AGW: atmospheric physics

[RollingThunder]

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.....you poor brainwashed fool....

Scientific opinion on climate change
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is more than 90% certain that humans are causing it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels.[1][2][3][4] This scientific consensus is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys.

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 which states:

An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[5]​

The main conclusions of the IPCC Working Group I on global warming were the following:

1. The global average surface temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century, and 0.17 °C per decade in the last 30 years.[6]
2. "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities", in particular emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane.[7]
3. If greenhouse gas emissions continue the warming will also continue, with temperatures projected to increase by 1.4 °C to 5.8 °C between 1990 and 2100. Accompanying this temperature increase will be increases in some types of extreme weather and a projected sea level rise.[8] From IPCC Working Group II: On balance the impacts of global warming will be significantly negative, especially for larger values of warming.[9]​

No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these three main points; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[10][11] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.

 

[depotoo]

.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.
New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears

 

[RollingThunder]

.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.
New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears

Your sources are jokes pushed by professional deniers taking money from the fossil fuel industry. You are truly clueless about all this.

Marc Morano

Marc Morano is a wingnut propagandist and global warming denier. He kicked off his career by learning the tricks of the trade as a producer on Rush Limbaugh's show in the early '90s. He then went on to work for L. Brent Bozell's Media Research Center. In 2004, he was one of the first "reporters" to hype the John Kerry swiftboating story. In 2006, preeminent denier and wingnut Jim Inhofe hired Morano to be his "Director of Communications." Morano's position got him into a number of climate conferences and policy hearings. He also put out a bogus report about 700+ number of scientists who "disagreed" with the consensus. Some scientists called for his resignation due to the number of distortions and lies about their work he promulgated. In 2009, Morano left Inhofe and became the proprietor of the website "Climate Depot." Climate Depot is sponsored by the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, an Exxon funded think tank.[1] Supposedly, he exposes the "lies" of the "warmists" and "scientific McCarthy-ites" who do research in that inconvenient thing called science. The site is really more of a denialist-style Drudge Report that links to whatever nonsense it can find.


Climate Change Misinformer Of The Year: Marc Morano

 

[flacaltenn]

'
What apparently cannot penetrate the skulls of the scientifically illiterate is that carbon dioxide and methane are greenhouse gases. If you pour them into the atmosphere, they MUST raise temperatures --- unless there are countervailing forces present. This is as certain as that a stone will fall when you drop it.

What countervailing forces are present? I have yet to see a convincing case that they exist. However, it is certain that there are processes which exacerbate global heating --- for example, loss of reflectivity in the polar regions, and release of CO2 and methane from the melting tundra.

All denialism is otiose unless someone can make a case for some strong countervailing force which opposes the inevitable heating which basic physics dictates must arise from human-generated greenhouse gases.
.

You are aware that this undeniable link between CO2 concentrations and heating is NOT linear aren't you? That to get the same temp rise you must pump twice as much CO2 into the atmosphere? So that an initial doubling of CO2 from 10ppm to 20ppm had the same effect as going from 200ppm to 400ppm?

There is no doubt that the recent climate has been warming. About twice as much as the known cycles of warming accompanying the Oceanic oscillations that we've studied long enough. Just knowing that over decade spans you're panicked about, we have failed to see a tightly coupled warming to CO2 concentration which IMPLIES other extenuating processes. And we KNOW that in the ancient history you dug up that the earth had 10 times the CO2 concentrations that you've inhaled in your lifetime. And I've yet to see any indictment of Global Jurassic catastrophes tied to monstrous levels of GreenHouse gases..

 

[SSDD]

Does that mean those who believe in a Flat Earth should get equal press coverage as those who are sane?

Funny that you would phrase it like that. Present global climate models upon which AGW hysteria is based model the earth as a flat disk, that doesn't rotate, and is bathed across its entire surface with a weak sunlight 24 hours a day.

It is you who literally believes in a flat earth model which must be constantly tweaked in order to produce a temperature even close to the actual temperature.

I think educated people are just not very interested in those who don't know what they are talking about.
.

I think you are right, and if your belief in the hoax weren't taking money out of my pocket, I wouldn't be interested at all.

