Cleaner Skies, Warmer Surface?

[shrumpage]

link

ur planet's air has cleared up in the past decade or two, allowing more sunshine to reach the ground, say two studies in Science this week.

Reductions in industrial emissions in many countries, along with the use of particulate filters for car exhausts and smoke stacks, seem to have reduced the amount of dirt in the atmosphere and made the sky more transparent.

That sounds like very good news. But the researchers say that more solar energy arriving on the ground will also make the surface warmer, and this may add to the problems of global warming. More sunlight will also have knock-on effects on cloud cover, winds, rainfall and air temperature that are difficult to predict.

Less pollution helping the earth get warmer, I know it is simplistic wording, but kinda ironic, eh?



It just shows how much we don't know and don't understand about the earth's systems and the relationships between those systems.

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: shrumpage
link

ur planet's air has cleared up in the past decade or two, allowing more sunshine to reach the ground, say two studies in Science this week.

Reductions in industrial emissions in many countries, along with the use of particulate filters for car exhausts and smoke stacks, seem to have reduced the amount of dirt in the atmosphere and made the sky more transparent.

That sounds like very good news. But the researchers say that more solar energy arriving on the ground will also make the surface warmer, and this may add to the problems of global warming. More sunlight will also have knock-on effects on cloud cover, winds, rainfall and air temperature that are difficult to predict.

Less pollution helping the earth get warmer, I know it is simplistic wording, but kinda ironic, eh?



It just shows how much we don't know and don't understand about the earth's systems and the relationships between those systems.

I'm trying to look at the conservation of energy here and this kind of reasoning doesn't add up. Just b/c the ground is absorbing extra energy shouldn't change the net intake of energy from the sun that makes it into our atmosphere. The "dirtiness" in the air shouldn't hold in or keep out the suns energy overall as it seems the upper layers of the atmosphere are more responsible for this sort of thing. My understanding of the way it all works isn't solid so if someone wants to break it down for me I'd be willing to listen...

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: shrumpage
link

ur planet's air has cleared up in the past decade or two, allowing more sunshine to reach the ground, say two studies in Science this week.

Reductions in industrial emissions in many countries, along with the use of particulate filters for car exhausts and smoke stacks, seem to have reduced the amount of dirt in the atmosphere and made the sky more transparent.

That sounds like very good news. But the researchers say that more solar energy arriving on the ground will also make the surface warmer, and this may add to the problems of global warming. More sunlight will also have knock-on effects on cloud cover, winds, rainfall and air temperature that are difficult to predict.

Less pollution helping the earth get warmer, I know it is simplistic wording, but kinda ironic, eh?



It just shows how much we don't know and don't understand about the earth's systems and the relationships between those systems.

I'm trying to look at the conservation of energy here and this kind of reasoning doesn't add up. Just b/c the ground is absorbing extra energy shouldn't change the net intake of energy from the sun that makes it into our atmosphere. The "dirtiness" in the air shouldn't hold in or keep out the suns energy overall as it seems the upper layers of the atmosphere are more responsible for this sort of thing. My understanding of the way it all works isn't solid so if someone wants to break it down for me I'd be willing to listen...

Particulates reflect sunlight reducing the amount of energy reaching the surface. It is the main reason why warming wasn't seen to the degree predicted for so long. Now that we are reducing those, sunlight reaches us as it normally would. The rub though is that C02 hasn't come down, trapping heat more than ought to be. Increasing particulates is a nonsensical solution, so the only way out is to reduce CO2 production.

 

[irwincur]

It's time that people figured out the Global Warming debate.

Everything causes it, because it is nothing more than a pseudo science fantasy developed to pump grant money into research insitutions and environmental groups.

I am still wating for anything near a majority of real climatologists to actually get behind the Global Warming camp. As of today it is a few crackpots, some ex-hippies, and greedy government/educational types.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Tommunist

I'm trying to look at the conservation of energy here and this kind of reasoning doesn't add up. Just b/c the ground is absorbing extra energy shouldn't change the net intake of energy from the sun that makes it into our atmosphere. The "dirtiness" in the air shouldn't hold in or keep out the suns energy overall as it seems the upper layers of the atmosphere are more responsible for this sort of thing.

