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.

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."

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 impact
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/...pollution.html

NASA: Black soot and snow, a warmer combination
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2003...lack_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, 8:30 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.

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."

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

http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20071127165326.pdf

*Mr. Zender. The concentrations of black carbon in the Arctic are
relatively low relative to the developing world where the sources are.
The
problem in the Arctic is that this black carbon has essentially a
double or even
triple lifetime. Because the Arctic is so very bright, as you know,
the
sunlight that it can absorb has two chances to be absorbed by it: on
its way
down, and on its way back up being reflected from the ice sheets. But
then that
third lifetime that I mentioned is once it lands on the surface a
very, very
small concentration of black carbon -- we are talking parts per
billion --

*Mr. Davis of Virginia. It is just more potent there, basically? Is
that
what you are saying?

*Mr. Zender. It is just more potent. It is the most potent warming
agent
we know of in the Arctic.

*Mr. Davis of Virginia. Okay. So it may not be significant in terms of
its volume compared to other places, but it just has a more potent
effect there?"

n.b.
No one in this transcript addresses how climatology missed such an
obvious atmospheric warming agent until last year or how soot's
effects compound field data collection. Is the anomaly from aerosols
or CO2? If the aerosol anomalies are filtered out, what do the
remaining anomalies look like?

Ramanathan's misspoke partially on one count: Soot in fact increases
rainfall in the North Pacific in the winter, seeding stronger, more-
convective thunderstorms. This effect has even been observed in the
Amazon, where large burns result in intensified thunderstorms
downwind. But that's from a recent study, so we can forgive
Ramanathan's omission. Ramanathan is correct that in the tropics and
subtropics soot does interfere with evaporation at the ocean's surface
(Indian Ocean), resulting in decreased rainfall. But it varies by
geography, latitude, season and other circumstances.

--Shane

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.

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."

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 impact
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/...pollution.html

NASA: Black soot and snow, a warmer combination
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2003...lack_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)

Why? It finally worked.

This is how it's done, people. Make a novel claim, you will need cites,
no matter what newsgroup you're in.

wrote in message
...
On May 2, 8:30 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.

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."

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

http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20071127165326.pdf

*Mr. Zender. The concentrations of black carbon in the Arctic are
relatively low relative to the developing world where the sources are.
The
problem in the Arctic is that this black carbon has essentially a
double or even
triple lifetime. Because the Arctic is so very bright, as you know,
the
sunlight that it can absorb has two chances to be absorbed by it: on
its way
down, and on its way back up being reflected from the ice sheets. But
then that
third lifetime that I mentioned is once it lands on the surface a
very, very
small concentration of black carbon -- we are talking parts per
billion --

*Mr. Davis of Virginia. It is just more potent there, basically? Is
that
what you are saying?

*Mr. Zender. It is just more potent. It is the most potent warming
agent
we know of in the Arctic.

*Mr. Davis of Virginia. Okay. So it may not be significant in terms of
its volume compared to other places, but it just has a more potent
effect there?"

n.b.
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

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/new...0/00_37AR.html = 2000

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


or how soot's
effects compound field data collection. Is the anomaly from aerosols
or CO2? If the aerosol anomalies are filtered out, what do the
remaining anomalies look like?

Ramanathan's misspoke partially on one count: Soot in fact increases
rainfall in the North Pacific in the winter, seeding stronger, more-
convective thunderstorms. This effect has even been observed in the
Amazon, where large burns result in intensified thunderstorms
downwind. But that's from a recent study, so we can forgive
Ramanathan's omission. Ramanathan is correct that in the tropics and
subtropics soot does interfere with evaporation at the ocean's surface
(Indian Ocean), resulting in decreased rainfall. But it varies by
geography, latitude, season and other circumstances.

--Shane

On May 2, 9:26 am, "Ouroboros_Rex" wrote:
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.

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."

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 impact
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/.../0509pollution....

NASA: Black soot and snow, a warmer combination
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2003...lack_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)

Why? It finally worked.

This is how it's done, people. Make a novel claim, you will need cites,
no matter what newsgroup you're in.

Novel claim? This is old news!

Hey, tell you what? If that's a novel claim then I guess it's news to
you that ulcers are caused by bacteria. Or force ='s acceleration *
mass.

And you guys go parading yourselves around as the beacons of knowledge
on climate change. But you haven't kept up with the literature of the
past three years or more. How lame.

Evidently this is some enviro/activist hobby crusade for you, but as
one hobbyist to another: Your choochoo train no workee.

--Shane

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

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?

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/new.../00_37AR.html= 2000

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

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

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

wrote:
On May 2, 9:26 am, "Ouroboros_Rex" wrote:
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.

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."

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 impact
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/.../0509pollution....

NASA: Black soot and snow, a warmer combination
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2003...lack_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)

Why? It finally worked.

This is how it's done, people. Make a novel claim, you will need
cites, no matter what newsgroup you're in.

Novel claim? This is old news!

Not in alt.global-warming, it's not.



Hey, tell you what? If that's a novel claim then I guess it's news to
you that ulcers are caused by bacteria. Or force ='s acceleration *
mass.

And you guys go parading yourselves around as the beacons of knowledge
on climate change. But you haven't kept up with the literature of the
past three years or more. How lame.

Evidently this is some enviro/activist hobby crusade for you, but as
one hobbyist to another: Your choochoo train no workee.

translation: droooool

On May 2, 10:28 am, "Ouroboros_Rex" wrote:
wrote:
On May 2, 9:26 am, "Ouroboros_Rex" wrote:
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.

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."

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 impact
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/.../0509pollution.....

NASA: Black soot and snow, a warmer combination
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2003...lack_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)

Why? It finally worked.

This is how it's done, people. Make a novel claim, you will need
cites, no matter what newsgroup you're in.

Novel claim? This is old news!

Not in alt.global-warming, it's not.


Do you really want to admit that?

i.e. Do you know how utterly uninformed that makes you look?

--Shane

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

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?

I have no proof that such is the case, so, I wouldn't care to waste my
time.



http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/new.../00_37AR.html=
2000

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

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

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.

Cite please.

wrote:
On May 2, 10:28 am, "Ouroboros_Rex" wrote:
wrote:
On May 2, 9:26 am, "Ouroboros_Rex" wrote:
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.

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."

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 impact
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/.../0509pollution....

NASA: Black soot and snow, a warmer combination
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2003...lack_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)

Why? It finally worked.

This is how it's done, people. Make a novel claim, you will need
cites, no matter what newsgroup you're in.

Novel claim? This is old news!

Not in alt.global-warming, it's not.


Do you really want to admit that?

i.e. Do you know how utterly uninformed that makes you look?

--Shane

You attempt to turn your reluctance to produce cites for your claims - as
is normal Usenet practice - into my problem has already failed, kid.