Pollution Protects Us from Global Warming

As a disclaimer, I am not convinced that Global Warming is yet a true problem, or that it ever will be.

The smoke in the atmosphere is protecting the Earth from the effects of global warming. This means that as we send out less pollution in the future, we may find that global warming is two or even three times more than we predicted.

Top atmospheric scientists got together recently in Berlin for a meeting of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). These scientists have suspected for a long time that smoke and other particles from burning rainforests, crops and fossil fuels are blocking the sunlight and protecting us from the warming effect of carbon dioxide emissions. They used to think pollution was reducing greenhouse warming by a quarter, but at the Berlin meeting, they decided it's really reducing warming by as much as three-quarters.

Carbon dioxide will keep on building up in the atmosphere in the near future, as smoke and other aerosol pollutants continue to diminish. That means there will be "dramatic consequences for estimates of future climate change," the scientists say. So maybe we shouldn't be trying to reduce airborne pollution�except that particles from smoke and other emissions are a health hazard because they damage people's lungs and shorten their lives.

www.unknowncountry.com...

Hey dragonrider, I remained unconvinced that global warming was a viable theory for a long while because I remember studying the Earth prior to Ice Ages was much warmer than now. I felt that global warming was a theory used for political leverage and it seemed odd to me to speak of this theory without a concrete study. So, after all the years of wanting proof from a reputable source, I got it. I just love love when scientific data and reason is used in place of political biased. Check out this link for perhaps the most researched study on this subject..


cfa-www.harvard.edu...

I read somewhere that pollution feeds Global Warming, and basically once most of the glaciers are melted, the "conveyor belt" in our oceans will break down, thus leading to another ice age.......any input on this?

yeah, just take a look at the link I posted above and you'll see that Global Warming is very possibly an inaccurate theory. This does not mean, I favor pollution just correct and unbiased research. The 20th century wasn't the warmest on record, not even close. As apparent by the melting of glaciers, we are still in a period of deglaciation and since some are growing just as much as some are melting, I wouldn'r worry about it for a few thousand years.

Actually, one theory is that once all the fresh water is released, it will put pressure on the tectonic plates in the Pacific causing volcanic eruptions spewing gas into the atmosphere blocking insolation and thus cooling the earth for a period causing glacial advance. Now, I don't know if I buy that or not but its not impossible.

I really have began to question many principles of Ice Ages which have been presented as fact. There is so much evidence that a comet or planet collided with earth depositiing the ice quickly to the poles due to the ionization of the ice while passing through the atmosphere and magnetic draw of the poles. Thats about the only answer for finding a frozen mammoth in tact with a mouth full of prarie grass if you ask me. If glaciation was slow, looks like the thing would have at least had time to spit or swallow. This is a newer theory about "flash freezing" and I'm not saying I believe it but it warrants looking into.

Originally posted by astrocreep
I felt that global warming was a theory used for political leverage

what do you mean by political leverage, what would any government have to gain by releasing this info

Interesting theory dragon. But the smoke is also the cause of the global warming. Due to the fact that burning of fossil feuls and rain forests releases great ammounts of carbon dioxide. But if you where able to create smoke without emitting to much carbon dioxide it will work.
If I remember correctly Chigago got 2 degrees colder because of the smoke trails the planes left behind em when they flew over.

Originally posted by neo

Originally posted by astrocreep
I felt that global warming was a theory used for political leverage

what do you mean by political leverage, what would any government have to gain by releasing this info

Political leverage to push forth an agenda to control carbon release for which it is blamed. Now, from studies we see that the release of carbon doesn't have much bearing on climate. While a rise in temperature on the surface of about .8 degrees is currently being measures, data from ballons and sats aren't seeing any rise in the atmosphere which would be the case according to global warming theory. Please see the link I posted in the second reply for more research by scientist, not politicians.

I would agree, the theory of Global Warming is indeed a shaky theory at best, and there are a good deal of political overtones attached to it. (Whenever a scientific theory is embraced by any political party, for any reason, I start getting nervous)

Indeed, I was faced with a situation here where I was essentially asked to sign off on the Global Warming Theory for an air quality ordinance. I responded that I didnt believe the current literature was conclusive on the subject, and that it would be a very bad idea for a municipality to sign off on an idea that had yet to be conclusively proven. This led to a good deal of heartburn for some politicos.

I would also agree with what you mention about previous Ice Ages. Indeed, we are currently in an Ice Age (In geologic eras, an Ice House condition is any time where water remains frozen anywhere on the planet year round. Hot House conditions, which we have not experienced in recorded history, is where the ice caps do melt completely, and ice forms only in the polar regions seasonally.)

It is worth noting that all Hot House conditions in the past have occurred WITHOUT any human intervention.

