Comments on: The Black and White Aerosols Show http://www.climate-resistance.org/2008/04/black-and-white-aerosols-show.html Challenging Climate Orthodoxy Sun, 14 Mar 2010 22:45:02 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Global Warming’s Pause for Thought – Black and White Aerosols « The Worm That Turned http://www.climate-resistance.org/2008/04/black-and-white-aerosols-show.html/comment-page-1#comment-325 Global Warming’s Pause for Thought – Black and White Aerosols « The Worm That Turned Sun, 25 Oct 2009 20:03:23 +0000 http://climateresistance.wordpress.com/2008/04/21/the-black-and-white-aerosols-show/#comment-325 [...] Black and white aerosols show The trouble is that there remains little empirical evidence to support the idea (that the period of “global cooling” between 1940 and 1970 was caused by industrial emissions of sulphate pollutants, which tend to reflect sunlight) as we were surprised to find out when we talked to UC San Diego atmospheric physicist Veerabhadran Ramanathan about his research showing that another type of aerosol – black carbon – had a significant warming effect: [...] [...] Black and white aerosols show The trouble is that there remains little empirical evidence to support the idea (that the period of “global cooling” between 1940 and 1970 was caused by industrial emissions of sulphate pollutants, which tend to reflect sunlight) as we were surprised to find out when we talked to UC San Diego atmospheric physicist Veerabhadran Ramanathan about his research showing that another type of aerosol – black carbon – had a significant warming effect: [...]

]]> By: leebert http://www.climate-resistance.org/2008/04/black-and-white-aerosols-show.html/comment-page-1#comment-324 leebert Wed, 21 May 2008 02:25:00 +0000 http://climateresistance.wordpress.com/2008/04/21/the-black-and-white-aerosols-show/#comment-324 I have followed V. Ramanathan's work since his team's first big discovery that tropospheric soot causes a net heating effect (announced 8/2007). Understand that Ramanathan caught a great deal of political heat in 2003 from his INDOEX work studying the Asian Brown Cloud, and most scientists in the field tend toward cautious statements outside of their own field data.<br/><br/>It has been several years since James Hansen & others started commenting about the pernicious snow-melting effects of soot. <br/><br/>But over that span of time the CO2 faction would hear nothing of Charlie Zender's or, more recently, V. Ramanathan's actual dirty snow and tropospheric-soot field data (respectively). The IPCC is just starting to 'fess up to it, but it has taken a great deal of effort to get the error bars for aerosols out of the negatives and the lost Arctic albedo even listed.<br/><br/>According to Charlie Zender's field data the Arctic ice has taken a big hit from long-term snow-darkening soot deposition ... up to 90 percent of the Arctic thaw is due to sootfall in the past 150 years, with an ongoing effect of about a third. <br/><br/>The really disturbing aspect to this is that the environmentalists are intentionally ignoring the research on Arctic sootfall b/c they believe would take away from the CO2 argument. I remember reading about soot's effects in ice & snow in an EDF blog last year. The enviro groups know this. <br/><br/>So even though soot mitigation - being imminently feasible and comparatively inexpensive - would do more to help the polar bears in the next 15 years, the activists are choosing to focus solely on CO2 instead.<br/><br/>So either the bears aren't really threatened or the enviros are holding the bears hostage and are willing to martyr them.<br/><br/>Even now a NOAA & NASA team is based in Anchorage surveying the air-heating effects of Arctic Haze (more soot...). I have followed V. Ramanathan’s work since his team’s first big discovery that tropospheric soot causes a net heating effect (announced 8/2007). Understand that Ramanathan caught a great deal of political heat in 2003 from his INDOEX work studying the Asian Brown Cloud, and most scientists in the field tend toward cautious statements outside of their own field data.

It has been several years since James Hansen & others started commenting about the pernicious snow-melting effects of soot.

But over that span of time the CO2 faction would hear nothing of Charlie Zender’s or, more recently, V. Ramanathan’s actual dirty snow and tropospheric-soot field data (respectively). The IPCC is just starting to ‘fess up to it, but it has taken a great deal of effort to get the error bars for aerosols out of the negatives and the lost Arctic albedo even listed.

According to Charlie Zender’s field data the Arctic ice has taken a big hit from long-term snow-darkening soot deposition … up to 90 percent of the Arctic thaw is due to sootfall in the past 150 years, with an ongoing effect of about a third.

