of high concentrations of some of these aerosols are quite bad. Reducing aerosol concentration, then, has a positive effect on incoming solar radiation, and tends to result in slightly warmer surface temperatures. The present study just examined that effect in terms of hurricane activity. Again, though, this isn't surprising, and it's been documented elsewhere (e.g. IPCC, etc.). Of course, I wouldn't want to live in some of the industrial cities decades ago that had darkened skies at all hours of the day and covered in soot (and with all associated respiratory impacts) just so that the sfc temp may be a bit cooler.
The planet doesn't really "decide what it wants to do". There is no 'brain' at the center of the earth. The changes to the earth are consistent with physics, radiation science, etc., and are consistent with our understanding. Natural processes certainly can dramatically change the earth's landscape (and the atmospheric landscape), but to think that humans cannot affect the earth is patently incorrect. There are countless peer-reviewed, rigorous scientific articles that address this very issue, and the results are clear. The details, certainly, may very and may not be entirely understood, but well-done, vigorous, thorough research has shown that we certainly *are* having an effect on the earth.
There has been cycles of global warning when either no one or very few people were here. I love to watch atheist scientist struggle to answer this. You can't blame that on Republicans unless the dinasaurs were Republican. I attended a debate between an evolutionist and creation scientist. The evolution scientist was stumped to explain how a recent fossil tested by carbon dating turned out to be only 1400 years old but was a fossil that went extinct 100 million years ago. The guy actually started crying.
Faasux, "creation scientist"?? Now if that's not a contradiction in terms I don't know what is! Those "cycles of global warming" you're talking about can and have been linked to NATURAL events such as unusually high periods of vulcanism. I also love to read rubbish that people write of things they obviously have zero knowledge of, such as yourself. I'd also love to have a link to your 'debate' between the evolutionist and "creation scientist" and mostly one for the fossil that was supposedly 1400 years old. The funny thing about carbon dating, it can NOT date things accurately if they are more than few thousand years.
Plenty of scientist are believers in creation and argue much better than evolutionist that have to resort to lies and tainted studies. Google the number of global warming cycles of earth and you will find just as many arguments for past warming cycles as for only recent. Zero knowledge? Dream on. You can't stand your belief legitimately being challenged. Carbon dating was only one element mentioned. These fossils have been found in layers of the Grand Canyon that prove evolution is a hoax, but whisper now, scientist fight to keep this quiet, which is funny when you find your precious science is flawed and you continue to ignore truth. I have a degree in meteorology and I am content with what I believe until it can actually be proved wrong.
Well, let's talk about FACT vs. BELIEF. This is a key distinction that no one seems to recognize any more. We seem to live in a post-fact world, where every single person sees his or her own reality, made up of facts that only he or she seems to recognize. Let's be serious and opbjective for a moment, shall we?
GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
Yes, gradual climate shifts have occurred in the past. However, factors made by man since the industrial revolution have been shown to affect climate, and appear to be doing so independently of natural factors that spurred change in the past. For whatever political or ideological or religious reason you desire, you can deny this, but just know you stand in the vast minority of learned individuals, and realize that your rationale for doing so does NOT lie in the scientific realm. Data alone says: yes, change is real. Yes, it appears to be human-driven. This conclusion has been borne out time and time again, and is ALWAYS refuted by 'think tanks" like the Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute, etc., that are invariably funded by Big Oil, Industry, and Tobacco, and presented by a tiny minority of 'scientists,' usually out of field, who have expressed a certain political ideology in the past (Fred Seitz, Robert Jastrow, etc). *Read Merchants of Doubt, about this very subject. An incredible - and infuriating, for lovers of reason and science -- read. FACT: The tiny minority of scientists who are climate change deniers are, invariably, on the payroll of right-wing institutes and corporations and have voiced anti-climate change, anti-acid rain, anti-'tabacoo causes cancer,' anti-ozone hole positions.....that is, consistently WRONG at best, deceitful at worst.
EVOLUTION:
Again, be aware of the influence of your religious or ideological beliefs about this issue. FACT: No scientific theory explains the natural world better than natural selection and change over time. It's simple, it's elegant, it's observable. Humans marshalled its characteristics before they even had a name for it, to create better pets, crops, and livestock. Every major hypothesis about genetic theory has been borne out, right down to the similarities of ape vs human DNA, with a corresponding break and telomere marker being found exactly where it was thought to have to be. These are simply FACTS. Now, if you want to think that it isn't true, fine. But be aware that the vast majority of learned people disagree with you. If you want to think a deity created us 6,000 years ago, fine. But realize -- and characterize your way of thinking to others -- as BELIEF, not FACT. Because that's what it is.
