Pollution controls caused Arctic ice melt: NASA »
Posted By pc25 8 months, 2 weeks ago in NewsPeople have blamed the retreat of ice in the Arctic on carbon-dioxide driven global warming. However, new research at NASA suggests that environmental intervention in the 1970s could bear most of the blame. The elimination of aerosol particle emissions have removed a cooling element for the northern hemisphere, which has reduced a natural balance in the climate on the effect of human activities:
Read Full Story at hotair.com »
725 Views Share Story 46 Comments Report
Who Also Submitted: All »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 46 (view all)
-
75%
pc258 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Gee, environmentalists are a danger to the environment.
Reply
Who woulda thunk it.......
meanwhile the NASA report
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/09/arctic_aer...
NASA: Clean-air regs, not CO2, are melting the ice cap -
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned1 Reply
-
67%
Wolfie20078 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This entire global warming/climate change debate reminds me of the debates in the middle ages about how many angles could stand on the head of a pin. Who cares anymore the best thing would be for the global warming gang to say, "Sorry, we don't have any idea of what we're talking about." Then tiptoe quietly away, taking Algore and Cheryl Crow with them.
Reply-
40%
pc258 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Sheryl Crowe
Reply
another full of crap liberal phony, so concerned about global warming, the environment, and the rain forests that it does not stop her from hawking $2500.00 acoustic guitars for Gibson
http://www.sweetwater.com/guitargallery/acoustic/a...
-
-
57%
pc258 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
According to NASA:
Reply
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.
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.-
67%
nostalgia8 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Did you see this recent report from NASA?
Reply
Deep Solar Minimum
April 1, 2009: The sunspot cycle is behaving a little like the stock market. Just when you think it has hit bottom, it goes even lower.
2008 was a bear. There were no sunspots observed on 266 of the year's 366 days (73%). To find a year with more blank suns, you have to go all the way back to 1913, which had 311 spotless days: plot. Prompted by these numbers, some observers suggested that the solar cycle had hit bottom in 2008.
Maybe not. Sunspot counts for 2009 have dropped even lower. As of March 31st, there were no sunspots on 78 of the year's 90 days (87%)
In 2008, the sun set the following records:
A 50-year low in solar wind pressure
A 12-year low in solar "irradiance"
A 55-year low in solar radio emissions
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/01apr_deep...
-
-
80%
Klarissa8 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I don't know where to find this, But I read an article several years ago that said that one of the givens in the computer software for cllimates is incorrect.
Reply
In the 1930s???, a scientist wrote the algorithm that has been used in a piece of software that has been included in everyone's programs,and no one ever bothered to verify the algorithm.
it related to:
the original algorithm said that the atmosphere (or gases or whatever) floated off into space.
Since then it has been discovered that nothing is lost , it just moves around from one place to another.
Not too clear, but I'm not a scientist.-
33%
Dionys8 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"In the 1930s???, a scientist wrote the algorithm that has been used in a piece of software that has been included in everyone's programs,and no one ever bothered to verify the algorithm."
Reply
Are you really that stupid?
"Not too clear, but I'm not a scientist."
That's apparent.
-
-
100%
Aidenag8 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Of Course removing particle pollution raises temps guys.. that is as obvious as just about anything with a cause and effect. And i know, a lot of those who will read this will say "Why not put more particles in the air then?" But that just is not the way to fix things.
Reply
The point of the matter is that we are the ones who put the particles in the air. Particles that did not exist before the industrial revolution. Particles that were causing major damage to not only the O-Zone but our own health. So this is a horrible idea.
And last, the main thing to remember, is that if this study is true, the warming is happening due to us REMOVING our particle pollution(thus we should be at a more stable natural cycle, not more unstable) This means that something else we are doing is in the equation and changin the natural cycle. And all removing particle pollution has done, is help expose this fact at an even more alarming rate than it would have been.
After all, its not like we only started warming the year that we changed particle pollution laws, this has been going on for over a century. Even during the times when we put pollutants into the air with ZERO regulations.. It's just being amplified by the removal of particle pollution-
67%
amazed8 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
When you think back to the say, the middle ages, do you think that the air was pristine? Do you really think that all those people burning all that peat and coal and wood weren't spewing CO2 as well as serious particulates into the air? Rivers and streams were used for solid waste control.
Reply
The pristine conditions prevalent before the Industrial Revolution were responsible for those harbingers of clean living such as cholera, bubonic plague and the like.
-
-
100%
jovial8 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"The 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or IPCC for the first time calculated the direct and indirect climate forcings of black carbon. It estimated the direct and indirect forcing from fossil fuel sources to be +0.2 watts per square meter and from biomass sources to be +0.1 watts per square meter. The report estimated the indirect forcing from black carbon's effect on snow and ice to be an additional +0.1 watts per square meter. More recent studies have estimated the figure as high as +0.9 watts meter squared, WHICH IS ABOUT 55% OF THE FORCING FROM CO2. Although the net impact of black carbon seems squarely within a significant warming range, further study will be required to calculate it's forcing more precisely."