My understanding of the way it all works isn't solid so if someone wants to break it down for me I'd be willing to listen...

Two Words:

Tree Canopy

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: irwincur
It's time that people figured out the Global Warming debate.

Everything causes it, because it is nothing more than a pseudo science fantasy developed to pump grant money into research insitutions and environmental groups.

I am still wating for anything near a majority of real climatologists to actually get behind the Global Warming camp. As of today it is a few crackpots, some ex-hippies, and greedy government/educational types.

And we now have a surplus not a deficit. Right.

 

[impeachbush]

Originally posted by: irwincur
It's time that people figured out the Global Warming debate.

Everything causes it, because it is nothing more than a pseudo science fantasy developed to pump grant money into research insitutions and environmental groups.

I am still wating for anything near a majority of real climatologists to actually get behind the Global Warming camp. As of today it is a few crackpots, some ex-hippies, and greedy government/educational types.

Down with the research institutions and environmental groups!! Research=pseudo science fantasy! Lets burn books, and help increase the atmospheric particulate matter and save earth! hooray!

...wow... My IQ just dropped from reading your post.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: irwincur
It's time that people figured out the Global Warming debate.

Everything causes it, because it is nothing more than a pseudo science fantasy developed to pump grant money into research insitutions and environmental groups.

I am still wating for anything near a majority of real climatologists to actually get behind the Global Warming camp. As of today it is a few crackpots, some ex-hippies, and greedy government/educational types.

Your wait should have ended years ago. However, I suspect you hold a handful of denyers as the "majority".

edit: clarity

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: shrumpage
link

ur planet's air has cleared up in the past decade or two, allowing more sunshine to reach the ground, say two studies in Science this week.

Reductions in industrial emissions in many countries, along with the use of particulate filters for car exhausts and smoke stacks, seem to have reduced the amount of dirt in the atmosphere and made the sky more transparent.

That sounds like very good news. But the researchers say that more solar energy arriving on the ground will also make the surface warmer, and this may add to the problems of global warming. More sunlight will also have knock-on effects on cloud cover, winds, rainfall and air temperature that are difficult to predict.

Less pollution helping the earth get warmer, I know it is simplistic wording, but kinda ironic, eh?



It just shows how much we don't know and don't understand about the earth's systems and the relationships between those systems.

I'm trying to look at the conservation of energy here and this kind of reasoning doesn't add up. Just b/c the ground is absorbing extra energy shouldn't change the net intake of energy from the sun that makes it into our atmosphere. The "dirtiness" in the air shouldn't hold in or keep out the suns energy overall as it seems the upper layers of the atmosphere are more responsible for this sort of thing. My understanding of the way it all works isn't solid so if someone wants to break it down for me I'd be willing to listen...

Particulates reflect sunlight reducing the amount of energy reaching the surface. It is the main reason why warming wasn't seen to the degree predicted for so long. Now that we are reducing those, sunlight reaches us as it normally would. The rub though is that C02 hasn't come down, trapping heat more than ought to be. Increasing particulates is a nonsensical solution, so the only way out is to reduce CO2 production.

why wouldn't the particles simply absorb the heat? if they are at a somewhat low level (which I would think they would be) I would think the difference between dust being in the air or on the ground to be very small....

 

[Deptacon]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Tommunist

I'm trying to look at the conservation of energy here and this kind of reasoning doesn't add up. Just b/c the ground is absorbing extra energy shouldn't change the net intake of energy from the sun that makes it into our atmosphere. The "dirtiness" in the air shouldn't hold in or keep out the suns energy overall as it seems the upper layers of the atmosphere are more responsible for this sort of thing.

My understanding of the way it all works isn't solid so if someone wants to break it down for me I'd be willing to listen...

