check prices for sailboats
Posted on 05/13/2003 2:19:00 PM PDT by cogitator
They concluded that the rubber more or less vaporized and was lost to the wind.
Or foam insulation hitting a wing during liftoff.
Then NASA trying to duck and cover.
Defund NASA, AMERICAN PATROL does a better job!!!!!!
The researchers concluded if these soot particles are not reduced, at least as rapidly as light-colored pollutants, the world could warm more quickly.
Gee, then there is something besides CO2 driving the climate.
Of course even soot needs a prime mover:
Global Warming on Triton (Neptune's moon)
Think maybe there might be something in common?
Climatic temperature is predominantly driven by Solar heating/cooling arising from variation of solar irradiance, due to variations in distance from the Sun, and variable Solar output plus variations in Earth's orbital alignment with mean solar system plane and geophysical events affecting planetary albedo.
Ice Ages & Astronomical Causes
Brief Introduction to the History of Climate
&
Origin of the 100 kyr Glacial Cycle
by Richard A. Muller
Then you aren't paying the issue much attention. Hansen has been a remarkable voice of reason from the scientific side in the past decade, noting that CO2 reduction can be accomplished by technological innovation and that by reducing other sources of warming -- such as the black soot described in this article -- warming can be controlled without resorting to the fanciful gyrations of the Kyoto-lite protocol.
Sulfur aerosols injected into the stratosphere were more effective at blocking incoming solar radiation, and also more long-lived in the atmosphere than ash.
"partially balance". More soot and less SO2 (as SO2 emissions are curtailed) means more warming.
No, the real news is that in the past 2-4 years, the potential global warming influence of soot has been identified.
Nor do I. What I don't consider valid science is the construction of a large scale "computer model" that "proves" global warming but does not have a small enough cell size, does not model ocean currents, and omits a host of other features that affect the weather only to conclude that humans are causing a warming effect evident only for the last twenty years.
Real models would be validated against years ago climate changes and would be tested for years today before being released to the media. Thus, real science is not happening here, and has not been involved in the debate to date.
Only really large eruptions, which are infrequent, spread ash over large regions. This ash is also larger particulates than soot from fires and dirty energy-production combustion systems, so it isn't carried as far.
You gave me an excuse to post a WOW image, though (I reduced its size to show here; click on it to see the full-size image). It shows smoke/soot from fires in Siberia and northern China streaming over northern Japan and southern Sakhalin Island. The image was acquired May 8.
They are running GCMs in hindcast mode to see how well they reproduce current climate variables. However, the models today are considerably improved over the state of the models just five years ago. So you'd have to start running them now and wait 10 years or so to see how well they're doing. Scientists aren't going to wait that long to publish results. (They can't; if they did, they'd lose their jobs!)
I think that should have been obvious a long, long time ago, AG.
The scientists compared the AERONET data with Chin's global-aerosol computer model and GISS climate model, both of which included sources of soot aerosols consistent with the estimates of the IPCC. The researchers found the amount of sunlight absorbed by soot was two-to-four times larger than previously assumed.
The computer models were wrong, again. Why do they still take stock in these models?
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.