I wonder if the “models” accounted for dirt … likely not, as gool’ol dirt just ain’t as sexy as C02 or Ozone. Cleaning up ordinary pollution; something I can get behind:
The global warming debate has until now focused almost entirely on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, but scientists at the University of California – Irvine, suggest that a lesser-known problem – dirty snow – could explain the Arctic warming attributed to greenhouse gases.
Dirty snow is created when particulate matter from exhausts, smoke stacks, land use and forest-fires enters the atmosphere and infuses snow. Because dirty snow is darker than natural snow, it absorbs more sunlight and heat.
… Keep Reading
crossposted @ Celestial Junk
Dirty snow? Come on Cjunk, we all know its my truck. ~:D
It’s been done:
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/006434.html
No matter, the leftards have their heads up their @sses and are ignoring this like they ignore all of their “inconvenient truths”
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=559ab24d-f0b4-43ce-afa1-02a0b3510c7e
Of course this is known to children in elementary school–black absorbs heat! Now we have to have scientists tell us that it is pollution, not co2 causing GW? But I guess there is not as much money in cleaning up something that is measurable?
Well, george, there’s another aspect. If it’s pollution that is the culprit in AGW, then, the Kyotoists couldn’t chastize the West and get the West to pay Sin Money to the ‘developing nations’.
After all, it’s those ‘developing nations’ that are prime polluters in the world.
The Kyotoists will stick to CO2 and continue to ignore the problems of pollution.
My understanding of the basic condensation principles are – more particulate in the air = more surface area for condensation of water vapour = more precipitation as rain or snow = earth’s surface is cooler and wetter in places. What pollutants may be in that precip is a question worthy of scientific study.
See the effect of pollution on rainfall as described in part of this Wikipedia article on rain:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rain
[The fine particulate matter produced by car exhaust and other human sources of pollution form cloud condensation nuclei, leads to the production of clouds and increases the likelihood of rain. As commuters and commercial traffic cause pollution to build up over the course of the week, the likelihood of rain increases: it peaks by Saturday, after five days of weekday pollution has been built up. In heavily populated areas that are near the coast, such as the United States’ Eastern Seaboard, the effect can be dramatic: there is a 22% higher chance of rain on Saturdays than on Mondays.[1]]
An alternative viewpoint (namely, that air pollution can actually reduce precip) can be viewed here:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/287/5459/1793
My issue with the above study is that the level of precipitation resulting from increased particulates in the air would largely depend on things like the amount and composition of particulates, area relative humidity, and the interaction of localized meterological pressure systems at the time of the pollution. There are likely several other complicating factors to influence this as well.
In any case, don’t discount the possibility that the climate change self-interest folks will pounce on this and twist it to suit their overall purpose…remember, warming, cooling, warming again, Oh OK now it’s climate change, now Sooty Snow and Rancid Rain…
The point is, that between solar radiation and dirt, CO2 caused GW is going the way of the Great Awk.
What is of concern for me at least, is that between dirt and solar radiation, great destruction can be caused. Imagine if ice loss would only be half of what it is if there weren’t a zillion coal fired plants burning up a storm in China.
Just this past year the NOAA observed the first “dirty” pollution caused storms in the Pacific. Normal storm cells were accelerated into huge storms by Chinese dust and those storms made it all the way onto the Canadian prairies. Inside many of those Alberta raindrops was a nucleus particle from Chinese industry.
I’ll get on the bandwagon if it makes common sense and is supported by science. I think most of us will.
From a news article I read the other day the temperature of some place in the high artic was 20 degrees C instead of the normal 5 degrees C. If indeed that is true and I am in no position to argue these numbers then I would suggest that dirty snow would not give sufficient heat absorbtion to cause that kind of temperature difference. A far more likely cause would be wind patterns influenced, I would speculate by ocean temperature/currents. I have yet to hear any solid explanation of El Nino/Nina.
offset your sins like Al and Dr. Bono Suzuki
http://www.gapadventures.com/carbon_calculator/
join the elite jet offset. the carbon cappachino crowd. the chardonnay carbonoffsetters.
one longs for the days of the scientists like John von Neumann who wanted to spread colour on the worlds icecaps to enhance melting and warm the earth.