Two Words:

Tree Canopy

overrated

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: shrumpage
link

ur planet's air has cleared up in the past decade or two, allowing more sunshine to reach the ground, say two studies in Science this week.

Reductions in industrial emissions in many countries, along with the use of particulate filters for car exhausts and smoke stacks, seem to have reduced the amount of dirt in the atmosphere and made the sky more transparent.

That sounds like very good news. But the researchers say that more solar energy arriving on the ground will also make the surface warmer, and this may add to the problems of global warming. More sunlight will also have knock-on effects on cloud cover, winds, rainfall and air temperature that are difficult to predict.

Less pollution helping the earth get warmer, I know it is simplistic wording, but kinda ironic, eh?



It just shows how much we don't know and don't understand about the earth's systems and the relationships between those systems.

I'm trying to look at the conservation of energy here and this kind of reasoning doesn't add up. Just b/c the ground is absorbing extra energy shouldn't change the net intake of energy from the sun that makes it into our atmosphere. The "dirtiness" in the air shouldn't hold in or keep out the suns energy overall as it seems the upper layers of the atmosphere are more responsible for this sort of thing. My understanding of the way it all works isn't solid so if someone wants to break it down for me I'd be willing to listen...

Particulates reflect sunlight reducing the amount of energy reaching the surface. It is the main reason why warming wasn't seen to the degree predicted for so long. Now that we are reducing those, sunlight reaches us as it normally would. The rub though is that C02 hasn't come down, trapping heat more than ought to be. Increasing particulates is a nonsensical solution, so the only way out is to reduce CO2 production.

why wouldn't the particles simply absorb the heat? if they are at a somewhat low level (which I would think they would be) I would think the difference between dust being in the air or on the ground to be very small....

They do absorb to some degree, however there is significant radiation returned to space. It the nature of the beast. Remember that even just several percent of the Sun's radiation is a huge amount of energy.

 

[cwjerome]

Let's just boil it down to the nitty gritty.

If there's a heat wave it's global warming. If there's a cold wave it's global warming. If there's hurricanes, rain, and blizzards it's global warming. If there's tornadoes and droughts it's global warming. Whatever the equation, it always equals global warming.

Just remember that and everyone will fit right in.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Let's just boil it down to the nitty gritty.

If there's a heat wave it's global warming. If there's a cold wave it's global warming. If there's hurricanes, rain, and blizzards it's global warming. If there's tornadoes and droughts it's global warming. Whatever the equation, it always equals global warming.

Just remember that and everyone will fit right in.

Well, coming out of an Ice Age typically takes thousands of years. The retreat of the world's glaciers and melting of snowpack in the last 100 years is astounding. It's been accelerated.

 

[cwjerome]

And who says we can't help mother nature?

BTW, I still think that cyclowizard quote in your sig is dead-on. Good choice.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: impeachbush

Originally posted by: irwincur
It's time that people figured out the Global Warming debate.

Everything causes it, because it is nothing more than a pseudo science fantasy developed to pump grant money into research insitutions and environmental groups.

I am still wating for anything near a majority of real climatologists to actually get behind the Global Warming camp. As of today it is a few crackpots, some ex-hippies, and greedy government/educational types.

Down with the research institutions and environmental groups!! Research=pseudo science fantasy! Lets burn books, and help increase the atmospheric particulate matter and save earth! hooray!

...wow... My IQ just dropped from reading your post.

No, your IQ was low before you read his post, as he is right. Global Warming is a pseudo-science designed to encourage funding, and give environmental groups a foothold in government regulatory bodies. The actual science itself is entirely lacking. If you as I loved science, you would not encourage this abuse of it. May as well believe in aliens or that Democrats will lower your taxes.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: conjur
Well, coming out of an Ice Age typically takes thousands of years. The retreat of the world's glaciers and melting of snowpack in the last 100 years is astounding. It's been accelerated.

Based on what dataset? Oh sh!t, we just started recording things like exact weather conditions and snowpack only 100 years ago. And the pace in the last 100 years is "astounding!" And we know this to be unusual... how?