Now, a rebuttal: "Plenty of scientists are believers in creation." <---- No, they're not. The National Academy of Scientists estimates that better than 85% of its members are atheists/agnostics. Other studies show that fewer than 10% of scientists actively involved in peer-review publications catagorize themselves as creationists. Your 'fossil evidence' is laughable; sure, the occasional carbon dating example might be wrong, but over the long run, it's accurate to within a reasonable amount of time (in geological terms)....and if you don't like carbon 14, fine, pick another element that can be measured, and it will bear out the scientific estimates. Or, look at something other than fossils; we see starlight every night that has been traveling longer than 6,000 years. Again, you can BELIEVE otherwise, but state that as FACT would be incorrect and maybe even disingenuous.
I would have liked to have seen your 'debate.' I've attended a few myself, and while I've never been able to see one of the greats (Dawkins, Dennet, etc), I'm pretty sure even a solid high school biology or chemistry teacher would have been able to shred the typical creationist argument fairly easily, since every creationist claim, inevitably, comes down to an argument by BELIEF, not fact. Hence the incredibly long, harsh written judgement handed down by a CONSERVATIVE, REAGAN-APPOINTED JUDGE in the Dover, PA. case, where he ridiculed the creationist position as anti-science rubbish.
*And KUDOS to "physicist - retired." Your posts RULE. Edifying and respectful. The first comment section to a story I've seen where I've actually learned something and been impressed by a poster's civility. Good on ya.
Thanks, GaC. Back at ya.
First it was too much pollution that was causing the oceans to heat up causing all these terrible storms and now their saying it was a lack of pollution that's causing the oceans to heat up and causing all these terrible storms.
LOL TAJ.... you mean like all the global warming alarmists taking incomplete research as the absolute truth?
different types of pollution do different things and understanding all of those interactions is part of climate science
aerosols in the upper atmosphere seem to have some cooling affects(in addition to contributing to acid rain and destroying ozone), but we are certain that Co2 increases temperature that it has gone up from 280-390 ppm over the last 100 years, that 9 of the last ten years were the warmest on record, and that this march was 10-15 degrees F above average over most of the country
If you took away all the pollution, that would remove the unnatural cooling effect of man-made aerosols, but would not adequately explain the warming trend of the past 35 years. Only greenhouse gases (with a small contribution from "black carbon") can explain the warming trend. As I noted above, the oceans are still warming despite high sulfur emissions from Asia.
Eric, explain to us that do research why there have been hundreds of global warming cycles when no one or only dinasaurs were on earth. We're the dinasaurs right wing conservative's? Or was it just their poop?
Hundreds of global warming cycles? Where on earth did you hear that, faasux?
I'm not sure what kind of 'research' you do, but it clearly isn't climate-based.
Physicist retired,
Some scientists still debate regarding the cause of the earth's warming. Not many years ago, environmentalists were all telling us that the average temperature would be lowering because of the pollutants in the air. Climatologists have detected a slight warming in average temperatures, but the cause is not known. Some sectors of the public opinion base their arguments on that it is all because of what is called"greenhouse gasses." However, further scientific study is needed for confirming the causes .
The temperature of the Earth has been constantly changing since the beginning. We are currently near the coolest we have ever been if you look at the temperature over a couple million years. Historically, we have been quite a bit warmer, so much so that the polar regions were NOT the frozen wasteland that they are now. Some sectors of the public opinion don't take this into consideration.
Studies from Harvard, Princeton, Florida, UCLA, etc have shown global warming cycles. You just want your agenda to work out for you. Prior to dinasaurs and during dinasaurs there were global warming and cooling periods. I am sure that the liberal dinasaurs blamed the conservative dinasaurs for all this.
Faasux, you wrote quite a bit but really didn't say anything. That can't be, especially from someone that does "research"!
Exactly, some scientists do while the vast majority show the root cause is directly related to human forcing. Also, "public opinion" means nothing to scientists. They do NOT care what the average person thinks/feels the problem/answer is. They take their data and, based off that data, determine what the cause is then formulate a solution too that problem. That problem is an increase in GHG's that WE are contributing to the atmosphere which in turn has many other repercussions and most are not in our favor.
