a new study suggests that Himalayan glacier melt is primarily (as in 90%) due to aerosols and not CO2 (or temperature) related: himalayans melting due to aerosols
I'm glad to see more people taking soot seriously as the most likely leading cause. I figured that out years ago.
right...but man is this funny since we have been consistently led to believe that glaciers are all melting because the earth has warmed by 1 degree.....of course because of CO2 output....which is both prima facie absurd and turns out actually absurd! I really think climategate opened up a floodgate of good information so that we are going to start seeing much more balance in this debate....which makes me very happy. I am tired of all of the hype and overstatement when there is plenty of REAL environmental issues that actually SHOULD concern us and on which we should focus.
I'm glad to see more people taking soot seriously as the most likely leading cause. I figured that out years ago. __________________________________________________ everyone knows this. the msm media, scientists on the other side and government officials refuse to acknowledge this.
yes Fondren it is....and notice it has NOTHING to do with CO2. i have never questioned pollution and you are only highlighting my point ....we should focus on the clear pollution and damage we are doing rather than targeting the clear, odorless gas that plants take in to grow.
So the goal posts are officially moved? Man can now cause climate change, so now it is a matter of which pollution to mitigate?
i have never argued that man can't affect nature. i have actually argued quite the opposite MANY times. one of my consistent complaints about the entire AGW theory is that it is far too reliant upon CO2. i am fine with us regulating actual pollutants and trying to clean up the air. this is a case where aerosols are changing the climate AND they are causing the ice to heat up at the micro-level because of particulants which are resting on the snow. this doesn't seem inconsistent with my complaints. I have no philosophical problem with the fact that mankind can and does do terrible damage to the environment. i just want evidence that CO2 is the primary culprit since it is certainly our primary focus. i would be ALL for getting rid of the black carbon AND the effect would be MUCH quicker than the hypothetical effects of lowering CO2. sorry some of you need to be consistently reminded what my beef is, but my problem is with us obsessing over the colorless, odorless gas known as CO2 which has been at levels 10 times as high in earth's geological history, long before mankind could have been blamed. no goal posts have been moved.....except by those who want to blame CO2 but can't. in other news....January was extremely warm in both the satellite measurements and the ocean temperatures: warmest january in satellite history (30 years)
I'm reading a book on Mark Twain. He published many writings and wrote a comment pertaining to Congress which very much holds true today. Essentially, his point was that Congress is a completely incompetent and reactionary bunch when it comes to any industry. He used the publishing industry as an example. Congress will pass a law based upon a story that is hyperbolized without knowing at all how that new legislation is going to effect that industry. They will pass a law geared to hurt the big firms and even the playing field when it actually does the opposite, hurts the small guy and as a result, actually strengthens the big ones or even worse, hurts the industry as a whole. Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 is a perfect recent example of a reactionary piece of legislation which has had terrible consequences. The state of California sued many of the car manufacturers for global warming? What? These are the people trying to pass Health and Carbon Tax legislation. They have no clue what they are doing.
The Himalayan glaciers are melting due to us. Even the people who ***** about global warming, because they sponsor global warming just as much as the any of the VPs at XOM. There are too many of us and we want to use energy for things that don't make us happy.
Fondren....you must be confusing us with some other board. most of we skeptics are environmentalists in our personal life and want regulations on pollution. the issue has always been CO2 and making too big of a deal about it. also.....my point has only been that it has NOT warmed in the past 8 to 12 years (depending on how you view that). i have always admitted that it HAS warmed from the 1800's to present time. these are two very different arguments that are easily maintained side by side. as for january...yes it was very warm....but it is one data point. perhaps the past warming that has stopped for the past decade (by the way, even adamant pro-AGW scientists have admitted that the warming has stopped for longer than they expected now) is going to continue now...or perhaps this is a local high that will be followed by a precipitous drop like we saw in January of 2007.....only time will tell. i am amazed how often i have to say these same things....it is rather exhausting but i admit that i ask for it by making this my pet topic i invite my adversaries to misrepresent my position as often as possible. to review: 1. i have always agreed with historical warming. 2. i have consistently questioned warming in the past decade 3. i have consistently maintained environmental stances on pollution but eschewed such a stance on CO2. 4. i am fine with restrictions on pollutants.