 

[daniel1113]

There's evidence that the planet is getting warmer, but there is absolutely no sound research as to the cause, whether it be natural temperature variations, human activity, etc.

The irony is amusing, though.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: conjur
Well, coming out of an Ice Age typically takes thousands of years. The retreat of the world's glaciers and melting of snowpack in the last 100 years is astounding. It's been accelerated.

Based on what dataset? Oh sh!t, we just started recording things like exact weather conditions and snowpack only 100 years ago. And the pace in the last 100 years is "astounding!" And we know this to be unusual... how?

http://www.waterconserve.info/articles/reader.asp?linkid=27488

About 1,300 of Canada's glaciers have lost between 25 per cent and 75 per cent of their mass since 1850, Statistics Canada said Wednesday in a report entitled Human Activity and the Environment: Annual Statistics. Most of the losses have been recorded in the last 50 years.

"Along the eastern slope of the Rocky Mountains, glacier cover is receding rapidly and is now close to its lowest level in 10,000 years," the report said.

http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/news/03/pr03145.htm

Curry, Dickson, and Yashayaev analyzed a wealth of salinity measurements collected over recent decades along a key region in the Atlantic Ocean, from the tip of Greenland to the tip of South America. Their analysis showed the properties of Atlantic water masses have been changing?in some cases radically?over the five decades for which reliable and systematic records of ocean measurements are available, the scientists report.

They observed that surface waters in tropical and subtropical Atlantic Ocean regions became markedly saltier. Simultaneously, much of the water column in the high latitudes of the North and South Atlantic became fresher.

This trend appears to have accelerated since 1990?when 10 of the warmest years since records began in 1861 have occurred. The scientists estimated that net evaporation rates over the tropical Atlantic have increased by five percent to ten percent over the past four decades.

These results indicate that fresh water has been lost from the low latitudes and added at high latitudes, at a pace exceeding the ocean circulation's ability to compensate, say the scientists. Taken together with other recent studies revealing parallel salinity changes in the Mediterranean, Pacific, and Indian Oceans, a growing body of evidence suggests that the global hydrologic cycle has revved up in recent decades.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1926667.stm

The lake where remedial work has begun is Tsho Rolpa, which researchers say is six times larger now than in the late 1950s. It was identified as critical by ground surveys and satellite images.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2137205.stm

Dr Echelmeyer's team surveyed the volume and area changes of part of this region from an aircraft equipped with a laser altimetry system. The researchers measured the volume loss by checking glacier elevation and volume data on US Geological Survey maps from the 1950s.

"Most glaciers have thinned several hundred feet at low elevations in the last 40 years and about 60 feet at higher elevations," Dr Echelmeyer said.

Higher levels

The team has calculated that Alaskan glaciers are responsible for at least 9% of the global sea-level rise during the past century, and Alaska's glaciers raise the level of Earth's oceans by more than one-tenth of a millimetre each year.

Snow and Ice on Kilimanjaro
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=10856

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: conjur
Well, coming out of an Ice Age typically takes thousands of years. The retreat of the world's glaciers and melting of snowpack in the last 100 years is astounding. It's been accelerated.

Based on what dataset? Oh sh!t, we just started recording things like exact weather conditions and snowpack only 100 years ago. And the pace in the last 100 years is "astounding!" And we know this to be unusual... how?

I think you know by now Vic that I am no friggin tree hugger though I like trees. While it is true that climatic studies have been going on for a short while on the geologic time scale, there are good studies of Greenland ice cores which show not only CO2 concentrations, but rates of change. The science is good based on good data. There are some unanswered questions, but the rate of climate change is unprecidented at least in the last 900k years.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: conjur
Well, coming out of an Ice Age typically takes thousands of years. The retreat of the world's glaciers and melting of snowpack in the last 100 years is astounding. It's been accelerated.

Based on what dataset? Oh sh!t, we just started recording things like exact weather conditions and snowpack only 100 years ago. And the pace in the last 100 years is "astounding!" And we know this to be unusual... how?