I'd really like to know where you got this 'information' from. The past 30+ years have been the warmest since records have been kept. And, of course, the "polar regions were NOT frozen". Hell, North America used to be at the equator. So? It's called plate tectonics. It's also called over active vulcanism which forced the climate into a warmer state. What comes out of volcanoes? Ta da! CO2...among other things. The point is is that what we are doing is changing the world around us to a point that, more than likely, will NOT benefit us in the long run.
I don't need to read studies from Harvard, UCLA, or elsewhere to know/understand the Earth has gone through warm periods in the past. That point is moot compared to what is happenning now.
Previous "warming cycles" do have explanations, often related to natural greenhouse gas levels. See the comment I added on page 2 about the PETM event 56 million years ago.
faasux,
I don't question the existence of warming cycles in Earth's paleolimate - that's well-established. What I do question is your knowledge of our paleoclimate - especially when you state that there have been hundreds of such cycles.
The Earth's present climate cycle, encompassing the Pliocene, Pleistocene, and Holocene (and now Anthropocene) eras extends at most 5 million years into the past. Glacial/interglacial cycles happen approximately every 100,000 years - which mean we've experienced about 50 such cycles. Not hundreds.
Furthermore, the cause of those cycles is quite well-known. Periodic changes in earth's orbital pattern (Milankovitch Cycles) push the planet into, and then pull it back out of, glacial periods. Once the oceans begin to warm after a glacial period, they release CO2 - and the resulting increase in atmospheric CO2 levels then becomes the primary driver of a warm, interglacial period.
These are not issues that are disputed in the scientiic community. It's settled science.
CO2 levels during those glacial/interglacial periods has never risen above 300 ppm. Today, we are at 392 ppm, and rising rapidly. That's a level that hasn't been seen on this planet for at least 15 million years.
From carbon isotope analysis, we know that today's excess CO2 is the direct result of burning fossil fuels. Again, this is not debated in scientific communities.
Finally, this planet has warmed by 1C in the last 100 years - most of it since 1950. During the last mass extinction event (the PETM), the planet warmed by 6 degrees in 20,000 years - with devastating effects. We are currently on track to achieve similar warming in just a few hundred years, because the rate of warming is accelerating.
So to sum up, we have not had hundreds of glacial/interglacial cycles, there is no debate on their cause, ice core data shows that CO2 levels are rising faster than at any known time in the planet's history, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, atmospheric CO2 been increased by 40% since 1850 directly due to human activity, the oceans are acidifying faster than at any time in 300 million years, and we are changing the planet much, much faster than it changed during the last mass extinction.
Scientists understand the planet's paleoclimate. Their work is the only reason that you have any knowledge of past warming cycles. So I must ask - why do you trust them to get the past 'right', but not trust them when they say that this current cycle is very different? Either you trust science, or you don't.
And your injection of liberal/conservative political philosophies into this scientific subject is most inappropriate, and bordering on childish. Science is based on empirical data, not political, religious, or other ideologies.
Rigid physicist, google how many global warming cycles have there been since the earth's existence. Trying to put down people who disagree with you with CHILDISH comments tells me you are rigid in your belief and have no room for opinions from people you look down at. I have a degree in meteorology and am a retired Air Traffic Controller. Your dependence on science as the only true facts that can exist makes you shallow at best. I belief the earth was created by God Who you can't explain but neither can science prove He doesn't exist. Your science is finite not infinite therefore terribly limited.
And yet you post things like this:
However, the degree in meteorology does help to explain your skepticism. A handful of meteorologists (such as Joe Bastardi) still deny the science of climate change, and even make statements like this:
and:
And so on. Read the link if you have time. It might provide some useful insights.
Physicist, I will read the link if you will google past global warming cycles and not disregard what you find the minute you see something you disagree with. Remember science is finite. It's not the end all of proof for YOUR beliefs.
Ah! Now the reason behind your screenname becomes clear. I have a relative who's a 20yr flight captain for a major airline. Does he know/understand climate, paleoclimate, geology, environmental geology, etc?? I would have to say, not so much. Does he understand weather and weather patterns associated with high and low pressure systems in various regions and how those systems effect flight? I would hope so! The point is is if you truly have a degree in meteorology you would know the difference between the two. Weather is a localized event that effects a fairly small area, while climate effects very large regions and moreso the entire planet.
