Published by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) Support Us

Sign Up for Our Newsletter

Facebook

Reporting and commentary from OnEarth editors and correspondents
This is actually a fairly well balanced article. That study on sulfur emissions however was not written by climate scientists but by four *economists*. It seems to me to be a whitewash attempt, I'm afraid, and a bald one at that. The LA Times featured cold fusion in '89 before its debunking. Greens were aghast! “It’s like giving a machine gun to an idiot child.” – Paul Ehrlich (mentor of John Cook of the SkepticalScience blog, author of "Climate Change Denial") “Clean-burning, non-polluting, hydrogen-using bulldozers still could knock down trees or build housing developments on farmland.” – Paul Ciotti (LA Times) “It gives some people the false hope that there are no limits to growth and no environmental price to be paid by having unlimited sources of energy.” – Jeremy Rifkin (NY Times) “Many people assume that cheaper, more abundant energy will mean that mankind is better off, but there is no evidence for that.” – Laura Nader (sister of Ralph) CLIMATEGATE 101: "For your eyes only...Don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone....Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it - thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that." - Phil "Hide The Decline" Jones to Michael "Hockey Stick" Mann Here I present A Global Warming Digest: Denial: http://i.min.us/ibyADs.jpg Oceans: http://k.min.us/idAw6Y.gif NASA: http://i.min.us/idFxzI.jpg Thermometers: http://i.min.us/idAOoE.gif Earth: http://k.min.us/ibtB8G.gif Ice: http://k.min.us/ibBgw2.jpg Authority: http://k.min.us/iby6xe.gif Prophecy: http://i.min.us/idEHdo.jpg Psychopathy: http://i.min.us/ibubmk.jpg Icon: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmPzLzj-3XY Thinker: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n92YenWfz0Y -=NikFromNYC=- Ph.D. in Carbon Chemistry (Columbia/Harvard)
The study is problematic for me. As you can see for yourself, airborn SO2 over the US has dropped from 0.00526120680315 in 1998 to 0.00324134555126 in 2008(the study was from 1998 to 2008) according to EPA. That is a 38% decline in SO2. http://www.epa.gov/cgi-bin/broker?_service=data&_program=dataprog.aqplot_data_09.sas&parm=42401&stat=AMEAN&styear=1990&endyear=2009&pre=val With US air seeing a reduction in aerosols since 1998, US temperatures should have risen if the Chinese Coal theory of cooling is correct, but they haven't. In fact the US temp has decreased by -.84F degrees/decade according to NCDC records. http://screencast.com/t/htikJCTPe The study is garbage and has only gotten press because James Hansen admitted that his climate model was inaccurate and he suspected that aerosols are a larger negative feedback than he modelled. So good science be damned and confirmation bias based on junk science to support James Hansen gets the royal treatment in the press. Climate science credibility continues its steep decline because of studies like this.
Boston/Harvard/UofT: "World temperatures did not rise from 1998 to 2008, while manmade emissions of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuel grew by nearly a third, various data show. The researchers from Boston and Harvard Universities and Finland's University of Turku said pollution, and specifically sulphur emissions, from coal-fuelled growth in Asia was responsible for the cooling effect." So CO2 has not warmed the planet since 1998, but rather SULPHUR has cooled the planet since 1998 say the "scientists". Gee, sounds like the saintly scientists found a cure for a global warming. Now, if we can just get this climate "change" thingy under control, only then will our planet be like it used to be, like the inside of an indoor shopping mall.
I can't quite get under the layers of sarcasm to figure out what Meme Mine's point actually is. I'd be happy to try addressing it if I could, though