It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Global Warming: New Research Blames Economic Growth
ScienceDaily (May 1, 2012) — It's a message no one wants to hear: To slow down global warming, we'll either have to put the brakes on economic growth or transform the way the world's economies work. That's the implication of an innovative University of Michigan study examining the most likely causes of global warming.
The study, conducted by José Tapia Granados and Edward Ionides of U-M and Óscar Carpintero of the University of Valladolid in Spain, was published online in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Science and Policy. It is the first analysis to use measurable levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide to assess fluctuations in the gas, rather than estimates of CO2 emissions, which are less accurate.
"If 'business as usual' conditions continue, economic contractions the size of the Great Recession or even bigger will be needed to reduce atmospheric levels of CO2," said Tapia Granados, who is a researcher at the U-M Institute for Social Research.
For the study, the researchers assessed the impact of four factors on short-run, year-to-year changes in atmospheric concentrations of CO2, widely considered the most important greenhouse gas. Those factors included two natural phenomena believed to affect CO2 levels -- volcanic eruptions and the El Niño Southern oscillation -- and also world population and the world economy, as measured by worldwide gross domestic product.
With El Niño outside of human control, economic activity is the sole modifiable factor. In years of above-trend world GDP, from 1958 to 2010, the researchers found greater increases in CO2 concentrations. For every $10 trillion in U.S. dollars that the world GDP deviates from trend, CO2 levels deviate from trend about half a part per million, they found. Preindustrial concentrations are estimated to be 200-300 parts per million.
To break the economic habits contributing to a rise in atmospheric CO2 levels and global warming, Tapia Granados says that societies around the world would need to make enormous changes.
"Since the mid 1970s, scientists like James Hansen have been warning us about the effects global warming will have on the Earth," Tapia Granados said. "One solution that has promise is a carbon tax levied on any activity producing CO2 in order to create incentives to reduce emissions. The money would be returned to individuals so the tax would not burden the population at large.
"What our study makes clear is that climate change will soon have a serious impact on the world, and the time is growing short to take corrective action."
Annual growth of the world economic output (green line, trillions of 2000 US dollars) and annual change of estimated CO2 emissions (millions of Kt, black dots). Data on CO2 emisions for 2009 and 2010 were computed from preliminary estimates of carbon emissions obtained from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) of the US Department of Energy on March 2012. All other data from the World Bank (that takes estimates of CO2 emissions from the CDIC). (Credit: Image courtesy of University of Michigan)
Climate scientists at the Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS) have discovered that particulate pollution in the late 20th century created a "warming hole" over the eastern United States -- that is, a cold patch where the effects of global warming were temporarily obscured.
While greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane warm Earth's surface, tiny particles in the air can have the reverse effect on regional scales.
"What we've shown is that particulate pollution over the eastern United States has delayed the warming that we would expect to see from increasing greenhouse gases," says lead author Eric Leibensperger (Ph.D. '11), who completed the work as a graduate student in applied physics at SEAS.
"For the sake of protecting human health and reducing acid rain, we've now cut the emissions that lead to particulate pollution," he adds, "but these cuts have caused the greenhouse warming in this region to ramp up to match the global trend."
At this point, most of the "catch-up" warming has already occurred.
The findings, published in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, present a more complete picture of the processes that affect regional climate change. The work also carries significant implications for the future climate of industrial nations, like China, that have not yet implemented air quality regulations to the same extent as the United States.
Until the United States passed the Clean Air Act in 1970 and strengthened it in 1990, particulate pollution hung thick over the central and eastern states. Most of these particles in the atmosphere were made of sulfate, originating as sulfur emissions from coal-fired power plants. Compared to greenhouse gases, particulate pollution has a very short lifetime (about 1 week), so its distribution over Earth is uneven.
"The primary driver of the warming hole is the aerosol pollution -- these small particles," says Leibensperger. "What they do is reflect incoming sunlight, so we see a cooling effect at the surface."
This effect has been known for some time, but the new analysis demonstrates the strong impact that decreases in particulate pollution can have on regional climate.
The researchers found that interactions between clouds and particles amplified the cooling. Particles of pollution can act as nucleation sites for cloud droplets, which can in turn reflect even more sunlight than the particles would individually, leading to greater cooling at the surface.
The researchers' analysis is based on a combination of two complex models of Earth systems. The pollution data comes from the GEOS-Chem model, which was first developed at Harvard and, through a series of many updates, has since become an international standard for modeling pollution over time. The climate data comes from the general circulation model developed by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Both models are rooted in decades' worth of observational data.
Since the early 20th century, global mean temperatures have risen by approximately 0.8 degrees Celsius from 1906 to 2005, but in the U.S. "warming hole," temperatures decreased by as much as 1 degree Celsius during the period 1930-1990. U.S. particulate pollution peaked in 1980 and has since been reduced by about half. By 2010 the average cooling effect over the East had fallen to just 0.3 degrees Celsius.
"Such a large fraction of the sulfate has already been removed that we don't have much more warming coming along due to further controls on sulfur emissions in the future," says principal investigator Daniel Jacob, the Vasco McCoy Family Professor of Atmospheric Chemistry and Environmental Engineering at SEAS.
Jacob is also a Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard and a faculty associate of the Harvard University Center for the Environment.
Besides confirming that particulate pollution plays a large role in affecting U.S. regional climate, the research emphasizes the importance of accounting for the climate impacts of particulates in future air quality policies.