Sorry, but the past warming cycles since "Earths existence" is a moot point. Every scientists worth their weight in salt knows/understands this fact. What they're concerned about is THIS warming cycle and the effects it can/will have on humanity.
I see nothing in, Retireds, post that is demeaning or childish toward you. All he has done is given you facts that counter what you have stated as such. If you consider that as "childish" then I suggest you get a thicker coat because these threads can get fairly 'touchy' and down-right nasty at times.
One last thing, whether or not god created this planet and/or the universe we reside is also another moot point. This is NOT a theological debate on that subject. However, this IS a discussion of what humans are doing to this planet and what those actions intale for us in the future. Our "finite" science is the best tool we have at our disposal and the one thing that can tell us what our future has instore for us based on our past actions. If you prefer to try and 'pray everything away' be my guest. Myself, I put my trust in our worlds brightest minds that are attempting to educate our worlds politicians with the best and most recent data available into making legislature that will benefit us all. The decisions being made now will not only effect future generations but ALL of Earths species to some degree.
If what I've already posted doesn't make clear the point that I am quite familiar with past climate cycles, I honestly don't know what will, faa. What would you like to know about them?
Physicist and Garrett. I have room for faith in my approach to science. Not all what you both post are absolute facts. We will disagree on these issues but don't dare assume someone can't bring Biblical historical facts in a thread on climate and warming trends. That is the biggest problem with a scientific only approach, it has no room for other views. Garrett you can put your faith in the finite nature of our bright minds. I will put my trust in an infinite God who will only allow to happen to this planet what He wills. I have no fear about a so called global warming, freak out, false information, fear producing agenda. I know Who holds my future.
Sorry, but if that's not a contradiction in terms, well I think we both know how that goes. I'm not going to get into a theological debate with you or anyone else about climate change. That's pointless. The point is god has nothing to do with what we are currently doing to this planet and what we have been doing for the past 200 years.
I'm also not going to tell you or anyone else what 'faith' to have. That's not my purpose on this thread. All myself and others are attempting to do is educate people about what is going on with our world and the cause and effect of it. Period. If you have "no fear" of what the future holds for humanity, so be it. I on the other hand see a storm brewing and it's something humanity has not ever faced before. I will continue to debate this issue with anyone who is willing to have a rational discussion about it.
Other than these few points, other than what I and physicist have already discussed with you, I believe our conversation with each other has come to an end. Good day to you.
What a coward. Your posts are trying to get me to believe something that may or may not be true. Biblical history DOES have a place in this debate, you just don't believe it. I don't believe in doomsday warming anymore than you believe in God. He most certainly is involved in current events, and from dozens of responses on here there would be quite a few that would say to you, stop shoving this global warming doomsday down our throats. I have no problem though with you believing you descended from a monkey or jackass and that our complex human body was formed from an explosion(giggle).
Oh yeah, I remember watching an AJAX ad back in the 60-70's. They called it the "White Tornado". Now some imbecile saw the old TV Ad and linked cleaning agents to hurricanes. Outstanding!
1972 Ajax Cleaner commercial - The White Tornado
Best post I've read all day!
These are the typical "according to me" fertile-minded informatics, a corollary of Gore's "Climate Change" bomshell earlier! Annecdotal? Maybe so.
My study finds that 99% of studies are crap and are made to push an agenda.
I had a study that proved something else, but I threw that one away and tried again with different data to obtain my intended results.
Drone, I have done the same thing and so far I have been 100% correct. I bet you have to :)
But your 100% correct study was paid for by "Big Dan T-880865's 1%'er self-serving corporate interests" so it is invalid.
Well here is the big DA!!!!
We screwed up by causing acid rain!! WE started the out of balance climate!! Lets go back to the destruction from that!! Now lets through more carbon out to heat it up even more.
There will be pages of climate deniers.
But the science proves now WE DO change what was and what will be buy what WE DO.
Argument over now lets work together to get it back to stable so we can adjust our life style!!
Please see the last sentence of the article: "that much of this could have been driven by human emissions and volcanic events." What the article does not point out is how much of the effect was actual human events and how much is attributable to volcanic events, i.e. nature.
