Q Sedlacek’s goal is to understand the impact aerosols have on Earth’s climate system. “Greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have a large effect on climate because they trap heat in the atmosphere and warm the planet,” Sedlacek said. “However, when we look at our estimates of how much warming we should be seeing based on the amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, something is off. The warming should be greater, which leads us to assume that something else is mitigating the effect of these gases on warming.” How aerosols offset warming from greenhouse gases What Sedlacek and other scientists at Brookhaven and elsewhere in the atmospheric science community have determined is that aerosols help to resolve this discrepancy. “When we take into account how aerosols interact with incoming solar radiant energy—the dominant source of the energy in Earth's climate system—we can reconcile the less-than-expected warming of our atmosphere.” Most aerosols in the atmosphere only scatter light from the sun, sending some of the sun's radiant energy back to space and exerting a cooling influence on Earth's climate. Other aerosol particles, termed “black carbon” and “brown carbon”—typically created from wildfires, industrial processes, and car exhaust—can both scatter and absorb light from the sun. Depending on the extent of these two processes, these black and brown carbon aerosols may exert a warming influence or a cooling influence on our atmosphere. Think about what happens when you walk outside on a sunny day wearing a black shirt. You warm up much quicker than when wearing a light-colored shirt because black absorbs the light. With aerosol particles both reflecting and absorbing light, it becomes challenging to quantify their net effect on the climate system. UQ
" Water vapour (Oceans, lakes, rivers, reservoirs. Humans have little impact upon levels) - Water vapour and clouds are responsible for nearly 98% of the natural greenhouse effect. Carbon dioxide (Burning of fossil fuels, and forests, breathing animals, less produced by southern hemisphere (less land).) - Approximately 50%. Methane (Much from break down of organic matter by bacteria (rice paddy fields) cows, swamps marshes.) - Approximately 18%. CFCs (Fridges and aerosols.) - 25%, but increasing due to ability to survive within the atmosphere for 100 years. https://www.s-cool.co.uk/a-level/ge...evise-it/causes-and-effects-of-global-warming" If the above information is correct (most likely Yes), that means developing Green Fridges could be Far more important/ critical than using Green Cars/Planes!? As the currently/recently high temperature could be actually reflecting a result of the accumulative effects due to the CFCs in the past 100 years! ? (Rather than the supposed impact by the historical CO2 generation in the past 100 years, which would have had No accumulative effects!?) ??? " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_households Country Household population (people) Households Average household size (people) Year China 1,367,820,000 455,940,000 3.0 2012[2] India 1,200,536,286 248,408,494 4.8 2011[3] United States 318,857,056 133,957,180 2.6 2014[4] " https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth/
New Study which is basically Old Study. Svensmark had already written his -Variations on a Cosmic Ray Theory - but has shown on each occasion their basic science was wrong . Unfortunately he has in the past made lame excuse for some serious flaws and fundamental errors , attempting to salvage the position. So here's yet another. He re-jigs and re-releases on the theme as regular as 11-year sunspots cycles. Now he's suggesting there is an amplification of cosmic ray effect, exactly what CO2 does. How convenient. "He does not dispute that increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have a warming impact on the climate." There is really no scientific need to look for such over elaborate theories based on Svensmark's (et al) disputed data. Complicated suppositions and unproven tests are hardly helpful when all the time the very basic principles of science do explain how the rapid increases of artificial CO2 into the atmosphere, will increase Earth's temperature enough to throw the natural balance out of whack and potentially cause long term realistic serious consequences.
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change You are certainly a liar and a deranged troll. I call a spade a spade. You are a damn slimy liar. The level of intellectual dishonesty you exhibit clearly deserve the word liar. No publishing climate scientist denies man made global warming.
Re-posting the same links over and over again -- and never discussing the facts presented by others while spending all your time insulting them.... certainly demonstrates an incredible level of inability to think rationally on your part.
Shut up, dickhead. You and jerm are the biggest dickheads here. He's more of a lying dickhead. You're just a dickhead. And you both richly deserve to be insulted. At least on this thread.
One thing I don't understand is according to the above information, people should talk more about CFCs that is one of the main causes of green problem - " anthropogenic (i.e., man-made) sources such as industrial processes and car emissions ". Instead, very often people always/constantly talk about CO2 , CO2 and CO2! ?? Perhaps: No wonder many big businesses do not worry much about tax or trading on CO2. And they even very much support CO2 measures! It seems like that! ?
CFCs (Chlorofluorocarbons) have been banned. You will know CFCs cause ozone depletion and Ozone limits UV rays entering the atmosphere. Depleted Ozone (due to CFCs) threatens extremely harmful outcomes like skin cancer and the eradication of species. CO2 has a different chemical mechanism. CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere, acidifies the oceans, increasing the Earth's temperature. Increased Earth temperature threatens human health as well as survival of species. In the big picture, there's no reason to assume one is more or less dangerous than the other. Why the hell would anyone choose to suffer either when there's no need. It's not as if there aren't alternatives to both. Great tech, the enormous financial and health benefits in non-polluting renewable energy and reduction/removal of AGW CO2, is not a threat, it's the prize.