"Something similar could happen in China, which is just beginning to tighten up its pollution standards," says co-author Loretta J. Mickley, a Senior Research Fellow in atmospheric chemistry at SEAS. "China could see significant climate change due to declining levels of particulate pollutants."
Sulfates are harmful to human health and can also cause acid rain, which damages ecosystems and erodes buildings.
"No one is suggesting that we should stop improving air quality, but it's important to understand the consequences. Clearing the air could lead to regional warming," Mickley says.
Leibensperger, Jacob, and Mickley
Originally posted by unityemissions
Of course we do.
It's been my contention for a while now that one main reason for all these machinations within the banking industry is to bring about a controlled demolition to economic growth, to further sustain civilization in the coming decades.
It seems to be multi-pronged, but regardless of the few mega parasites, these people do state they are "doing gods work"...
The study, conducted by José Tapia Granados and Edward Ionides of U-M and Óscar Carpintero of the University of Valladolid in Spain, was published online in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Science and Policy.
For the study, the researchers assessed the impact of four factors on short-run, year-to-year changes in atmospheric concentrations of CO2..
"One solution that has promise is a carbon tax levied on any activity producing CO2 in order to create incentives to reduce emissions...
All other data from the World Bank
Originally posted by AnIntellectualRedneck
Basically what they're saying is that we're going to have to stop raising the quality of life for most of the population and let them die of diseases and starvation while the richest people (aka those who have money but most of whom do little to nothing of actual value) keep having 10k square foot houses, elaborate fountains in the desert, and 60 inch plasma t.v.s in every room.edit on 1-5-2012 by AnIntellectualRedneck because: (no reason given)
"One solution that has promise is a carbon tax levied on any activity producing CO2 in order to create incentives to reduce emissions...
Most pollutants come from less advances cultures and the only solution for that is to bring them into the First World.
The permanent brown cloud over China is from not adopting contemporary practices, not the other way around.
All other data from the World Bank
Originally posted by SonOfTheLawOfOne
reply to post by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS
We agree about shifting paradigms and theories. However, once a theory is disproven factually, you have to move on to other ideas, and that's all I'm saying... the man-made thing was an obvious political ploy for more taxes, and resulted in falsified data which ended up as Congressional investigations and hearings.
And just to clarify, I'm not knocking you or the post, but more the source and the claims that are being made.
I am not the first to do it, but might be the first on ATS to totally destroy the AGW theory with updated theories and facts that have been found just over the last 1-2 years, most of which have never made it into the light of mainstream discussions because it goes against the agenda of those who would rather tax us into the stone age.
If you're interested in the hard science, you can check out the post in my signature.
~Namaste
Originally posted by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne
All other data from the World Bank
Your response to this is epic, and predictable for a site like ATS.
Is there a single thing that could have the words World Bank on it, that you would not write off as being some form of conspiratorial jargin?
Honestly... not every person that works for the World Bank is evil. Not all of their data is Evil...
It's sad that you feel this way... I wish the best for you.
reply to post by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS
As to not cause confusion, for the use of the word 'warming' suggests a specific impact... how about 'Global Climate Change'... if you are under the assumption that man has played NO part in this, this is where we disagree. It's simply IMPOSSIBLE for me to believe that all of our actions have absolutely no role in the changing of Earth's climates.
Originally posted by SonOfTheLawOfOne
I didn't say that we contribute nothing because I do believe we pollute and deforest the lands we live on... but climate has changed long before humans were present and has variations that far exceed what humans are capable of. If you read what I wrote, I clearly said that if we doubled CO2, it would raise the temperate by .03-.07 degrees, so yes, adding CO2 will cause a NEGLIGIBLE UNMEASURABLE change.
You can believe what you want, and find it impossible if you wish, but I have hundreds upon hundreds of scientific papers and references that show the physics behind CO2 and smash the man-made part of the debate into pieces.
There are far greater things at work with a planet's climate, hundreds upon thousands of variables, that go into understanding climate. The one we have picked to rip apart using the scientific methods that have succeeded for hundreds of years, is CO2, and it has been shown NOT to be what was thought.
At the end of the day, the science is rock solid and that's why you don't hear the media propping up AGW anymore, and it was changed almost overnight to "climate change" rather than "man-made global warming". The climate is changing, but it has changed many times before, most of those times occurring when humans weren't present on the Earth yet. Correlation is not causation.
If you are really interested, I've sourced tons of material in my post and have worked with many professionals in the field. I can assure you that the physics win at the end of the day. This is why even the most staunch supporters of AGW have changed course and are now looking for other explanations for the Earth's climate changes.
Just think of it this way... if the best computer models in the world can't predict the weather accurately for a week, or the strength of a hurricane, why on Earth would you think that they would get it right for the climate of the whole planet?
Anyway... I wasn't looking to get into a debate about this subject again, that's why I wrote 4 pages about it on the thread in my signature. You're entitled to your perspective and opinion about things, and I am happy to agree to disagree and leave it there.
~Namaste
Therefore, greenhouse gases play such an important role up in the high North. In the Antarctic, by contrast, the sea ice is free to drift around in the open Southern Ocean. Hence, the ice extent there is primarily governed by the prevailing wind patterns. "Our results show that greenhouse gas concentration is currently not a major driver for sea-ice extent in the Southern Ocean, where winds and currents clearly are more important," explains Marotzke. "In the land-locked Arctic Ocean, however, greenhouse gas concentration appears to play the dominating role for the observed sea-ice evolution."