“I’ll get on the bandwagon if it makes common sense and is supported by science. I think most of us will.
Posted by: Paul ”
Sure you will. You cite a dirty snow study as sound science, and claim to know that the conservation of mass puts Chinese (or any pollution) right around the world, but ignore the overwhelming scientific consensus on the existence of greenhouse gas as being a major contributor to climate change. You’re all about spin that blames other countries for bad things, while forgetting to pass the blame around at home too.
Saskboy: Did I state that I’d get onto the dirty snow bandwagon? Did I say that the “dirty snow” thesis is any more than just a thesis? As of now it’s a theory … full stop.
What is your point anyway, except to make presumptions? Or is it that you somehow feel warm and fuzzy towards the Chinese, who, along with Europeans, are the dirtiest polluters on the planet.
Ah yes, dirty snow. Didn’t some bloody Limey tell us a few months ago that we had a duty to keep our snow clean?
“Or is it that you somehow feel warm and fuzzy towards the Chinese, who, along with Europeans, are the dirtiest polluters on the planet.”
I don’t feel any better about Chinese or European pollution than I do about Canadian pollution. Do you figure we need a “Feel Good About Canada’s Pollution” Campaign from our New Government?
Ha … Saskboy you are such a wit!
It’s not a new idea I can’t remember when I first heard this but it goes quite a way back. Ultimately it is tangental as it’s not a case this or AGW being true, both can be true.
“The point is, that between solar radiation and dirt, CO2 caused GW is going the way of the Great Awk.”
Keep wishing.
“All left-wing parties in the highly industrialized countries are at bottom a sham.”
– George Orwell
watch out where the huskies go
and don’t you eat that yellow snow
F Zappa RIP
It’s been address and spelled out in the IPCC and related studies.
“Radiative Forcing of +0.1 [±0.1] W m–2”
Next.
Dirty Snow…. really dirt snow ….. bad snow …. bad dirty snow …. you know I like my snow bad and dirty …. oh yeah baby! Give me that bad dirty snow love!
Wow!…
Just want to say that the posters stepping for Kate are firing on all cylinders…just reading these posts is exhilarating. Writing them must be even better.
Watch out Kate.
Good stuff.
Pedro
alby
NEXT!!!!
you realy missed the point, didn’t you
there are, and dirty snow is one, many regional drivers of “climate change”, so asking me to put bicyle pedals in my 9000 lbs P-up wouldn’t fix the problemo
Dreamed I was an Eskimo
Frozen wind began to blow
Under my boots ‘n around my toe
Frost had bit the ground below
Was a hundred degrees below zero
And my momma cried:
And my momma cried:
Nanook-a, no no (no no . . . )
Nanook-a, no no (no no . . . )
Don’t be a naughty Eskimo-wo-oh
Save your money: don’t go to the show
Well I turned around an’ I said:
HO HO
Well I turned around an’ I said:
HO HO
Well I turned around an’ I said:
HO HO
An’ the Northern Lites commenced t’ glow
An’ she said
With a tear in her eye:
WATCH OUT WHERE THE HUSKIES GO
AN’ DON’T YOU EAT THAT YELLOW SNOW
WATCH OUT WHERE THE HUSKIES GO
AN’ DON’T YOU EAT THAT YELLOW SNOW
Kelly, you pass through several, potentially productive, areas of inquiry.
Unfortunately, the big bucks go to “Global Warming Climate Change” “research”, not to logical academic scientific inquiry.
Joe, around my area, and possibly around the Northern Canadian coast, it is warmer this fall. But look even at the IPCC figures: It hasn’t warmed “globally” since 1998.
And in Antartitca, the ice sheets are the largest ever – if we are to believe these people. Of course, this is never mentioned.
