Global Warming: New Research Blames Economic Growth

Global Warming: New Research Blames Economic Growth
www.sciencedaily.com...

Mods: I wasn't sure as to where to place this thread, move at will... I think this is appropriate, for it is in regards to Global Economics, our future, and a possible necessity for a melt down in regards to global warming...

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.

In a place where many would agree that all things are interconnected, and that everything is related, I figured this would be of interest to many here.

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.

ok.... interesting, but where's the connection?

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."

So... after reading this article, I was sceptical... not really all that sure as to the relationship having the strength in which this article seems to express. That is, until I saw this graphic:



Caption:

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)

Granted, these numbers may appear subjective to some... possibly that the data was manipulated in order to present a case that was intended to be made. Yet, it seems that there is much truth to this.

Would people be willing to sacrafice their economic prosperity for the good of Earth?
Is this even possible?

I would suggest, that it is not necessarily that we have to stop any progress, but rather change our methods. Which is something that many have been stating for a while now, in the green tech and green energy circles.

Call it propaganda, sensationalism or what have you... but how long are people going to deny that we do have a role in all of this.

I for one, have never held the assumption that man is responsible for global warming, it has always seemed to be a bunch of whoopla. How could we possibly effect the Earth that much, as to change its temperatures.

But now, thinking about it....

The actions taken by humanity in the creation of additional CO2, AND the manipulation of resources I would suggest, has to have an impact of some kind. In a world of 7 Billion people, and a history of industrial revolutions, along with consistent manufacturing... it would seem that we DO in fact contribute to the condition of the Earth.

What does ATS think?

Is this a possibility?
Are you willing to take the actions necessary in preventing further global warming?

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"...

If the people were already given the chance to change their ways, yet choose to be lazy, and the current political atmosphere was incapable of true change...don't you think someone might step in and pull the plug at some point

I think that's part of what happened.

If you fit it into all the seemingly insane things we've witnessed over the last decade or so...it might just make sense to some people.

I could be wrong.

Another interesting article that I read relating to global warming, and it's relation with industrial nations is the following:

'Warming Hole' Delayed Climate Change Over Eastern United States
www.sciencedaily.com...

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

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.

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"...

WOW! That's exactly the same thoughts that I've had in regards to this topic. I have never really came out and said it on ATS, because it's sooo far fetched, but it's not at the same time.

Think about where all these religions derive from, and how they are pagan by nature. Then you have all those conspiracy theorists convinced that those in charge are trying to be 'God'.

If someone had a true love for humanity, understood our connection with Earth and everything else... this would be a very plausible means of actions in order to help sustain humanity.

There's much more to this, and this little post gives absolutely no insight as to who, how, and why... I think this idea deserves a Thread. I will not be creating one any time in the near future in regards to this theory, but I suggest that it is just as possible as all the other 'crazy' conspiracies on ATS.

It's interesting that I'm not the only one that has concluded this, or something similar...

I'm not alone...
lol

reply to post by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS


What a bunch of absolute nonsense...

A few things to consider in this article:

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.

Environmental policy??? What exactly is that, and why would anyone take ONLY these two people's theory seriously when there are HUNDREDS of scientific papers based on real climate science that dig deep into the understanding of the Earth's climate?

For the study, the researchers assessed the impact of four factors on short-run, year-to-year changes in atmospheric concentrations of CO2..

Wow, a whole 4 factors to understand changes in climate? Short-run year-to-year changes are NOT a reflection of a planet's climate that takes hundreds of years to reflect changes. That is the most ridiculous thing I think I've ever heard and I am shocked that these clowns were published by peer-review. It's long since been known that the atmospheric pressure of CO2 causes COOLING, not warming, but we should expect so much from Policy science. (that's an oxymoron)

Not only that, but it's also a well-established fact that CO2 rises AFTER temperature rises, not the other way around. This was established by direct measurements taken from the Vostok ice cores that cover a span of 400,000+ years, not just a "short-run".

Ahhh, now we get to the heart of the agenda:

"One solution that has promise is a carbon tax levied on any activity producing CO2 in order to create incentives to reduce emissions...

This goes to show you why scientists involved in Environmental Science and Policy should not be allowed to publish papers that can impact major political decisions and taxes. This is also why thousands of scientists from all over the world have stepped up to prove what a bunch of nonsense these types of claims are.