Reply
(It seems the IPCC was well aware of black carbon back in 2007 when it predicted global warming) cont..-
100%
jovial8 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"It is important to understand that when black carbon is emitted from incomplete combustion, other particles such as organic carbon, nitrates, and SULFATES are emitted as well. Some of these particles such as sulfates, HAVE BEEN DETERMINED TO HARM PUBLIC HEALTH, worldwide efforts are underway to reduce them. When this happens further warming will be unmasked. Ramanathan and Feng claim that temperature masking due to cooling aerosols continue to be reduced by local air pollution control measures, this warming will be felt-likely within the next 50 years. THUS IT IS ALL THE MORE IMPORTANT TO REDUCE BLACK CARBON TO OFFSET THE INCREASED WARMING THAT WILL RESULT FROM THE EXPECTED ELIMINATION OF SULFATES."
Reply
(Again the IPCC was aware of this problem back in 2007. Sulfates are bad for human health. As we burn oil and coal these aerosols are released into the atmosphere. In order to avoid further warming we must work to eliminate black carbon as well. We can't reverse this by adding sulfates it would endanger our own health) The idea of reducing sulfates is a good one, but it must also be done in parallel with the reduction or elimination of black carbon.
Does that make it a little bit clearer?
-
-
100%
Klarissa8 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Due to an error in calculations of mean U.S. temperatures, 1934, not 1998 as previously reported, is the hottest year on record in the United States. NASA scientists contend that the error has little effect on overall U.S. temperature trends and no effect on global mean temperatures, with 2005 still the hottest year worldwide by far, followed by 1998. The data corrections have added new fuel to the climate change debate, however — and could spell more public relations woes for NASA.
Reply
The Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) at NASA measures long-term changes in global surface temperatures using raw data collected at thousands of stations around the world (called the Global Historical Climatology Network, or GHCN). The raw temperature data are then corrected to account for a number of factors, including differences in the time of day of measurements between stations, and differences between rural stations and urban stations (which tend to be hotter, due to the so-called "urban heat island" effect).
On Aug. 4, however, the well-known climate change skeptic and former mining executive Steven McIntyre — who previously challenged climatologist Michael Mann's 1998 finding that temperatures have increased rapidly since 1900 A.D., compared with the previous thousand years, forming a distinctive "hockey stick" temperature pattern — observed a strange jump in the U.S. data occurring around January 2000.
He sent an e-mail to NASA about his observation, and the agency responded with an e-mail acknowledging a flaw in the calculations and thanking him for his help, he says. By Aug. 7, he says, the agency had removed the incorrect U.S. data from the GISS Web site and replaced it with corrected numbers for all 1,200 stations.-
100%
Aidenag8 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The Key words in that article being "In the United States" Klarissa.
Reply
Global warming is exactly that GLOBAL... Hand picking data from single regions, is just not accurate. By using that logic, i could argue that global warming is both real and fake by the fact Seattle had both its hottest week, and coldest weeks on record in 2008. but since that is just one city, it really doesn't mean much until you look at it combined with global temps for the same time frame.
Ans as the quote you referenced says, the change had little effect on global mean temps, and the timeline still shows the same pattern of ever rising global mean temps year after year.
-
-
ekklesiawarriorComment removed: Hard Banned2 Replies
-
-
50%
Tangent0018 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Why is it that the Right is soooo skeptical of science when it reaches an unpalatable conclusion, but it becomes the gospel when it supports a conclusion they enjoy?
Reply
Besides this research does not debunk the role of CO2 in global warming, it says aerosols might play an important role in the melting of the Northern Arctic (not the Antarctic, BTW).-
Neutral
buckncindykill8 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Why is it that the Right is soooo skeptical of science when it reaches an unpalatable conclusion..........."
Reply
Science very rarely reaches unpalatable conclusions in such a brief period of time such as the "theory" of GW. When a preponderance of evidence exists that dis-proves a theory, skepticism should be embraced, so that science can get back to its fundamental tenet: the it's back to the "drawing board" where the real science exists.
Think critical pedagogy.
Carl Sagan said it best and I'm paraphrasing, 'Only through intense research and skeptical inquiry do we make fact out of fiction. It is the scientist who questions supposed normalcy, and thinks outside of those norms; that theory even approaches something that is considered. Without skepticism, science becomes nothing more than that which it purports to prove otherwise: childlike imaginations and ruminations."
-
-
67%
Tangent0018 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Basically what this study is saying is that the increased particulates in the arctic atmosphere temporarily protected the northern arctic from melting. Pollution control removed some of that protection.
Reply
And this debunks anthropogenic global warming how? -
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.