The really disturbing aspect to this is that the environmentalists are intentionally ignoring the research on Arctic sootfall b/c they believe would take away from the CO2 argument. I remember reading about soot’s effects in ice & snow in an EDF blog last year. The enviro groups know this.

So even though soot mitigation – being imminently feasible and comparatively inexpensive – would do more to help the polar bears in the next 15 years, the activists are choosing to focus solely on CO2 instead.

So either the bears aren’t really threatened or the enviros are holding the bears hostage and are willing to martyr them.

Even now a NOAA & NASA team is based in Anchorage surveying the air-heating effects of Arctic Haze (more soot…).

]]> By: editors http://www.climate-resistance.org/2008/04/black-and-white-aerosols-show.html/comment-page-1#comment-323 editors Tue, 29 Apr 2008 14:01:00 +0000 http://climateresistance.wordpress.com/2008/04/21/the-black-and-white-aerosols-show/#comment-323 [Message received by email and posted with permission]<br/><br/>Dear Sirs:<br/> <br/>This is not - repeat, not - news, but it has been ignored by the IPCC.<br/> <br/>My peer review for the most recent IPCC report (AR4) included the following comment on both drafts;<br/> <br/>"Page 1-25 Chapter 1 Section 1.5.11 Line 30 <br/>For accuracy and completeness, after “… burning of fossil fuels” add “Additionally, it has been found that increases to sulphate aerosols combined with soot particles have a strong warming effect (0.55 Wm-2) greater than that of methane (0.48 Wm-2), and these combined particles are also linked with the burning of fossil fuels (ref. Jacobson MZ, Nature, vol. 409, 695-697 (2000)).”"<br/> <br/>But the published IPCC report was not amended in the light of my review comment.<br/> <br/>Richard S Courtney [Message received by email and posted with permission]

Dear Sirs:

This is not – repeat, not – news, but it has been ignored by the IPCC.

My peer review for the most recent IPCC report (AR4) included the following comment on both drafts;

“Page 1-25 Chapter 1 Section 1.5.11 Line 30
For accuracy and completeness, after “… burning of fossil fuels” add “Additionally, it has been found that increases to sulphate aerosols combined with soot particles have a strong warming effect (0.55 Wm-2) greater than that of methane (0.48 Wm-2), and these combined particles are also linked with the burning of fossil fuels (ref. Jacobson MZ, Nature, vol. 409, 695-697 (2000)).””

But the published IPCC report was not amended in the light of my review comment.

Richard S Courtney

]]> By: john a. bailo http://www.climate-resistance.org/2008/04/black-and-white-aerosols-show.html/comment-page-1#comment-322 john a. bailo Sat, 26 Apr 2008 16:49:00 +0000 http://climateresistance.wordpress.com/2008/04/21/the-black-and-white-aerosols-show/#comment-322 45-75 -- has anyone considered the effects of atom and hydrogen bomb blasts (testing) during that period? Would they have put as much particulate up in the atmosphere as a volcano? 45-75 — has anyone considered the effects of atom and hydrogen bomb blasts (testing) during that period? Would they have put as much particulate up in the atmosphere as a volcano?

]]> By: editors http://www.climate-resistance.org/2008/04/black-and-white-aerosols-show.html/comment-page-1#comment-321 editors Fri, 25 Apr 2008 12:44:00 +0000 http://climateresistance.wordpress.com/2008/04/21/the-black-and-white-aerosols-show/#comment-321 Not to mention entirely irrelevant to this post. Not to mention entirely irrelevant to this post.

]]> By: Garth Godsman http://www.climate-resistance.org/2008/04/black-and-white-aerosols-show.html/comment-page-1#comment-320 Garth Godsman Fri, 25 Apr 2008 07:12:00 +0000 http://climateresistance.wordpress.com/2008/04/21/the-black-and-white-aerosols-show/#comment-320 Lag: a tired and over used excuse ;) Lag: a tired and over used excuse ;)

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.climate-resistance.org/2008/04/black-and-white-aerosols-show.html/comment-page-1#comment-319 Anonymous Tue, 22 Apr 2008 01:19:00 +0000 http://climateresistance.wordpress.com/2008/04/21/the-black-and-white-aerosols-show/#comment-319 *lag* achem *lag* achem

]]> By: papertiger http://www.climate-resistance.org/2008/04/black-and-white-aerosols-show.html/comment-page-1#comment-318 papertiger Mon, 21 Apr 2008 22:48:00 +0000 http://climateresistance.wordpress.com/2008/04/21/the-black-and-white-aerosols-show/#comment-318 Thank you. Thank you.

]]>