And the data for your image:

All other data from the World Bank

Enough said.

If you really want to understand what causes a planet to warm, you should first look at the sun. Humans are not causing global warming, which is why that debate has long since been dead and buried and REAL scientists have moved beyond that to look for other explanations to what is causing the planet to warm. Some of the theories are changes in the barycenter of the sun, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, changes in solar irradiance, and many more. There is plenty of hard science that disproves the man-made global warming theory. It was nothing more than a contrived scheme to place blame on people in order to guilt them into paying more taxes for something that is completely out of our control.

Just for the record... it's been shown that even if you doubled the current CO2 on the planet right now, it would only change the temperature by .03-.07 degrees. From the scientific perspective and how climate models work, that isn't even a measurable change.

I'm shocked that anyone would believe this garbage and I'm sure this will be beaten into oblivion by the onslaught of climate scientists working in the field.

I just couldn't in good faith sit by and watch people try to jump back on that wagon.

~Namaste

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)

Or...

They're saying that we have to adopt different means of creating a quality of life in which we are all comfortable.

Not that the rest should be left to die from diseases and starvation. I hope you do understand that many of the reasons behind the starvation of people and diseases running rampant is due to the individual circumstances that are with in their respective countries. From guerilla warfare, to groups with AK-47's stealing all the food aid.

What do you want from the worlds most influential leaders...?
To go in and remove all these factors that contribute to the suffering of people.
If this is so, then why do so many get pissed off when the US wants to enter a country to do so. It's because the US is to RESPECT boarders, and allow other countries to make their own decisions.

Just think about N.Korea, half of Africa, and other countries... Their governments don't want the US or the UN to come right in and set things straight. Stop blaming all the 'elites' and such, allow for the individuals in those countries to have the responsibility of finding their own way.

As long as we have boarders, and people want their sovereignty to be respected... the US and these Elites can not do anything.

This is the double edged sword of having boarders and countries with differencing governments and rulers. Peoples hands becomed tied, for fear that they don't want to be regarded as being hypocritical. If the US or the UN were to take such actions, they would not have ground to stand on in order to justify defending themselves vigorously from the same thing.

Which way do you want it... you can't have both.

reply to post by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS


Wow, shades of Bill Ayers! Is the entire scientific community compromised now!

The falsehoods in this should be obvious. The general state of the environment improves under Capitalism and always has. I understand that kids and young adults don't know how much the environment has improved over the last half century since these same ideologues are teaching them.

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.

The only explanation for this study is to justify a shift towards the old Soviet Union model for our own good by scaring us into it. I smell a Bill Ayers style Rat behind this and it makes me more skeptical of the academic community we all know are in the Socialist Dictatorship tank. They want to take over and in their minds as long as they control everything it's not a bad thing to have one small segment of society dictate to the majority, because as they all know, they are smarter than us. We are such stupid Sheep anyway.

As long as Obama and their favorite people are in control for the moment, they want to milk it for all it's worth.

This brings us back to Cap and Trade and no doubt if Obama wins this election, he will attempt to do it by Presidential Order. Even the Democrats draw the line at the destruction of our economy to make a handful of Progressive insiders the richest people on Earth. Of course they will be most generous to anyone willing to pervert science for political gain and to make their Peers so fabulously wealthy.

I expect we will see more and more of this type of garbage produced by the academic community. They may not be able to take the White House again for a couple of generations once the damage becomes apparent to those they tricked.

reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne


As far as...

"One solution that has promise is a carbon tax levied on any activity producing CO2 in order to create incentives to reduce emissions...

This is a disgusting approach... I don't agree with the tactic by any means, this much I will say.

As to the rest of your post...

I understand much of what you're saying, and I've heard it all before... that is, until you realize that we are fairly ignorant as to our understanding as to how the 'world works'. Every day there is seemingly new theories that are presented that either trash old paradigms, or create new ones.

I would suggest, that yes... it creates cooling, but that is regional. If there is to be a temp. homeostasis of sorts, this does not imply that the 'cooling' effect is to be found all across Earth, but rather may be found in a layer of the atmosphere, or located regionaly, just as the 'warming' effect. In a form of equillibrium that is not evenly distributed. The overall temp is a mean, or an average... but that does not imply the same all around...

reply to post by Blaine91555

Most pollutants come from less advances cultures and the only solution for that is to bring them into the First World.

Would you care to present some sustenance to back that statement please...