You are concerned with carbon heating up the climate even more?
I hope you don't own any diamonds!!!!
I would think that the forest and brush fires that often cover hundreds of square miles would also have some effect. They certainly put a lot of CO2 in the air.
Danno
I don't see your point. We can parse every little point to what end. We caused acid rain! We stopped Acid rain. We have raised carbon levels. We have lost millions of acres of forest that takes carbon out. How much simpler is it. I guess some ones GOD will swoop down and reset set this out of balance! I guess running your car gasses into you house will have no impact ever. There are limits to every thing like it or not!
Simplton, if what you say is true then diamonds and graphite are building up all over the world. What are we going to do about it? I'm scared.
The carbon that is removed from CO2 is then unleashed on the world in the form of a plant pollutant.
You are polluting the air and should really do something about it. A plastic bag for each one of your family members will reduce your carbon footprint.
Not a drone
You scare me!!! You don't even know how a diamond is formed. You must be a Texas school grad!!
Cretaceous period?
My point is that although you appear to claim that this is caused mostly by man, you ignore natural occurring events which may have contributed more to the ocean cooling than aerosols - volcanic activity. Either the scientists or the article did a very poor job of explaining which was the main contributer.
For the sake of argument, lets say that aerosols contributed 10% and volcanic activity contributed 90%. A scientist or a writer with an agenda would not point out the difference so that the unknowing public would fall lock step in line with the environmental gods.
DANNO
I think that first if you want this sight to be a science journal you are in the wrong place. here is what was said if you missed it.
Using a computer model to track aerosol emissions, cloud impact and ocean temperatures, the researchers found that while volcanic eruptions also contribute aerosol pollution, the man made effect has been much more significant.
You are paranoid and obsessed with carbon. Diamonds are made of carbon. Evil carbon!
You are right, I did miss that line. Again, there isn't a definition of "much more" to let us know. It could be 10% more for all we know. We also don't know what other potential factors were not included in the modeling which would skew the results.
As others have said, it is hard to put any faith in these studies.
If you want to know how much more, Danno, then you READ the actual science paper. After all, this is a news piece, not a scientific journal article. It's not MSNBC's job to report the minutia of the study, but rather to convey the conclusions and implications. If you want the details and statistics, you have to look in the proper place and not act like those numbers don't exist.
Clearly DRONE is a DRONE you must have found the GOOGLE machine but did not as usual read the hole thing like this article!! May be it is just a lack of comprehension. You education or lack thereof is clear. Why not go back to you home schooling and get off the Internets I know knowledge is scary and facts are even more of a challenge to you. Have a Google day.
As in Ozone Whole?!?! Watch out for falling glass. Sorry to be dickish, but the irony was putting my eye out!
Spell checking can not make up for lack of an in-depth educational retention level and subsequent reiteration.
Danno -- Volcanoes release ~200 million tons of CO2 annually. Global anthropogenic emissions (i.e., from human activity) is between 25-35 billion tons annually. In other words, human activity was responsible 99% of the CO2 emissions last year, where volcanoes are attributable for 1%. Human activity includes fossil fuel burning (automobiles, etc.), land use changes (deforestation, etc.), and similar activities.
To reiterate, human activity released more than 100 times as much greenhouse gases as volcanoes and other natural sources.
THANK YOU, JSnyder!! I was beginning to think there wasn't one person here that actually had a lick of sense to them. The posts made by, Book em Dummo, and, Nothing but a Drone, are absolutely absurd. It's really amazing the amount of information that's literally at a persons fingertips and they use it to show the world how intellectually challenged they are. Just amazing.
How much did the big oil companies pay for this article?
Not as much as Al Gore has paid
Oh stop it! Don't allow Obama's fomenting of hatred and divisiveness towards oil production influence you. Think for yourself - especially as you note the convenience of being able to drive to the store. Or do you have a car powered by a solar panel?
Acknowledgements
We are grateful for discussion and input from D. Smith, D. Sexton, J. Murphy, M. Palmer, C. Roberts and J. Knight during the analysis and writing of this paper. We acknowledge the modelling groups, the Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison and the WCRP’s Working Group on Coupled Modelling for their roles in making available the WCRP CMIP3 multimodel data set. Support of this data set is provided by the Office of Science, US Department of Energy. The authors were supported by the Joint DECC/Defra Met Office Hadley Centre Climate Programme (GA01101) and the EU FP7 THOR project.

