NASA Blames Soot For Global Warming

The Washington Post ^ | Dec 24, 2003 | NA

[Bon mots]

This can't be true! Diesels are the engine of choice all over Europe. It's the Americans who won't sign Kyoto...
How can this be???

The European Union is much more deforested, and its populace drives many more diesel automobiles than anyplace on earth. How can this be? They are Socialists... they care about the environment, doncha know?

[cake_crumb]

"Frankly, NASA has been funfed for several years"

LOL...I'll say.

[Texas Eagle]

Old-fashioned environmentally hateful diesel burning truck

New-fangled environmentally friendly solid rocket fuel burning truck

[farmfriend]

Oh cool pictures. Thanks.

[INSENSITIVE GUY]

Soot?Ha!Dumb shi*s must be crazy as this is so miniscule.

[cake_crumb]

Idle question: how prevalant is the Volga now?

[Wooly]

I thought global warming was caused by unburned jet fuel or was it Dust from farming or was it not CO2 or was it not methane, or was it not cow herds, or was it not the thinning of rain forests or was it not

[Wooly]

The real cause of Global Warming = NASA wants increased budgets

[E. Pluribus Unum]

The fact that NASA is participating in the global warming fraud is yet more evidence that it has devolved into a cesspool of bureaucratic CYA turf-protectors interested only in securing as much Congressional funding as possible.

I will never support a US space program until NASA is abolished and anyone currently employed in a management position by NASA permanently disallowed from being employed by its successor.

[cake_crumb]

I thought it was cow flatulance and exhaust from gas burning engines...at least that was it 5 years ago or so.

Geologic cycles, volcanos, tectonic plate action, the sun, volcanos and burning forests could never have anything to do with it.

In fact, I bet the EEEEVEEEEEL Republicans sent a whole bunch of deisel burning vehicles back a hundred million years and caused the global warming in the Cretaceous. Yeah, that's the ticket.

[DustyMoment]

(sigh) Junk science just has a way of attracting people who enjoy ignoring the facts.

However, just for fun, let's pretend that diesel fuel emissions really are the problem. If this is the real cause of "global warming" and the U.S. is considered the largest contributor of pollutants leading to global warming, I would like someone to explain something to me; why is it when I was in Buenos Aires many years ago, the air 1/2 a block away from me was blue because of all the diesel powered buses that would congregate in a particular part of the downtown area? And, with each bus that entered or departed this area, the air got that much bluer?

There is such a heavy proliferation of badly maintained diesel engines throughout Central and South America that, IF we believe that diesel exhaust emissions are the culprit in "global warming", why is America still the primary target of the enviro-whackos?

I would also be curious to know why NASA is buying into this current load of ca-ca? If memory serves me correctly, "Global Warming" was initially the theory of a NASA scientist in the 70s until around the turn of the new century when the NASA scientist that developed the theory of "global warming" was forced to renounce the theory due to the lack of supporting data. So now NASA wants to buy into a new whacko theory. And they wonder why the rest of the country has concerns about their ability to safely send man into space and bring him back safely - and alive. Gee, I wonder why?

[cake_crumb]

The answer to all of your questions is both single and simple(minded): anything outside the US, no matter how destructive is GOOD, and we should be ASHAMED for not feeling the pain of zillions of people just struggling to make a living. Anything WITHIN the US, no matter how regulated or clean burning is EEEEEEVEEEEEEL, we should be ashamed for making Gaia sick and pay through the nose forever for all the EEEEEEEEEVEEEEEEL we in US cause to the earth and give all our hard earned money to those zillions in the destructive countries.

[JohnBovenmyer]

How much is from diesel, how much is from burning fuels rarely burned in the US? Such as the large amount of cattle dung burned for fuel in India, which has been reported to cause a large black cloud over the Bay of Bengal. I suspect more than just India in the third world burns a lot of soot producing fuel.

[DustyMoment]

Thanks for your calm, rational response to my rant.

(snicker)

Too funny!!

And, too correct.

[ancient_geezer]

In fact, I bet the EEEEVEEEEEL Republicans sent a whole bunch of deisel burning vehicles back a hundred million years and caused the global warming in the Cretaceous. Yeah, that's the ticket.

 

Actually its all the fault of the Reagan administration ;O)
IF the Soviet Union hadn't imploded, we would probably not be seeing any "Hocky Stick." from which to infer any global warming at all.

 

McKitrick, Ross R. "An Economist’s Perspective on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol" pages 5&6
Presentation to the Department of Economics Annual Fall Workshop
The University of Manitoba
November 7, 2003
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/econ-persp.pdf

 In the early 1990s, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the budget cuts in many OECD economies led to a sudden sharp drop in the number of active weather stations.

***

   Figure 3 shows the total number of stations in the GHCN[Global Historical Climatology Network] and the raw (arithmetic) average of temperatures for those stations. Notice that at the same time as the number of stations takes a dive (around 1990) the average temperature (red bars) jumps. This is due, at least in part, to the disproportionate loss of stations in remote and rural locations, as opposed to places like airports and urban areas where it gets warmer over time because of the build-up of the urban environment.

   This poses a problem for users of the data. Someone has to come up with an algorithm for deciding how much of the change in average temperature post-1990 is due to an actual change in the climate and how much is due to the change in the sample. When we hear over and over about records being set after 1990 in observed “global temperatures” this might mean the climate has changed, or it means an inadequate adjustment is being used, and there is no formal way to decide between these.

   Nevertheless, confident assertions are routinely made about ‘changes in the global temperature’ on the order of tenths of a degree C per decade. The confidence masks pervasive uncertainty in the underlying concepts and data quality.

Figure 3. Number of stations in GHCN collection (diamonds, right axis); Average temperature of annual sample (bars, left axis in C). Source: see Taken By Storm chapter 4.

---

 

Note, how well the instrumental global surface temperature series tracked with Tropospheric(Satellite & Balloon) measurements up until the 1990-91 time frame; then diverge, while we observe the number of remote surface stations in continued decline.:

[Salamander]

"First, we kill all the chimney sweeps"

[D Rider]

Actually, the Romans started the previous warming cycle from the soot of thier wood and charcoal fires. Because the Romans prefered thier meat cooked "well-done", and the resultant burning of the meats fat which caused large quantities of soot...well, the effect was as described in the above article.

This trend lasted till the Vikings started eating thier meat rare to medium rare. By reducing the amount of fat (animal oil) actually burned, they caused the warming trend reversal that lead to thier abandonment of Greenland, and the eventual destruction of the Viking way of life.

[Texas Eagle]

Ah.

[GladesGuru]

Pronunciamento's ex cathedra such as this latest from NASA cause me to wonder if perhaps NASA has entirely too much funding and waaayyyy to many underemployed employees.

[Darksheare]

Grasping at straws.
Always.
*Snort*
And.. say.. soot from mega forest fires before written history wouldn't do anything?
Nice how they claim that it's EVIL MAN'S fault.
Guess we know why NASA doesn't really want to do research now, they don't care about furthering mankind anymore.