I think you know by now Vic that I am no friggin tree hugger though I like trees. While it is true that climatic studies have been going on for a short while on the geologic time scale, there are good studies of Greenland ice cores which show not only CO2 concentrations, but rates of change. The science is good based on good data. There are some unanswered questions, but the rate of climate change is unprecidented at least in the last 900k years.

900k years, Winston? What about the Ice Ages only some 12k years ago? Europe and North America only that short time ago were covered miles deep in ice, were they not?

Point of fact is that change is normal and to be expected. Science proves this, does it not? To be alarmed by change itself therefore is IMO not very scientific. Add in the youthful nature of our datasets (which Conjur inadvertently proved for me, I would say), and the fact that we are only just now becoming aware of these changes through recent abilities of discovery, and I would say that the cause for alarm is a bit unfounded, eh?
It's like a baby suddenly becoming sentient in a way. We are only beginning to understand. If we are alarmed, let it be at our hostile earth itself, as intervention has poor history.

Have you ever been to Central Oregon, Winston? One of my favorite places on earth is the upper Deschutes River valley near Lapine, OR (~30 miles south of Bend, OR). Beautiful and thick ponderosa pine and juniper forests nestled between the Cascade Mountains and the rogue volcanic Paulina Peak, the valley floor sits at roughly 4k feet. The climate is unique is that it is a thickly forested high desert, situated in the midst of volcanic beauty. Once home to towering ponderosas, the forests have now been devastated by the human policy of preventing the natural forest fires, at one time considered harmful to forest even though that we know now that such is the natural order necessary to maintain the health of the forest. This is what happens when we think we know more than the earth does, and seek to prevent the natural change, or pretend to ourselves that we know the cause.

edit: Pic of the area. In the distance to the west are (left to right) mountains Bachelor (9k, and a world famous ski resort), South Sister (10k, and I have summited it twice), and Broken Top.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: conjur
Well, coming out of an Ice Age typically takes thousands of years. The retreat of the world's glaciers and melting of snowpack in the last 100 years is astounding. It's been accelerated.

Based on what dataset? Oh sh!t, we just started recording things like exact weather conditions and snowpack only 100 years ago. And the pace in the last 100 years is "astounding!" And we know this to be unusual... how?

I think you know by now Vic that I am no friggin tree hugger though I like trees. While it is true that climatic studies have been going on for a short while on the geologic time scale, there are good studies of Greenland ice cores which show not only CO2 concentrations, but rates of change. The science is good based on good data. There are some unanswered questions, but the rate of climate change is unprecidented at least in the last 900k years.

900k years, Winston? What about the Ice Ages only some 12k years ago? Europe and North America only that short time ago were covered miles deep in ice, were they not?

Point of fact is that change is normal and to be expected. Science proves this, does it not? To be alarmed by change itself therefore is IMO not very scientific. Add in the youthful nature of our datasets (which Conjur inadvertently proved for me, I would say), and the fact that we are only just now becoming aware of these changes through recent abilities of discovery, and I would say that the cause for alarm is a bit unfounded, eh?
It's like a baby suddenly becoming sentient in a way. We are only beginning to understand. If we are alarmed, let it be at our hostile earth itself, as intervention has poor history.

Have you ever been to Central Oregon, Winston? One of my favorite places on earth is the upper Deschutes River valley near Lapine, OR (~30 miles south of Bend, OR). Beautiful and thick ponderosa pine and juniper forests nestled between the Cascade Mountains and the rogue volcanic Paulina Peak, the valley floor sits at roughly 4k feet. The climate is unique is that it is a thickly forested high desert, situated in the midst of volcanic beauty. Once home to towering ponderosas, the forests have now been devastated by the human policy of preventing the natural forest fires, at one time considered harmful to forest even though that we know now that such is the natural order necessary to maintain the health of the forest. This is what happens when we think we know more than the earth does, and seek to prevent the natural change, or pretend to ourselves that we know the cause.