Newton's Third Law (although applied to physical objects) applies...
"The mutual forces of action and reaction between two bodies is equal, opposite and collinear." Wikipedia
Cause/Effect...
Action/Reaction...
Anyone who denies these Laws of Nature do not exist need not be in a position of power or legislature. It is the foundation of natural forces. How can ANYONE deny we have ANY impact on the planet. Human's existence on this planet is a detriment to the planet. It is high time we find a way to balance that detriment (or make our children's children suffer).
Just sayin'
Are you suggesting that we rid the planet of humans? I note that you said it was their very existence that is the problem - not their activity.
Havelinaz, how many comments have you been making that are resting on newsvine's servers which are powered by the grid (coal)?
You are adding to the pollution while claiming you are against it. Log off immediately and you'll save the world.
havelinaz, What you are quoting:"The mutual forces of action and reaction between two bodies is equal, opposite and collinear." refers to Newton's Third law of MOTION and only applies to objects in motion, applied physical forces and conservation of momentum and velocity.
Your "cause/effect" as it involves the transfer of heat in the atmosphere or oceans involves the Laws of Thermodynamics and Fluid Dynamics.
@Watermoon, not rid the planet but find a balance; currently there isn't one.
@NotADrone, lots of solar power here in AZ. Sorry you are stuck in the sand.
@RockDoctor, thanks for the knowledge. Not a scientist, just thought it fit. Don't know those laws but will read up; thanks.
Great! Now there will be a big class-action suit against anyone who had anything to do with the Clean Air Act.
More BS from the Climate Nazis.
Another empty statement from a climate change denier.
A prime example of why it is so hard to convince people about global warming. Hardly a week goes by where someone (with an agenda of their own) is trying to link any and everything to Global Warming. If the Warmist are sincere they need to produce facts.
I've asked this question MANY times and have not had one answer worth any sort of relevance. WHAT AGENDA??? You want someone/anyone to "produce facts" but yet you make no mention of the point of the article and the facts it was relaying. Really, how hard is it to understand that what WE have been doing and are doing is literally changing the entire planet of which we inhabit??? When you understand that one simple fact you might actually be able to understand the rest.
If we can spray an aerosol on some of those tornadoes and get rid of them -- I'm all for it (please, sarcasm button clicked!).
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.... Truly LMAO at the Liberals now...
How so? Did you READ the article and comprehend what it said?
Of course the increase in skin cancer as aerosols destroy the ozone layer seems to have gone unmentioned. This argument for pollutants is like saying that when oil is spread on your lake it decreases the amount of algae blooms the lake will have....so.....what?
So what!? Wow! Such an astute display of caring is truly astounding! *end sarcasm*
Global warming and cooling are natural cyclical changes that occurs roughly every 125, 000 years. The main component of the atmosphere to protect us from solar radiation and that includes heat, is the ozone layer. The presence of CO2 as causative agent is currently under study by a Harvard Group of scientists. Hopefully, we can finally settle this issue. Incidentally, CO2 and O2 cycles are controlled by animals breating O2 and exhaling CO2 while plants do the opposite, take in CO2 and gives out O2. So as long as there live animals and plants, the O2 and CO2 cycles will remain sufficient for us humans to thrive for generations.
The natural cycle is not the point. Burning fossil fuels has thrown the carbon cycle way out of balance, increasing atmospheric CO2 from 280 to 393 ppm. It's unlikely that any new Harvard study will significantly change the estimated "climate sensitivity" to CO2.
Not quite, RH. At the rate we are clear cutting forests and rain forests the CO2 cycle will continue to get further and further out of balance. And as the world warms desert areas will increase that will further exacerbate the situation.
there is global warming and it is mans fault they have the air so clean the earth has no choice but to warm up and for people well we now have to worrie about skin cancer from the clean air an not so much any copd problums ,so go out side and get your self some skin cancer ,brought to you by your local inviro freak and the fed. goverment. Every thing we have ben told about the inviro. were all lies and the sint. admited they lied and fixed the numbers,costing this country billions of dollars to fix somthing that wasent broken.
Uuummm, yeeaah...sure. Wut iv er u sade, miers.
