C02 is Harmless According to Latest NASA Study- Its The Soot, Stupid.

(No Ratings Yet. Rate It!)

 Loading ...

Finally there is some research out of NASA Goddard that makes a little bit of sense. In a new study by Drew Shindell, Arctic temperatures may have been rising due more to cleaner air than due to any possible effect of C02, which is an invisible gas. Simply put, with less sulfates and aerosols in the air to block the sun, the Arctic has experienced a warming trend.

From the Reg here:

New research from NASA suggests that the Arctic warming trend seen in recent decades has indeed resulted from human activities: but not, as is widely assumed at present, those leading to carbon dioxide emissions. Rather, Arctic warming has been caused in large part by laws introduced to improve air quality and fight acid rain.

Dr Drew Shindell of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies has led a new study which indicates that much of the general upward trend in temperatures since the 1970s – particularly in the Arctic – may have resulted from changes in levels of solid “aerosol” particles in the atmosphere, rather than elevated CO2.

Sulfates, which come primarily from the burning of coal and oil, scatter incoming solar radiation and have a net cooling effect on climate.

the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have said that aerosol levels from dust storms and volcanoes alone would account for as much as 70 per cent of the temperature rise seen in the Atlantic ocean during the past 26 years, leaving carbon simply nowhere.

Meanwhile Dr Shindell’s position at NASA’s Goddard Institute in New York must now be a potentially stressful one. His boss, Dr James Hansen, is more or less the father of the carbon-driven global warming menace. He won’t be pleased at the suggestion that carbon emissions may not be such an overriding concern after all. Dr Hansen has even gone so far as to travel to the UK, to add his weight to protests against the Kingsnorth coal plant.

I still find it incredulous that human activity of any sort could raise or lower the world’s temperature.  But it does stand to reason that as less particles are in the air to block the sun that certain regions may experience a temperature change.  And likewise, the simple explanation that there are less disasters that put particles in the air could also explain the warming.  Consider that with mankind spread out like we are, forest fires do not have quite the impact they would before the industrial revolution.

I am also looking forward to hearing about any political fallout due to Shindell working for Hansen.  Leftists were fond of screaming that Bush was suppressing science because he refused to buy into the glabal warming alarmism.  Will Hansen likewise attempt to debunk his own colleague’s findings?

I forwarded this to HotAir as a tip and they picked it up.