 

[SSDD]

.
...we might start looking at some facts.

Yes, why don't we.

As an example of my typical, open-hearted, generous nature, I will even begin by agreeing with a statement which is often made by those who flail away at the fact of Global Heating.

The earth has been cooling for the last 70 million years.

"Global climate was warm during the Late Triassic. There was no ice at either North or South Poles. Warm Temperate conditions extended towards the poles."

Looking at your chart, which I believe is accurate, tell me, what exactly do you find surprising about the fact that the earth is warming? Look at the climate history of the earth and tell me what the overall trend of the earth's temperature is likely to be for the next several million years.

Looking at the temperature history of the earth, tell me, do you think there is any possibility at all that the general trend is not going to be warming until such time as there is no ice on earth....anywhere?...because according to your chart, for most of earth's history, it has been so warm on earth that there was no ice at one or both of the poles...and probably no glaciers either.

Looking at your chart, what would a rational, thinking person think the future climate trend is going to be and at what average global temperature is it likely to reach? And what would that same rational thinking person who knows where the trend is headed think about a bunch of hysterics lamenting over a 3/4 degree temperature rise in the past century and threatening us with a few more degrees if we don' change our ways?

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

Do you really see even a hint of irony in the fact that you posture here as someone who knows what they are talking about - despite being probably the only poster on the forum who doesn't understand what terms like 'left wing' and 'right wing' mean?

You simply can not take stands so fantastically extreme that you are forced to reject dictionaries as a concept on one hand - and then pretend to be the voice of informed moderation on the other hand.

 

[SSDD]

'
However, this has no bearing on what is happening presently.

Anthropogenic global heating is occurring over centuries, and even decades -- not at the majestic, slow pace of hundreds of thousands or millions of years typical of the geologic record.

Do you have any proof of that claim. Ice cores show us multiple periods in the past half a million years or so when temperatures have risen much more quickly than they are at present.

Evolution has not prepared the plants and animals (including humans) of our biosphere to adapt at such a pace. This means that there will be "discontinuities" -- which means, at the human level, hideous catastrophes and destruction.
.

Since we know beyond question that there have been times in the past where temperatures rose faster, and higher than the present without the doom and gloom and apocolyptic consequences you claim...your statement is bullshit.

Here is the data from the vostok ice cores. One can't help but notice that the present temperature rise is quite tame when compared to several other rises even in the past half a million years. By the way, have you ever wondered why those ice cores only go back so far? Could it be that prior to that time it was so warm that there was no ice?

 

[SSDD]

SSDD -

Do you really see even a hint of irony in the fact that you posture here as someone who knows what they are talking about - despite being probably the only poster on the forum who doesn't understand what terms like 'left wing' and 'right wing' mean?

You simply can not take stands so fantastically extreme that you are forced to reject dictionaries as a concept on one hand - and then pretend to be the voice of informed moderation on the other hand.

Your yapping at my ankles like a very small angry dog doesn't mean much to me you being a liberal intellectual midget and all. The fact that you could produce no actual recorded history to support your claims just made your argument all the worse. Did you notice on your thread which side was posting what hitler actually said, and did, and the programs he instituded while your side was posting what leftist historians had told you to think?

It was quite sad, but did illustrate how you people only think what you are told to think like good little bots.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

I'm not angry at all - I am just surprised that you are still posting here after posting some of the worst gaffes I have ever seen any poster make.

You might to want to forget the sentence in my sig line, but until there is some evidence that you have learned what the terms do actually mean, of course I will continue to remind you of your mistakes.

The thing is, SSDD, you CAN learn. Its just not ok to post the same mistakes again and again and again, long after you must have realised they are wrong. Everyone knows you are just bluffing and making up nonsense. You don't fool anyone.

Anyone of 50 posters on this board could explain what 'right wing' means to you today - you only have to ask.

Did you notice on your thread which side was posting what hitler actually said

Yes, obviously almost all of the quotes on the threads came from me. I think were a dozen in the OP alone.

btw, Something very important for you to understand is that the Hitler thread was NOT divided into left vs right posters, nor into socialist vs conservative nor any other political variation. All the books, dictionaries and most conservative posters agree, after all.