Originally posted by IronDragon
I would agree, the theory of Global Warming is indeed a shaky theory at best, and there are a good deal of political overtones attached to it. (Whenever a scientific theory is embraced by any political party, for any reason, I start getting nervous)

Indeed, I was faced with a situation here where I was essentially asked to sign off on the Global Warming Theory for an air quality ordinance. I responded that I didnt believe the current literature was conclusive on the subject, and that it would be a very bad idea for a municipality to sign off on an idea that had yet to be conclusively proven. This led to a good deal of heartburn for some politicos.

I would also agree with what you mention about previous Ice Ages. Indeed, we are currently in an Ice Age (In geologic eras, an Ice House condition is any time where water remains frozen anywhere on the planet year round. Hot House conditions, which we have not experienced in recorded history, is where the ice caps do melt completely, and ice forms only in the polar regions seasonally.)

It is worth noting that all Hot House conditions in the past have occurred WITHOUT any human intervention.

Kudos to you for putting your professionalism ahead of politics. I was one of the first to say if there was such a thing as global warming, we should do whatever it takes to stop it but seeing the research and knowing the geologic facts about the past, I now believe this to be a non-threat or at least a non-manmade threat. There are so many other fatcors that could contribute to a small warming that seem to scientifically be rationalized more than release of carbon. It is very hard to accept a theory that has more evidence against it than for it. I mean if you find one instance in one-thousand supporting your theory, to me, you still have 999 against it. I've yet to meet a anyone in geologic sciences that champions global warming, I feel thats more a cause of political science. Too bad they lack the proper understanding of the nature of climate and geo-science to correctly asses the data.

Have a good one.

Originally posted by j619pinoy
I read somewhere that pollution feeds Global Warming, and basically once most of the glaciers are melted, the "conveyor belt" in our oceans will break down, thus leading to another ice age.......any input on this?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

oh yea, I can input,

the theory is that warming and increase of humidity brings on ice ages every 12,500 years, which can be supported by geological studies [attention Dragon]
it is not that the ice ages are extremely cold, it is more related to the amount of precipitation and accumulation of snow pack.
it is theorized that super storms generated by oceanic warming can deposit huge amounts of snow within hours,
encasing life forms in below zero tempuratures for millinea
a chilling thought.
however, at geological barrirers such as the Columbia River or The Great Lakes this snow pack would be stalled allowing for the continuation of life forms at equatorial lattitudes
a cycle of 12,500 years, give or take 5,000 on either side of the cycle would have little impact on our species, which have been here for an estimated 200,000 years. however it would have a profound impact on our primative civilizations, now that we have attained an increased level of awareness we may posses the knowledge to control these elemental occurances of nature. [ie; HAARP]
the question is will this knowledge be used to propagate life to its fullest potential or to feed the materialistic desires of the powerfull?

it is a Star Trek question?

tales from the Continueum,

sincerely,

Q

p.s. a.k.a. tut tut

Originally posted by tututkamen

Originally posted by j619pinoy
I read somewhere that pollution feeds Global Warming, and basically once most of the glaciers are melted, the "conveyor belt" in our oceans will break down, thus leading to another ice age.......any input on this?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

oh yea, I can input,

the theory is that warming and increase of humidity brings on ice ages every 12,500 years, which can be supported by geological studies [attention Dragon]
it is not that the ice ages are extremely cold, it is more related to the amount of precipitation and accumulation of snow pack.
it is theorized that super storms generated by oceanic warming can deposit huge amounts of snow within hours,
encasing life forms in below zero tempuratures for millinea
a chilling thought.
however, at geological barrirers such as the Columbia River or The Great Lakes this snow pack would be stalled allowing for the continuation of life forms at equatorial lattitudes
a cycle of 12,500 years, give or take 5,000 on either side of the cycle would have little impact on our species, which have been here for an estimated 200,000 years. however it would have a profound impact on our primative civilizations, now that we have attained an increased level of awareness we may posses the knowledge to control these elemental occurances of nature. [ie; HAARP]
the question is will this knowledge be used to propagate life to its fullest potential or to feed the materialistic desires of the powerfull?

it is a Star Trek question?

tales from the Continueum,

sincerely,

Q

p.s. a.k.a. tut tut

I've heard this theory put forward before and I thank you for noting that is is just that , a theory. Most people assert ideas and refuse to admonish that..like the global warming crowd. I'm not sure if the Great Lakes would be a barrier since the last glacial period extended as far south into N. America as Ohio. The Wisconsin glacier is now thought by local geologist to have formed the Ohio river by blocking rivers once flowing into the great lakes and forcing them to flow around it south to the gulf. From work done on soils and their consolidation by weight of ice sheets, if you look at the Ohio river north of KY, you're looking at the outline left by the glacier..or its moraine on its last advance. Thats why the new madrid fault that we reference on here so much is so dangerous, it buried under about 400 feet of glacial outwash in West KY and East MO.

As for pollution fueling global warming, we haven't really seen evidence of a global pollution effect on climate but certainly and localized effect can be seen on large industrial cities in the form of dust domes. It is now thought by most climatoligist and geo-scientist that the climate change is a result of solar winds, rotational drift, and internel changes of the asthenosphere (soft layer of upper mantle that underlies the lithosphere).