Climate Models Get Smudged

Space Daily ^ | 09/30/2002

[cogitator]

This is part of a continuing effort by James Hansen and his colleagues at the Goddard Institute of Space Studies to get policy makers to recognize the importance of black soot pollution. Controlling black soot pollution could have much more impact on global warming than controlling CO2 emissions, and as the article notes, it would also likely have direct and indirect health benefits. (By indirect I mean that if black soot is causing changes in precipitation patterns, floods and droughts also affect the health of the people living in those regions.)

[RippleFire]

BUMP

[KayEyeDoubleDee]

(I'll caveat the following by pointing out that the word may is used an awful lot in the above)

Where (in terms of the different layers of the atmosphere) does this black soot settle? In other words, is it a lower layer phenomenon or upper layer? It would be interesting in light of the basic problem with the current models: Absence of upper level warming predicted to precede lower level warming.

This would also assume that the stuff really does absorb extra infrared (in other words more than the total which would be absorbed through other processes)

[Paradox]

Cogitator, I want to thank you for these global warming updates, and for your open mind on the phenomena, its cause, or lack thereof. I know the mood on FR is to tend to deny it wholeheartedly, but I believe it _is_ something that should be studied.

Thanks again.

[Dr. Frank fan]

Controlling black soot pollution could have much more impact on global warming than controlling CO2 emissions, and as the article notes, it would also likely have direct and indirect health benefits.

Perhaps, but it won't enable self-anointed smart, caring "environmentalist" people to take money away from prosperous Western countries and give it to themselves and Third World dictators while they pat themselves on the back. So it's a non-starter.

[mc5cents]

GLOBAL WARMING CAUSES GLOBAL COOLING!

[KayEyeDoubleDee]

What most people on FR have a problem with is the global warming fear mongering. This includes the politicians' and media's potrayal of the "facts" of global warming and the typical predictions of worst case catastrophic scenarios.

The basic facts are (a)short term warming coming out of a little ice age which was preceded by a period of warming much greater than the current levels, (b)long term return to serious ice ages, (c) absolute non-compliance of observed warming trends with current models, (d) lots of fear mongering.

[KayEyeDoubleDee]

I should have added an addendum to the first fact (mild short term warming of surface temperature). Increased productivity and living standards due to said warming.

[Doctor Stochastic]

The problem isn't that the Earth's temperature is rising (it seems to be, by most estimates.) The problem isn't that the models are flawed (they are.) The problem is that political things like the Koyoto Treaty do nothing to solve any problems created by climate change.

[cogitator]

Definitely lower layers in the atmosphere. But in terms
of the difference between the lower troposphere and surface
warming issue, it hasn't been mentioned as a factor.

[cogitator]

I know the mood on FR is to tend to deny it wholeheartedly, but I believe it _is_ something that should be studied.

Well, even the Bush Administration believe it is something that should be studied. So do I. But I also believe there are more pressing environmental issues, and that the focus on the global warming "is so, is not" distracts from those pressing environmental issues.

[cogitator]

The problem is that political things like the Koyoto Treaty do nothing to solve any problems created by climate change.

And furthermore, they make it look like "concerned nations" are actually trying to do something.

[cogitator]

The basic facts are (a)short term warming coming out of a little ice age which was preceded by a period of warming much greater than the current levels, (b)long term return to serious ice ages, (c) absolute non-compliance of observed warming trends with current models, (d) lots of fear mongering.

A couple of other basic facts: Humans are adding gases to the atmosphere that affect Earth's radiation budget at an unprecedented rate (which makes modeling the effects of such additions very uncertain), and the Earth's climate has warmed by about 0.6 degrees C in the past century, with some observable effects on climate and ecological systems.

[TC Rider]

Ban the scooters in Europe. heh heh

[Free the USA]

http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list

[RayChuang88]

In fact, anyone who's seen the HORRID air pollution of China's cities knows that capping smokestack emissions and reducing vehicle emissions does way more to cure pollution problems than this totally silly notion of global warming.

I mean, take a look at the Los Angeles Basin. Up until the late 1980's, they used to have smog so intense it was as dense as fog--and this caused no end of respiratory problems. Once industry was forced to clean up smokestack emissions and the majority of automobiles got modern emission control systems, in 2002 Los Angeles rarely experiences Stage II smog alerts, and there are many more days from Los Angeles you could actually see Mount Baldy from downtown Los Angeles.

Our auto emission controls have gotten so good that the air going into the intake system of the car is in many cases worse than the exhaust coming out of the exhaust pipe.

[fella]

Uuuuuh. Don't those burning forests that the enviros love so much put just a little bit of soot into the air?

[kaktuskid]

And burning dung...

[Bonaparte]

"A couple of other basic facts: Humans are adding gases to the atmosphere that affect Earth's radiation budget at an unprecedented rate (which makes modeling the effects of such additions very uncertain), and the Earth's climate has warmed by about 0.6 degrees C in the past century, with some observable effects on climate and ecological systems."

Unprecedented? This implies that we know what rates of emission occured in all previous eras and that those emission rates were all less than today's rate. We don't and can't know that sort of thing, since the means for accurately extrapolating such data are unavailable. We can only theorize.

The claim that the earth's climate has warmed 0.6 degrees C in that past century is absurd, cogitator. To qualify as scientific, the methods used to measure climate temperature in 1902 would have had to be the same as those used today (a clear "apples and oranges" problem). Either that, or the method for extrapolating that information would have to be far more reliable than it actually is. The problems inherent in making such a measurement of "overall climate temperature" are daunting, to say the least -- starting with basic definitions.

To posit "observable effects" of this undemonstrated "climate warming" suggests that we have established a cause for those effects. But nobody has, at least, not scientifically.

Far from being "basic facts," it's all supposition. And this is the basis on which the globaloney spouters want to dismantle our economy.

[r9etb]

(By indirect I mean that if black soot is causing changes in precipitation patterns, floods and droughts also affect the health of the people living in those regions.)

It's also worth asking what creates soot. In many 3rd world places, it's burning wood. So you've got soot, and you've also got deforestation, which leads to flooding, etc....

Even so, however, I think the biggest contributor is still Mr. Sun.