The divide is between the informed vs ill-informed, between those who read vs those who refuse to read, between those who are interested in history and those who are terrified of it.

Anyone who reads can learn - even you.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD -

I'm not angry at all - I am just surprised that you are still posting here after posting some of the worst gaffes I have ever seen any poster make.

Of course you are angry. I have gotten under your skin and it pisses you off to no end. All of these idiot posts you are making regarding left and right wing are for your benefit and no one elses. You are acting like a child who has had a toy taken away and making sure that everyone knows that you are unhappy about it.

You thought you knew something about politics...found out that you didn't and now are having a temper tantrum. We are adults here and you are fooling no one. If you could see how obvious your efforts are, you would be to embarassed to even show up here.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

Why would I be angry that you don't know what "right wing" means?

You have to remind yourself occasionally that the dictionaries, the science and history books all agree with me. Whereas actually not a single source of any value in any field seems to agree with you. By all means put it to the test - start a thread about the sentence in my sig line, and see how many posters back your case.

 

[Old Rocks]

'
What apparently cannot penetrate the skulls of the scientifically illiterate is that carbon dioxide and methane are greenhouse gases. If you pour them into the atmosphere, they MUST raise temperatures --- unless there are countervailing forces present. This is as certain as that a stone will fall when you drop it.

What countervailing forces are present? I have yet to see a convincing case that they exist. However, it is certain that there are processes which exacerbate global heating --- for example, loss of reflectivity in the polar regions, and release of CO2 and methane from the melting tundra.

All denialism is otiose unless someone can make a case for some strong countervailing force which opposes the inevitable heating which basic physics dictates must arise from human-generated greenhouse gases.
.

You are aware that this undeniable link between CO2 concentrations and heating is NOT linear aren't you? That to get the same temp rise you must pump twice as much CO2 into the atmosphere? So that an initial doubling of CO2 from 10ppm to 20ppm had the same effect as going from 200ppm to 400ppm?

There is no doubt that the recent climate has been warming. About twice as much as the known cycles of warming accompanying the Oceanic oscillations that we've studied long enough. Just knowing that over decade spans you're panicked about, we have failed to see a tightly coupled warming to CO2 concentration which IMPLIES other extenuating processes. And we KNOW that in the ancient history you dug up that the earth had 10 times the CO2 concentrations that you've inhaled in your lifetime. And I've yet to see any indictment of Global Jurassic catastrophes tied to monstrous levels of GreenHouse gases..

Now anybody that has studied this subject is aware of the logarithmic nature of the relationship between CO2 and temperature. As they are also aware that CO2 is just one of the factors involved. You see, when CO2 increases the temperature of the atmosphere, the atmosphere holds more water vapor, the primary greenhouse gas. And that warms the atmosphere even more. Then, in our case, at present, and also in the past, there are sources of stored carbon that can be vented into the atmosphere as methane.

Now you have a whole new ballgame. We see the evidence of this happening in the PT Extinction.

Volcanoes Blamed for Greatest Land and Sea Extinctions | Wired Science | Wired.com

What’s striking is how fast the extinction was,” says paleontologist Douglas Erwin of the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C., a co-author on the paper. The event had been seen as lasting half a million years, but the new dating limits it to no more than 200,000 years and quite possibly less than 100,000 years, Erwin says. “We’re paleontologists studying events 250 million years ago,” he adds, so “a hundred thousand years sounds like overnight to us.”

The dating also establishes that the extinction on land, apparently driven by extreme drying and warming, happened simultaneously with the marine extinction. And the new age for the extinction of 252.28 million years puts it within a mere few tens of thousands of years of the humongous lava outpourings that formed large deposits of volcanic rock known as the Siberian Traps. “We think the timing is consistent with the Siberian Traps eruptions being the major cause of the extinctions,” Erwin says.

“It’s quality data,” says Paul Wignall, a paleontologist at the University of Leeds in the United Kingdom. “There was something going on with the eruptions, though we still don’t understand the interaction” with living things. The new study may help answer that question, too. It also refined the timing of geochemical changes, which may hold clues to exactly how the eruptions trigged the biggest extinction. However it happened, the eruptions’ belching—which included greenhouse gases and acid-generating sulfur—must have done in much of the life on land and in the sea.