What about all the catastrophic hurricanes prior to 1940, before aerosols had reached widespread use? Are those just "inconvenient" hurricanes? I am sure the people of Galveston, Miami, Islamorada, Okechobee, etc., will be glad to know their cities weren't really decimated by hurricanes way back then.
and now they are taking more carbon out of the air how are the trees going to survive these igmo will have this planet dead quick if we dont make them leave it alone,and the epa is the worst of the worst. Should be done away with or cut back to 1980 level of rules and regs.
Surely you can't be serious. Atmospheric CO2 is now 40% above the pre-industrial level, and no scientist is even suggesting lowering it below the natural level (that trees and plants need), even if that were possible.
Years ago a link was discovered between dust blowing from Africa and hurricanes.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15210070/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/africa-dust-may-hamper-hurricanes/#.T335ztkujnE
Maybe natural dust is the factor and not man made aerosols?
But tropical cyclone numbers world wide trended downward during the past 30 years of warming. And the US is currently setting a new record for the longest length of time since a major (cat 3+) hurricane has hit the US. The data seems to contradict what this guy says.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/26/global-hurricane-activity-at-historical-record-lows-new-paper/
Maybe. But it's important not to let the discussion about hurricanes distract us from the fact that the oceans and atmosphere are warming, which will cause increased precipitation (on average) and other effects. Irene caused record flooding in some areas despite only being a "cat 3" storm.
"So as long as there live animals and plants, the O2 and CO2 cycles will remain sufficient for us humans to thrive for generations"
Thrive?!!!!????
Best take a look around. Survive, probably. But don't let that worry you. At least you have placed a limit on how long Mankind has left, to some degree. I am with you on that one.
Peace
Pollution = Global Warming
Clean air = Global Warming
Can we please get someone who knows what they're talking about up in here?
Not all pollution is created equal. This article is talking about one very specific type of pollution.
The effect of reduced sulfur pollution is more accurately described as "less cooling" rather than "warming." Greenhouse gases still cause warming; that hasn't changed.
But humans can't have any impact on the weather and the earth.
Gawd told me so.
Some one asking for science about “CLIMATE CHANGE” not global warming and there are science articles and extensive studies abound!!! 98% of scientist agree HUMANS are impacting the world WE share!!
Not all but most of the 2% left are paid by special interest!
In the simplest terms CO2 is created from many things. Nature created balance for 10s of thousands of years. Humans have increases CO2 from early time with fire. In the past 300 years human population has exploded! The destruction of millions of acres of natural filters have been destroyed buy man with no new filters. HOW long can this go on till there is a breaking point!
Quit letting the real fear deny simple logic.
Ok so first of all pollutants were blamed for warming the earth up, now humans are blamed for cooling the oceans for cleaning up a source of pollution that causes the earth to warm up? Im sorry but you cant have it both ways, either the pollutants are bad and should be removed, or they are harmless, they cant be both at once.
Keep sniffing moms hair spray or take the battery out of the CO2 detector in your house. It must be harmless. Move next to a coal plant.
Sulfur emissions have an opposite effect (cooling) compared to CO2 emissions (warming). Unfortunately, it's the sulfur emissions that are relatively easy to clean up (scrubbers). CO2 capture and storage is much more difficult.
CO2 capture is NOT difficult or expensive. All you have to do is fertilize the so-called "desert" areas of the ocean with soluble nutrients, mainly iron, (CHEAP). Seed with the appropriate algae, (depending on water temperature, mainly), and let Mother Nature do the rest. Some scientists have stated that it would only take a few old tankers full a year to do the job.
The fact that the AGW crowd isn't calling for this to be done shows that they have a different agenda, that is, to get rich by investing in "green" power.
(Google Al Gore's carbon footprint, 20 times the average home, compared to G.W.Bush's. It will open your eyes.)
Because covering the ocean's surfaces with a blanket of algae is likely to have no other effects on the life of our oceans, obviously. /sarc
1. Iron fertilization of the oceans does not work:
2. Recent calculations show that removing excess CO2 from our atmosphere will require the development of the largest industry ever created on the planet:
Finally:
That 'agenda' is avoiding a 6th Great Extinction by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But outside of the EU, most countries haven't even begun working on this problem yet. Because the real 'agenda' here is a campaign of disinformation (much like 'tobacco scientists' did several decades ago) to maximize profits for fossil fuel companies.
If you're under the age of 40, I guarantee that you'll personally reap the 'benefits' of that agenda.