Whatever is between Conjur and yourself makes no difference to me. What I was referring to was not about climatic variation alone, but the rate of change. It is unprecedented. That is the concern. The rate of change in CO2 which everyone agrees is a greenhouse gas has not happened in the last 900k years according to core samples in Greenland going many thousands of feet deep. What we see is something that is not according to nature as usual, at least in the last million years or so. Perhaps coincidence? Maybe, but the odds are thin.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Whatever is between Conjur and yourself makes no difference to me. What I was referring to was not about climatic variation alone, but the rate of change. It is unprecedented. That is the concern. The rate of change in CO2 which everyone agrees is a greenhouse gas has not happened in the last 900k years according to core samples in Greenland going many thousands of feet deep. What we see is something that is not according to nature as usual, at least in the last million years or so. Perhaps coincidence? Maybe, but the odds are thin.

And we really know this? I'm not talking to Conjur. The drama queen is empty air to me most of the time, as his only agenda is hatred of mankind.
We really know from our only very recent discoveries? We really understand this change? How does this corelate to the fact that even a relatively small volcanic eruption like St. Helens emits more greenhouse gases than does humanity despite our recent attempts. What about the unbelievably massive natural coal fires that literally created most of the American Southwest?
Yaknow, thinking of Helens, scientists said after the eruption that the blast zone would be a barren wasteland of thousands of years. Within only a few short years, it teems with life. How can this be, when we think we know everything?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Whatever is between Conjur and yourself makes no difference to me. What I was referring to was not about climatic variation alone, but the rate of change. It is unprecedented. That is the concern. The rate of change in CO2 which everyone agrees is a greenhouse gas has not happened in the last 900k years according to core samples in Greenland going many thousands of feet deep. What we see is something that is not according to nature as usual, at least in the last million years or so. Perhaps coincidence? Maybe, but the odds are thin.

And we really know this? I'm not talking to Conjur. The drama queen is empty air to me most of the time, as his only agenda is hatred of mankind.
We really know from our only very recent discoveries? We really understand this change? How does this corelate to the fact that even a relatively small volcanic eruption like St. Helens emits more greenhouse gases than does humanity despite our recent attempts. What about the unbelievably massive natural coal fires that literally created most of the American Southwest?
Yaknow, thinking of Helens, scientists said after the eruption that the blast zone would be a barren wasteland of thousands of years. Within only a few short years, it teems with life. How can this be, when we think we know everything?

We hardly know everything Vic. I have more education than most dream of and it has left me with the firm conviction that I know virtually nothing. Still, some things I have confidence in. In this Universe 2+2=4, and if you measure the CO2 you get what you get. What would you have me say?

 

[Vic]

I guess no more than that. I know no more either. As always, I appreciate your honesty and your intelligence.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Whatever is between Conjur and yourself makes no difference to me. What I was referring to was not about climatic variation alone, but the rate of change. It is unprecedented. That is the concern. The rate of change in CO2 which everyone agrees is a greenhouse gas has not happened in the last 900k years according to core samples in Greenland going many thousands of feet deep. What we see is something that is not according to nature as usual, at least in the last million years or so. Perhaps coincidence? Maybe, but the odds are thin.

And we really know this? I'm not talking to Conjur. The drama queen is empty air to me most of the time, as his only agenda is hatred of mankind.
We really know from our only very recent discoveries? We really understand this change? How does this corelate to the fact that even a relatively small volcanic eruption like St. Helens emits more greenhouse gases than does humanity despite our recent attempts. What about the unbelievably massive natural coal fires that literally created most of the American Southwest?
Yaknow, thinking of Helens, scientists said after the eruption that the blast zone would be a barren wasteland of thousands of years. Within only a few short years, it teems with life. How can this be, when we think we know everything?

<Shakes Head> The Anti-Science crowd shows how easily mankind has fallen into Dark Age periods. We are witnessing the beginning of another Dark Ages period of Human History.

1900's was a great Century of Scietific breakthrough and Innovations

2000's is off to start as giant step backwards led by the Christian Anti-Science Sheeple.