On May 2, 9:30 am, wrote:
Charlie Zender:http://today.uci.edu/news/release_detail.asp?key=1621
"...Dirty snow caused the Earth’s temperature to rise .1 to .15
degree, or up to 19 percent of the total warming.


Which leaves 81 %, doesn't it, wizard?

In the past two centuries, the Arctic has warmed about 1.6 degrees.
Dirty snow caused .5 to 1.5 degrees of warming, or up to 94 percent of
the observed change, the scientists determined."


Zender's Congressional testimony:

"Although
long-lived man-made greenhouse gases (GHGs) are the dominant cause of
Earth’s recent warming
(IPCC, 2007), black carbon (BC) particles and other short-lived
pollutants explain a significant
fraction of the observed Arctic warming."

Glad to see you're endorsing what he says.

James Hansen:
Papers were co-authored by Dr. James Hansen, GISS/NASA.

Centennial boreal thaw contributes 25 percent of total global warming
(BBC)http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3333493.stm

NASA: Soot's global impact NASA: Soot's global impacthttp://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0509pollution....

NASA: Black soot and snow, a warmer combinationhttp://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2003/dec/HQ_03420_black_soot.html

(Now if the climate zealots in alt.global-warming would just read the
papers and stop demanding cites anytime anybody brings up the data)

--Shane

On May 2, 11:19 am, wrote:
On May 2, 9:59 am, "Ouroboros_Rex" wrote:

No one in this transcript addresses how climatology missed such an
obvious atmospheric warming agent until last year

You are mildly misinformed here.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20031222/= 2003


Page not found.

Yes but this info never made its way to the IPCC report. Strange,
that. Would you care to speculate how it is that it took the IPCC five
years to finally publish a net heating effect for aerosols?


Uh, the IPCC reviews the published literature, period.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/new...37AR.html=2000

Yes, that's early Ramanathan. Again, the IPCC chose to ignore this
study.

http://www.gcrio.org/ocp96/hiliteb5.html=1996


Page not found.

This paper cites a net cooling effect. Very out of date.

Again, the IPCC chose to ignore the data on soot until this past
year.

--Shane

Lloyd wrote:
On May 2, 11:19 am, wrote:
On May 2, 9:59 am, "Ouroboros_Rex" wrote:

No one in this transcript addresses how climatology missed such an
obvious atmospheric warming agent until last year

You are mildly misinformed here.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20031222/= 2003


Page not found.

Yes but this info never made its way to the IPCC report. Strange,
that. Would you care to speculate how it is that it took the IPCC
five years to finally publish a net heating effect for aerosols?


Uh, the IPCC reviews the published literature, period.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/new...37AR.html=2000

Yes, that's early Ramanathan. Again, the IPCC chose to ignore this
study.

http://www.gcrio.org/ocp96/hiliteb5.html=1996


Page not found.


Apparently the software ate the space I put between my equals signs and
the links.

Just cut each link off before that last =.

On May 2, 3:32 pm, Lloyd wrote:
On May 2, 11:19 am, wrote:

On May 2, 9:59 am, "Ouroboros_Rex" wrote:

No one in this transcript addresses how climatology missed such an
obvious atmospheric warming agent until last year

You are mildly misinformed here.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20031222/=2003

Page not found.


"According to a computer simulation, black soot may be responsible for
25 percent of observed global warming over the past century."

Aren't the denialists always claiming computer simulations are no
good?

Yes but this info never made its way to the IPCC report. Strange,
that. Would you care to speculate how it is that it took the IPCC five
years to finally publish a net heating effect for aerosols?

Uh, the IPCC reviews the published literature, period.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/new...37AR.html=2000


"While this is an important finding, we should recognize that it is a
theoretical-model calculation which must be tested against actual
measurements," said V. Ramanathan, co-author of the paper and director
of the Center for Clouds, Chemistry, and Climate at Scripps
Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California. "Much additional
field work remains to be completed," he said.


Again, aren't the denialists always claiming models are no good?

Yes, that's early Ramanathan. Again, the IPCC chose to ignore this
study.

http://www.gcrio.org/ocp96/hiliteb5.html=1996

Page not found.

This paper cites a net cooling effect. Very out of date.

Again, the IPCC chose to ignore the data on soot until this past
year.

--Shane

Lloyd wrote:
On May 2, 3:32 pm, Lloyd wrote:
On May 2, 11:19 am, wrote:

On May 2, 9:59 am, "Ouroboros_Rex" wrote:
No one in this transcript addresses how climatology missed such an
obvious atmospheric warming agent until last year
You are mildly misinformed here.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20031222/=2003
Page not found.








"According to a computer simulation, black soot may be responsible for
25 percent of observed global warming over the past century."

Aren't the denialists always claiming computer simulations are no
good?


Either way, that statement doesn't bode well for Global warming prediction.





Yes but this info never made its way to the IPCC report. Strange,
that. Would you care to speculate how it is that it took the IPCC five
years to finally publish a net heating effect for aerosols?
Uh, the IPCC reviews the published literature, period.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/new...37AR.html=2000

"While this is an important finding, we should recognize that it is a
theoretical-model calculation which must be tested against actual
measurements," said V. Ramanathan, co-author of the paper and director
of the Center for Clouds, Chemistry, and Climate at Scripps
Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California. "Much additional
field work remains to be completed," he said.


Again, aren't the denialists always claiming models are no good?



Which proves the point that computer models.... predicting the future
is art not science.


Yes, that's early Ramanathan. Again, the IPCC chose to ignore this
study.
http://www.gcrio.org/ocp96/hiliteb5.html=1996
Page not found.

This paper cites a net cooling effect. Very out of date.
Again, the IPCC chose to ignore the data on soot until this past
year.
--Shane