This story provided by ScienceNOW, the daily online news service of the journal Science

As much as we can tell, we are increasing the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere at about ten times the rate that those gases were increased prior to that extinction. We have, in the last 150 years, increased the CO2 by nearly 40%, and the CH4 by 250
%. And now we are seeing kilometer wide areas of CH4 bubbling out of the Arctic Ocean Clathrates.

So there is much more to the story than just the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. That CO2 creates feedbacks that are even more powerful as GHGs than the CO2.

 

[flacaltenn]

'
What apparently cannot penetrate the skulls of the scientifically illiterate is that carbon dioxide and methane are greenhouse gases. If you pour them into the atmosphere, they MUST raise temperatures --- unless there are countervailing forces present. This is as certain as that a stone will fall when you drop it.

What countervailing forces are present? I have yet to see a convincing case that they exist. However, it is certain that there are processes which exacerbate global heating --- for example, loss of reflectivity in the polar regions, and release of CO2 and methane from the melting tundra.

All denialism is otiose unless someone can make a case for some strong countervailing force which opposes the inevitable heating which basic physics dictates must arise from human-generated greenhouse gases.
.

You are aware that this undeniable link between CO2 concentrations and heating is NOT linear aren't you? That to get the same temp rise you must pump twice as much CO2 into the atmosphere? So that an initial doubling of CO2 from 10ppm to 20ppm had the same effect as going from 200ppm to 400ppm?

There is no doubt that the recent climate has been warming. About twice as much as the known cycles of warming accompanying the Oceanic oscillations that we've studied long enough. Just knowing that over decade spans you're panicked about, we have failed to see a tightly coupled warming to CO2 concentration which IMPLIES other extenuating processes. And we KNOW that in the ancient history you dug up that the earth had 10 times the CO2 concentrations that you've inhaled in your lifetime. And I've yet to see any indictment of Global Jurassic catastrophes tied to monstrous levels of GreenHouse gases..

Now anybody that has studied this subject is aware of the logarithmic nature of the relationship between CO2 and temperature. As they are also aware that CO2 is just one of the factors involved. You see, when CO2 increases the temperature of the atmosphere, the atmosphere holds more water vapor, the primary greenhouse gas. And that warms the atmosphere even more. Then, in our case, at present, and also in the past, there are sources of stored carbon that can be vented into the atmosphere as methane.

Now you have a whole new ballgame. We see the evidence of this happening in the PT Extinction.

Volcanoes Blamed for Greatest Land and Sea Extinctions | Wired Science | Wired.com

What’s striking is how fast the extinction was,” says paleontologist Douglas Erwin of the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C., a co-author on the paper. The event had been seen as lasting half a million years, but the new dating limits it to no more than 200,000 years and quite possibly less than 100,000 years, Erwin says. “We’re paleontologists studying events 250 million years ago,” he adds, so “a hundred thousand years sounds like overnight to us.”

The dating also establishes that the extinction on land, apparently driven by extreme drying and warming, happened simultaneously with the marine extinction. And the new age for the extinction of 252.28 million years puts it within a mere few tens of thousands of years of the humongous lava outpourings that formed large deposits of volcanic rock known as the Siberian Traps. “We think the timing is consistent with the Siberian Traps eruptions being the major cause of the extinctions,” Erwin says.

“It’s quality data,” says Paul Wignall, a paleontologist at the University of Leeds in the United Kingdom. “There was something going on with the eruptions, though we still don’t understand the interaction” with living things. The new study may help answer that question, too. It also refined the timing of geochemical changes, which may hold clues to exactly how the eruptions trigged the biggest extinction. However it happened, the eruptions’ belching—which included greenhouse gases and acid-generating sulfur—must have done in much of the life on land and in the sea.

This story provided by ScienceNOW, the daily online news service of the journal Science

As much as we can tell, we are increasing the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere at about ten times the rate that those gases were increased prior to that extinction. We have, in the last 150 years, increased the CO2 by nearly 40%, and the CH4 by 250
%. And now we are seeing kilometer wide areas of CH4 bubbling out of the Arctic Ocean Clathrates.

