Comment Re:Exodus (Score 1) 692
... you cherry-picked a quote out of it:
Of the two forms of pollution, the carbon dioxide increase is probably the more influential at the present time in changing temperatures near the earth's surface (Mitchell, 1973a).
While completely ignoring the very next sentence:
"If both the CO2 and particulate inputs to the atmosphere grow at equal rates in the future, the widely differing atmospheric residence times of the two pollutants means that the particulate effect will grow in importance relative to that of CO2."
If, Jane. If both the CO2 and particulate inputs to the atmosphere grow at equal rates in the future. But that didn't happen after ~1975 in the U.S.A. or in Europe.
... In the context of the recent GLOBAL COOLING, it states:
While the natural variations of climate have been larger than those that may have been induced by human activities during the past century, the rapidity with which human impacts threaten to grow in the future, and increasingly to disturb the natural course of events, is a matter of concern....
Now, I know you are completely inept when it comes to context, but that statement is the overarching context of their later comments (given above) about CO2 and aerosols.
... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-06-04]
Even if I'm completely inept when it comes to context, it seems to me like those statements apply to both carbon dioxide and aerosols. And they were right about both. Globally, we just stopped emitting so much SO2 after ~1975 but kept emitting CO2 even faster.
... They clearly express concern that man's influence is increasing, and suggest that aerosols could very well overwhelm CO2 if the current trends continued. So don't try to give me crap about what I understand and what I don't. I'm not cherry-picking, YOU did. I just gave the LARGER context of the statement that you cherry-picked out of it. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-06-04]
If the current emissions trends in 1975 had continued, the global dimming caused by aerosols could have overwhelmed warming by CO2. That's a perfectly reasonable if statement. But since global aerosol emissions declined after ~1975 (see fig 1), that if statement doesn't apply to our universe.
As I have stated so many times in the past, this is exactly the kind of behavior I have come to expect from you, and why I do not engage you in debate. I may make mistakes, but at least I am honest. I have pointed out many times where you were clearly were not. And that was one of them. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-06-04]
Good grief, Jane. It's bizarre to be accused of not being honest because I didn't quote an if statement from a report that doesn't apply to our universe where aerosol emissions declined after ~1975.
I quoted the 1975 NAS statement that CO2 warming could be "about 0.5C between now and the end of the century" because it applies to our universe. The 2007 IPCC estimate of radiative forcing up to 2005 shows that aerosol emissions roughly cancelled all other anthropogenic warming factors aside from CO2. This is evident because the CO2 forcing estimate of ~1.66 W/m^2 is within the error bars of the total anthropogenic forcing estimate.
So the 1975 NAS statement that CO2 warming could be "about 0.5C between now and the end of the century" applies to our universe because global aerosol emissions declined after ~1975, leaving the total anthropogenic forcing in 2005 very close to the total CO2 forcing. And as I pointed out, that NAS statement turned out to be quite accurate.
But to return to the actual point Jane made:
I've already told you that the NAS calls it a "settled fact" [Dumb Scientist]
So? They also claimed in the 70's that global cooling was an established fact. If you want to try to refute that, fine, I'll take up the time to dig up my copy of their statement. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-06-03]
Jane dismissed the NAS because Jane mistakenly thinks the NAS claimed in the 70's that global cooling was an established fact. But all they did was refer to perfectly valid evidence that SO2 emissions reflect sunlight, and reasonably say that if the current emissions trends in 1975 continued, the global dimming caused by aerosols could have overwhelmed warming by CO2.
Once again, those emissions trends didn't continue. So their if statement simply doesn't apply in our universe. The statement they made which does apply in our universe was quite accurate. Needless to say, this isn't a reason to dismiss the NAS. Quite the opposite...
Once again, you dig up old shit as if I were saying it now. That's a really terrible habit, you know. Either you don't learn, or you think I don't.
... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-06-04]
Jane hasn't learned about the irony of criticizing my "really terrible habit" after Jane repeatedly digs up reports from 40 years ago. Jane complains about my link to the last time I debunked his talking point just 6 months ago while Jane digs up a NAS report from 40 years ago as though it contradicts a modern NAS report (even though it doesn't).