The permanent brown cloud over China is from not adopting contemporary practices, not the other way around.

Just because the US and other nations dont have a 'brown cloud' over them, doesn't imply that they are not having an impact... faulty reasoning.

Yes, they should adopt contemporary practices, but that doesn't mean that the 'contemporary practices' in place are enough to combat any influence that these nations may have. again... faulty reasoning.

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

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.

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

I'm confused as to how the man-made aspect has been disproved factually...

If I'm not mistaken, the falsified data and such that you are referencing was recanted, and acknowledged as being false... but, less then 2 weeks later, a new round of research and findings came out that wen't again to reiterate the point that the role of humanity and our undertakings does influence global warming..

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.

As to you not knocking me or the post, I appreciate this sentiment. Too many on this site love to kill the messenger. I have been called all sorts of names on ATS, simply becasue someone either choose not to read the entirety of a post, or because they are off their rockers.

The entire aspect of government getting involved with business practices, such as taxing or favoring is the worst idea for any approach to be taken in regards to finding a solution. I think if government left it alone, corporations would find that there is a completely new, relatively untapped market in the field of green tech and green energy. It's the research and developement that is costly, also building the infrastructure... but I feel that as time progresses, more and more corporations will jump on this band wagon. We just need government to get out of the way, and stop creating reasons for dissent. Let the market and the people figure it out, not some elect class of elites to decide for us.

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.

No, there is nothing that has the World Bank on it that is for the betterment of mankind in any kind of way... and if you honestly believe that I care whether or not you feel sad that I feel this way, you need to find another outlet besides ATS.

There is a cadre of posts just on ATS alone as well as the rest of the internet that show you exactly what the World Bank is and is not. I never said anything about the people who work for the World Bank being evil, that's your words, not mine. I also didn't say that their data is evil, but it is extremely misleading, and obviously effective in that it convinces people like yourself that it is not. Lots of people worked on the atom bomb too without knowing what they worked on or what it would be used for, so I would hardly call them evil, but what they contributed to was used by others to cause death and destruction. The World Bank and the people who work for it are no different.

The world doesn't need a World Bank to provide data for climate study. That's like a gynecologist doing a proctologist's job.... two holes, vastly different.

Thanks for the kind wishes, but save them for the millions of impoverished people that the World Bank has helped starve and rob.

~Namaste

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.

reply to post by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS


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

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

You have hundreds upon hundreds of papers as your proof?

So does the church....

So... if I were to write 4 pages, outlining why you are incredibly wrong... would that suffice, and change you opinion? Probably not..

BTW, I have access to 1000's of papers myself, and have subscribed/paid for access for much of them...
or someone could just use google scholar, which will just bring you back to having to pay for the information anyways..

Oh you've worked with professionals in the field?
Amazing... so have I.

Physics wins?
Does that imply that the parameters, set of variables, and factors used in any of such research encompass all that is to be accounted for?

So then, in the end of the day, physics still wins, but it's what relationships and influences one accounts for that determines the accuracy of any hypothesis that continue to enter the realm of scientific methodologies.

Co2 is obviously not to blame for everying, but there is a cascading effect, not every effect is linear, something I truly hope you understand.

If you assume that I'm under the assumption that correlation warrants a sense of causation, you couldn't be further from the truth.

One notion that I agree with, is that I'm not here to debate... only provide some information that everyones favorite MSM has presented.

When I debate such topics... I do not do it on ATS, for a multitude of reasons, many of which I'm sure you would agree with. That's primarily why I'm not attempting to refute any of your claims, or anybody elses on other topics about such subjective scientific undertakings. I leave those conversations for other mediums in which the participants wont be barraged with ignorance.

Just to add fuel to the fire... I present the following:
www.sciencedaily.com...
Arctic Sea-Ice Loss Didn't Happen by Chance

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."

Ahh man... to epic.

Btw... it is not my assumption that co2 is the driving factor, only a contributing one..

denied.

reply to post by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS

The particulates are placed in the troposphere over the Eastern United States by aircraft in order to keep us Pennsylvanians cool from the sun made brighter and hotter by an interstellar Bubble agitating the sun from 2008 to present. Any "build-up" of CO2 and SOx and NOx is eventually dealt with by our massive oceans. In a few years , the earth will become inhabitable in many parts , while we in the US enjoy 128 degree summers and 95 degree winters.