NASA says fossil fuels cause global cooling

[SearchingforPeace]

Climate change shock: Burning fossil fuels COOLs planet says NASA

Major theories about what causes temperatures to rise have been thrown into doubt after NASA found the Earth has cooled in areas of heavy industrialisation where more trees have been lost and more fossil fuel burning takes place.

Environmentalists have long argued the burning of fossil fuels in power stations and for other uses is responsible for global warming and predicted temperature increases because of the high levels of carbon dioxide produced - which causes the global greenhouse effect.

While the findings did not dispute the effects of carbon dioxide on global warming, they found aerosols - also given off by burning fossil fuels - actually cool the local environment, at least temporarily.

.....

The spokesman said it was "well known" that aerosols such as those emitted in volcanic eruptions and power stations, act to cool Earth, at least temporarily, by reflecting solar radiation away from the planet.

He added: "In a similar fashion, land use changes such as deforestation in northern latitudes result in bare land that increases reflected sunlight."

Kate Marvel, a climatologist at GISS and the paper’s lead author, said the results showed the "complexity" of estimating future global temperatures.

She said: “Take sulfate aerosols, which are created from burning fossil fuels and contribute to atmospheric cooling.

“They are more or less confined to the northern hemisphere, where most of us live and emit pollution.bless

"There’s more land in the northern hemisphere, and land reacts quicker than the ocean does to these atmospheric changes.

"Because earlier studies do not account for what amounts to a net cooling effect for parts of the northern hemisphere, predictions for TCR and ECS have been lower than they should be."

The study found existing models for climate change had been too simplistic and did not account for these factors.

Hmmmmm..... so the old models were bad and rushing to reshape the world economy might have been a mistake.....

 

[á´…eparted]

Since you made a thread and no one replied, I'll just put this here as well:

The article says the models are bad. This had been said by many for years by people and scientist called by opponents "Deniers".

The article is not the scientists. Science undergoes flux based on new evidence, and the vast majority in the field have what they need to work with. If there is a genuine need for a new model, it will be made and taken up by the community, and be disseminated to the public readily.

Science was politicized by those with agendas, pushing "consensus", ignoring doubt. There was a lot of money made on the global warming agenda, especially with silly things like cap and trade.

The science is not politicized. It's everything that happens after the published research.

If burning fossil fuels actually fights global warming as the paper suggests, why would we spend so much on alternative energy? It is just another way to rent seek on the back of the public.

Except, the paper, nor does nasa suggest doesn't suggest burning fossil fuels fights global warming. It's the article writer that is making that claim. The article curiously doesn't make it very easy to look at the original paper, nor do they have any citations. Not surprising in the least. They don't even mention the journal it was published in. This ALONE should be setting off alarm bells that the news website is likely spouting garbage.

Nevertheless here it is. It's behind a paywall, but through my university I can look at it. http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2888.html
At no point in the paper do they say or suggest that burning fossil fuels would help climate change. Further, they do not suggest that the planet is cooling. The ONLY time they reference any sort of cooling, or suggest anything regarding climate change not being valid is the following sentance:

This is largely a result of the low efficacy of ozone and volcanic forcings and the high efficacy of aerosol and LU forcing (which have had a cooling effect over the historical period), although further study is needed to explore model differences in simulating efficacies and to enhance confidence in these estimates.

So actually, this is nothing new, but a mere point that there is a cooling effect from a particular material. That's it. The paper itself is about revising the models they use, and there needs to be additional factors included. Which suggests that climate change is MORE vigorus (which I quoted the editorial even saying in my first reply). As such, the source you provided has spin doctored this research, and is absolute bunk.

Google search the article headlines, and it only shows up on fringe "news" sites that have no clout and offer no better insight than the bullshit website provided. Here is a fair and unspun news article from a reputable science news conglomerate: Examination of Earth's recent history key to predicting global temperatures

The entire propaganda attempting to force political change before the science is really understood was foolhardy.

Ah no, it's people that don't believe the science (for whatever bullshit reason it may be) that have and push the agenda. It's the political pundents and laymen that have deluded themselves into thinking they are experts, or can extrapolate the papers, and the vast majortity don't even look at the original work, and just spin or parrot back a basic news editorial (which is frequently wrong).

And a fraction of the money wasted could have been spent truly helping lives, like clean water and sanitation. The inefficiency of this all is incredible.

Those are issues that need attention as well, but this does too. The fact that fossil fuels will run out eventually and we need to conserve them for other purposes other than fuel notwithstanding.


The next time you want to parrot these fringe articles, or try and go against published work, you might want to do a little research before hand so you can see if you even know what you're talking about in the first place. Anyway, my work here is done, and I am not replying any further, or anyone else who is brazenly anti-science.