Thread: Cleaner skies explain surprise rate of warming

"The decrease in aerosols probably accounts for at least half of the warming over Europe in the last 30 years," says Rolf Philipona, a co-author of the study at MeteoSwiss, Switzerland's national weather service. The latest climate models are built on the assumption that aerosols have their biggest influence by seeding natural clouds, which reflect sunlight. However, the team found that radiation dropped only slightly on cloudy days, suggesting that the main impact of aerosols is to block sunlight directly.

From
Newscientist Environment
Article

Originally Posted by Oftencold

From
Newscientist Environment
Article

So you understand what they are saying, right?

Originally Posted by Latherty

So you understand what they are saying, right?

Yes. It's is quite elementary.

A decrease in aerosols (suspended pollutants) is allowing more isolation to occur (not to be confused with insulation.)

The result is increased air temperature from secondary radiation from the extreme upper crustal region (ground).

Originally Posted by Oftencold

Yes. It's is quite elementary.

A decrease in aerosols (suspended pollutants) is allowing more isolation to occur (not to be confused with insulation.)

The result is increased air temperature from secondary radiation from the extreme upper crustal region (ground).

Often, look at some other articles on that website. You will see that it is nothing more than a conspiracy theorist masturbation fodder site.

Originally Posted by Oftencold

Yes. It's is quite elementary.

A decrease in aerosols (suspended pollutants) is allowing more isolation to occur (not to be confused with insulation.)

The result is increased air temperature from secondary radiation from the extreme upper crustal region (ground).

The process is straightforward (as to why you chose even more complex language that even the scientists bothered to use to express yourself is beyond me) - what is the conclusion you are drawing from the research?

Originally Posted by Think for myself

Often, look at some other articles on that website. You will see that it is nothing more than a conspiracy theorist masturbation fodder site.

??? New Scientist? The blogs may be wacky at times but the research published is kosher.

There has been recent suggestion that a way to "buy" us some time to reduce CO2 would be to pump aerosols into the atmosphere - unfortunately modelling of the outcomes suggests that this would be a BAAAAAAD idea.

If you want to stay abreast of the discussions about global warming the New Scientist special report section is excellent

Special Report on Climate Change - New Scientist Environment

Originally Posted by Latherty

The process is straightforward (as to why you chose even more complex language that even the scientists bothered to use to express yourself is beyond me) - what is the conclusion you are drawing from the research?

I like words. Problem?

Indeed I consider myself a logophile, possibly boarding on being a logmainac. I would hope that I refrain from excursions into lexiphanicism.

No logastellus, I!

By the way, I misspelled "insolation" in the original post.

I conclude what the researcher did. That the temperature in Europe is warmer largely because of nit-pollution progress.

Regardless of whether on is foolish enough to espouse faith in the quasi-religious doctrine of anthropogenic global warming (or "climate change" when the weight of evidence becomes an unbearable burden for the faithful,) one should recognize that the weather on this planet is dynamic and responds to many effects.

I saw something about this on PBS or Discovery a few times. I don't know about the warming thing, but I thought the fact we've lost 15% or something like that of our light because of particle pollution was interesting.

So everything affects everything else. You don't have to be Einstein to figure that shit out.