…the big bucks go to”Global Warming Climate Change”…
That’s right, WC! Did you send me a check this month for your carbon credits? Don’t make Mother Gaia mad, send me a check asap, and a few pastries if you don’t mind, that makes Mother Gaia very happy.
Al Gore, why are you so fat?
WC, I can’t keep my hands off those tasty pastries, especially when I’m sitting in my comfy recliner with the windows open and the AC on counting my money from the dumb rubes environmentally conscious proletariat, it really opens my appetite.
Did you send your check yet?
Did I say “dumb rubes” out loud? I didn’t mean it.
Please make checks payable to:
Al Gore’s fictional AIT now has to be preceeded by a warning in UK schools;
Disclaimer; the following has many inaccuracies and political bias. Children of an impressional age should be especially aware.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=485336&in_page_id=1811&in_page_id=1811&expand=true#StartComments
First something as simple as dirty snow.
Then a UK judicial warning on Gore inaccuracies.
And then the Chronical Herald piece on Canadian opposition party’s disarray on Kyoto.
[Opposition Parties Unsure Of What Tack To Take On Environment File] CH
How about a pledge to adopt a policy of adversion to all Hoaxes and Scams ?? Despite what the media pushes.
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Canada/922729.html
OMMAG I’d rather be even a half wit over a denier twit.
Saskboy –
Don’t you feel just a teensy bit dumb lumping folks who question AGW with those who deny the Holocaust? Apart from edging into Godwin’s Law, don’t you find it even a little bit insulting to the memory of millions who died in the camps?
Maybe not. AGW has become the new religion for the Left, and you’re – unfortunately – one of many who’ve bought the idea hook, line & sinker. Perhaps you really DO believe sending $billions to China is good for the environment (or, better yet, “it can’t hurt”). You might find
this link a bit useful in deprogramming yourself.
Or not.
mhb23re
at gmail d0t calm
it’s still the same old climate change that has been/will be going on for eons past, present and future. if you think the human race has any control over Mother Nature and can actually change what is/was/will be happening, then IMO you are delusional and think way too much of yourself.
This Canadian takes on a Yankee Flake;
Gore wrong on warming
Times Colonist
Published: Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Re: “The planet has a fever,” Sept. 30.
I don’t know if Al Gore specifically mentioned me as a “global warming denier” in his speech. The article implied he did.
I’m flattered to be mentioned, but I’ve always acknowledged warming occurred, I just point out there is no evidence humans are the cause. I’ve spent my career educating people that climate changes all the time and current changes are well within natural variability.
The article correctly reports I “branded Gore’s 100-minute documentary an error-filled propaganda piece.”
I’m not alone. James Hansen, Gore’s own science adviser and political supporter conceded, with huge understatement, the movie has imperfections and technical flaws. The flaws are large enough to fail a term paper from any student in attendance.
There’s no evidence humans are affecting the global climate. Despite this, Gore’s ignorance pushes policies harmful to the planet and humanity. The world has cooled slightly since 1998 and experts expect continued cooling to 2030. Gore and others have stampeded world leaders into preparing for warming.
Dr. Tim Ball,
Natural Resources Stewardship Project,
Victoria.
© Times Colonist (Victoria) 2007
“There’s no evidence humans are affecting the global climate.”?
and he calls himself a Canadian. It’s kind of embarrassing when he does that.
American flake, Al Gore, is your Idol?
An Inconvenient Truth is full of lies. UK judge says so. UK !! That hotbed of Kyotoism.
The Globe’s Dawn Walton is so pathetic.
She tries to spin/fear monger with the headline;
Dragonflies, open water reveal rapid Arctic change
But right at the end she has to (lawyer’s advice?) put it in perspective;
[Back in Chesterfield Inlet yesterday, the snow was flying and the freeze was setting in. “It still looks normal,” Mr. Tautu said. He’s not worried about a big melt, figuring the polar bears, other animals and people will adapt. Snow and ice, he said, will always be there. Still, he added, times have changed since his elders could read the weather better than any scientist.