So there is much more to the story than just the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. That CO2 creates feedbacks that are even more powerful as GHGs than the CO2.

Volcanic extinctions are the same as AGW? WTF? The experiment of throwing mountains of slimy pollution and chemicals into the atmosphere IS THE SAME as CO2 emissions?

Now THAT'S science goldirocks style...

 

[numan]

Here is a link to the United States Geological Survey:

Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.

Do the Earth’s volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, “No.”

Human activities, responsible for a projected 35 billion metric tons (gigatons) of CO2 emissions in 2010 (Friedlingstein et al., 2010), release an amount of CO2 that dwarfs the annual CO2 emissions of all the world’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes (Gerlach, 2011).

The published estimates of the global CO2 emission rate for all degassing subaerial (on land) and submarine volcanoes lie in a range from 0.13 gigaton to 0.44 gigaton per year (Gerlach, 1991; Varekamp et al., 1992; Allard, 1992; Sano and Williams, 1996; Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998). The preferred global estimates of the authors of these studies range from about 0.15 to 0.26 gigaton per year. The 35-gigaton projected anthropogenic CO2 emission for 2010 is about 80 to 270 times larger than the respective maximum and minimum annual global volcanic CO2 emission estimates. It is 135 times larger than the highest preferred global volcanic CO2 estimate of 0.26 gigaton per year (Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998).

Global volcanic emissions (highest preferred estimate)·······0.26
Anthropogenic CO2 in 2010 (projected)····························35.0

Number of Pinatubo-equivalent eruptions equal to annual anthropogenic CO2····························700
Number of Mount St. Helens-equivalent eruptions equal to annual anthropogenic CO2·············3500
.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

20 year hiatus:

Twenty-year hiatus in rising temperatures has climate scientists puzzled.

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

How to not be puzzled:

AGW is bullshit.

Case solved.

 

[bripat9643]

SSDD -

I'm not angry at all - I am just surprised that you are still posting here after posting some of the worst gaffes I have ever seen any poster make.

Of course you are angry. I have gotten under your skin and it pisses you off to no end. All of these idiot posts you are making regarding left and right wing are for your benefit and no one elses. You are acting like a child who has had a toy taken away and making sure that everyone knows that you are unhappy about it.

You thought you knew something about politics...found out that you didn't and now are having a temper tantrum. We are adults here and you are fooling no one. If you could see how obvious your efforts are, you would be to embarassed to even show up here.

Saigon knows a lot about politics. The problem is that everything he knows is wrong. It's all the result of pickling his brain in left-wing propaganda.

 

[RollingThunder]

20 year hiatus:

Twenty-year hiatus in rising temperatures has climate scientists puzzled.

10 warmest years on record
2010
2005
1998
2003
2002
2006
2009
2007
2004
2012


NOAA: Past Decade Warmest on Record According to Scientists in 48 Countries
Earth has been growing warmer for more than fifty years
July 28, 2010
(GOVERNMENT PUBLICATION - not under copyright - free to reproduce)
The 2009 State of the Climate report released today draws on data for 10 key climate indicators that all point to the same finding: the scientific evidence that our world is warming is unmistakable. More than 300 scientists from 160 research groups in 48 countries contributed to the report, which confirms that the past decade was the warmest on record and that the Earth has been growing warmer over the last 50 years.

Based on comprehensive data from multiple sources, the report defines 10 measurable planet-wide features used to gauge global temperature changes. The relative movement of each of these indicators proves consistent with a warming world. Seven indicators are rising: air temperature over land, sea-surface temperature, air temperature over oceans, sea level, ocean heat, humidity and tropospheric temperature in the “active-weather” layer of the atmosphere closest to the Earth’s surface. Three indicators are declining: Arctic sea ice, glaciers and spring snow cover in the Northern hemisphere.

“For the first time, and in a single compelling comparison, the analysis brings together multiple observational records from the top of the atmosphere to the depths of the ocean”, said Jane Lubchenco, Ph.D., under secretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and NOAA administrator. “The records come from many institutions worldwide. They use data collected from diverse sources, including satellites, weather balloons, weather stations, ships, buoys and field surveys. These independently produced lines of evidence all point to the same conclusion: our planet is warming”.