I was taught about the weather when I was a little boy,” he said. “Nowadays we can’t predict it any more.]
Don’t feel bad, Mr. Tautu, neither can Environment Canada. They just feel bad because as the scam-of-the-century dies, so does EC “research” money.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071003.wwarm1004/BNStory/ClimateChange/home
alby the asshat moonbat, fer cryin out loud get your head out of the sand for 1 minute and look at the really big picture…the universe, the galaxy. You and I are insignificant, nothing. Yet you insist on jumping up and down screaming that you are significant. what exactly do you hope to accomplish in your own little world? ’cause in the end that’s all that matters…what did you accomplish?
“and he calls himself a Canadian. It’s kind of embarrassing when he does that.”
Why alby cause he hasn’t swallowed the Gore koolaid? I’ll put my trust in a well educated man before I put any in the self serving bs spread by Gore and his ilk. Especially the hypocrites that believe you can buy your way out of the shat you leave behind. Like all lefty hypocrites you spew bs. Next time you demean Dr. Tim Ball use your real name if you dare!
I completely disagree with the black carbon – dirty snow argument.
As all of us in the colder climates know, dirty snow and covered ice ACTUALLY MELTS SLOWER than clean white snow and ice. The sand and dirt coverd snowbanks along the sidewalks melt much later in the spring than on your lawn for example despite being on the hot black pavement even.
The dirt acts as insolation layer and keeps the cold in the snow and ice. I imagine that in the Arctic, dirty snow and ice may not melt at all throughout the short summer.
Before refrigeration, in the old days of delivered to your door ice blocks in cities for you none electric “ice box”, this ice was cut in blocks from lakes and other water basins and stored in warehouses HEAVILY COVERED with saw dust and/or hay to extend it’s life span throughout the summer months…’Nauf said.
The sand and dirt coverd snowbanks along the sidewalks melt much later in the spring than on your lawn for example despite being on the hot black pavement even.
It couldn’t be because the sand and dirt covered snowbanks are compacted and the snow on the lawn isn’t? heh
A layer of soil on top can make snow melt slower ?
Yes. If it is an inch thick. (All our farmers would be out of business though)
Cjunk’s post refers to a very, very thin layer of dust — microscopic.
The sun’s radiation heats up the dark particles much more than the high albedo snow. The warm particles then melt through the snow. Far, far too thin for any insullating effect.
I lived with this phenomena all my life. But trust the ‘drive-bys’ to try and muddy the snow.
“The sun’s radiation heats up the dark particles much more than the high albedo snow. The warm particles then melt through the snow. Far, far too thin for any insullating effect.”
There is no debate over this, it’s clearly spelled out in the IPCC AR4.
There is no debate over this, it’s clearly spelled out in the IPCC AR4
The IPCC says so!!!
Good thing there was no debate over the Earth being flat, either eh?
“Bryan at October 4, 2007 2:21 PM”
No Bryan, take what Ron in Kelowna said and then what I said and put it all together. To what Ron said I have no argument, a thin layer of black soot on snow will make that snow melt faster because the reflective properties of that snow have been reduced. The only way that black soot on snow doesn’t make that snow melt faster is if that soot is thick enough to act as an insulator against the thermal radiation between the surface and the top layer of the snow.
This reduced reflectivity (albedo) is recognised by the IPCC. as a contributing factor in global warming when it says that black carbon adds a positive radiative forcing of 0.1 [±0.1] W m–2 on average to the planet. This equates to a global temperature increase of .075 degree C..
Now when applied to the original question that asked
“I wonder if the “models” accounted for dirt … likely not, as gool’ol dirt just ain’t as sexy as C02 or Ozone…”
The answer to that question would be yes, it is accounted for. The levels that are quoted in the article are way off
So what do you not agree with?
Albatros39a:
Why can the IPCC never be wrong?
Thanks ward, that was the point i was trying to get at…with little success apparently.
Doesn’t appear we are getting an answer Bryan.