Ten Indicators of a Warming World. (Credit: NOAA)

The report emphasizes that human society has developed for thousands of years under one climatic state, and now a new set of climatic conditions are taking shape. These conditions are consistently warmer, and some areas are likely to see more extreme events like severe drought, torrential rain and violent storms.

“Despite the variability caused by short-term changes, the analysis conducted for this report illustrates why we are so confident the world is warming”, said Peter Stott, Ph.D., contributor to the report and head of Climate Monitoring and Attribution of the United Kingdom Met Office Hadley Centre. “When we look at air temperature and other indicators of climate, we see highs and lows in the data from year to year because of natural variability. Understanding climate change requires looking at the longer-term record. When we follow decade-to-decade trends using multiple data sets and independent analyses from around the world, we see clear and unmistakable signs of a warming world”.


Globe Continues Hottest Decade Ever
National Geographic Magazine
by Dan Stone
January 15, 2013
(excerpts)
New data from scientists at NASA and the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) now indicate that 2012 capped the hottest decade on record for global temperatures. Although average worldwide temperatures in 2012 did not break records, the average global temperature last year was 58.3°F (14.6°C), more than a degree warmer than the historic baseline set in the 1950s. Since 1880, the average global temperature has increased 1.4°F (0.8°C), the new data showed. Taken all together, 2012 was the ninth warmest year in modern history. “Every year has been above average since 1996”, Thomas Karl, director of NOAA’s Climatic Data Center, told reporters Tuesday afternoon on a conference call to announce the new findings.

U.S. temperatures were no exception. The former record surface temperature in America was 54.3°F (12.3°C), recorded in 1998. Last year beat the record by an entire degree Fahrenheit, an unprecedented year-over-year increase in temperature monitoring. “Not only did [the U.S.] break the record for the warmest year, we literally smashed the record”, said James Hansen, who heads NASA’s Goddard Space Institute. Despite ongoing debate about the precise impact humans have on a changing climate, the U.S. government’s top climatologists have specifically indicted fossil fuels that release greenhouses gasses into the atmosphere. Even though scientists expect ongoing fluctuations that vary by season—rather than a linear continuation of warming—they expect the longer-term trend will be more warming at a more dramatic rate.

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

Short excerpts from the article you cited.

Hansen argues that the impact of human carbon dioxide emissions has been masked by the sharp increase in coal use, primarily in China and India. Increased particulate and nitrogen pollution has worked in the opposite direction of rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. Another paper published in Geophysical Research Letters on research from the University of Colorado Boulder found small volcanoes, not more coal power stations in China, were responsible for the slowdown in global warming. But this did not mean that climate change was not a problem. "Emissions from volcanic gases go up and down, helping to cool or heat the planet, while greenhouse gases from human activity just continue to go up," author Ryan Neely says. Hansen's bottom line is that increased short-term masking of greenhouse gas warming by fossil fuel particulate and nitrogen pollution represents a "doubling down" of the Faustian bargain, an increase in the stakes. "The more we allow the Faustian debt to build, the more unmanageable the eventual consequences will be," he says.
(source: The Australian)

How to not be puzzled:

In your case, IlieMostly, "not being puzzled" would involve you actually growing a brain and, since you obviously haven't managed to do that yet, it is highly unlikely that you ever will. You should probably just resign yourself to a life of puzzled confusion.

 

[numan]

'

Saigon knows a lot about politics. The problem is that everything he knows is wrong. It's all the result of pickling his brain in left-wing propaganda.

Well -- especially in the USA -- there must be very few people whose brains aren't pickled in some form of propaganda.

It's too bad more people don't try to see through the propaganda and make some effort to re-hydrate their brains.

· · ·

 

[IlarMeilyr]

'

Saigon knows a lot about politics. The problem is that everything he knows is wrong. It's all the result of pickling his brain in left-wing propaganda.

Well -- especially in the USA -- there must be very few people whose brains aren't pickled in some form of propaganda.

It's too bad more people don't try to see through the propaganda and make some effort to re-hydrate their brains.

· · ·

^ nuderp is one of those pant loads that thinks he's smart and that he alone is smart.

Everyone else who doesn't agree with his derpy views is, in nuderp's estimation, kinda dumb.