What would make you start questioning the theory of dangerous CO2-driven global warming?

Question

see also:

Surprise: Airborne soot causes HALF of warming formerly blamed on CO2.

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20070701162100data_trunc_sys.shtml

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0509pollution.html

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2003/dec/HQ_03420_black_soot.html

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2007/03/16/chinasoot_pla.html

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20070506202633data_trunc_sys.shtml

Most recent steep decline in Arctic ice caused by wind, changes in ice composition:

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/quikscat-20071001.html

".... The winds causing this trend in ice reduction were set up by an unusual pattern of atmospheric pressure that began at the beginning of this century.."

Reputable climatologists have said soot is responsible for:

25% of past global warming from Arctic ice loss

50% of warming over Indian Ocean & SE Asia

40% of warming over Pacific & Western America

Much glacier loss in sub-polar mountains (along w/ deforestation)

Answer 1

al gore left wingers are the scientist. the 21" of snow i got the last 2 days must have been a dream i had.

Answer 2

My first thought was to dismiss soot out of hand since particulates have been blamed on global dimming which was said to cool things but after thinking about it, it seems to me that soot is black and may very well absorb rather than reflect much of the radiation.  One of the problems would be distinguishing the soot from humans from the natural soot that would have normally been present from wild fires.  For me it is just another example of the extreme complexity of climate and warming and how foolish are those that pretend to be able to predict it.

Answer 3

Interesting.

Although of course, soot is produced from the burning of fossil fuels.

Soot appears to warm the upper atmosphere but not affects the land and ocean masses. Even if more soot is incorporated into the atmosphere, the masking effect would pay more or less equal rate to the warming effect.

(CO2 isnt the only substance increasing temperature, but has a lot of attention because of the rate it is increasing.

Answer 4

Here are some other points to consider:

Has the reduction in suspended particles e.g. soot actually allowed more heat in resulting in an even higher termperature for the current CO2 level.  

The earth is on track to eventually enter another ice age. Since the beginning the C02 level has trending downwards and occasional splikes (this one due to man) but eventuall all the CO2 getting sequestered into rock and goes underground.   If we could prelong the relatively warm temp now by more slowly releasing CO2 from fossil fuels we would be better off.  

Most likely the current temperature is due to higher CO2, lower soot and higher sun output.

Some good reasons to cut CO2 emissions but we could be deceiving ourselves if we think makes the air cleaner doesn't negatively affect temperature or that by reducing CO2 emissions we will not have a temperature induced environmental crisis.

"The geological record from Planet Earth tells us the lifeblood of life itself—carbon, as contained in carbon dioxide found in our atmosphere or dissolved in the oceans—has been diminishing over time. A second realization has come from astronomy, showing us that all stars grow brighter and hotter as they age. Our sun, over time—like all stars in the so-called "main sequence"—has already increased its heat output by 30 percent since its origin, some 4.6 billion years ago. "

Answer 5

A plausible alternative explanation would have to be provided suggesting a radiative forcing which would dwarf that from CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

While the soot articles are interesting, they don't accomplish this.  Notice that the Hansen study was done in 2003 - that means the IPCC now takes it into account.  The fact that soot plays a larger role than previously thought doesn't mean that greenhouse gases play any less of a role.

Besides which, the man-made sources of soot are virtually identical to the man-made sources of CO2.  We're the reason both are increasing.

Answer 6

A lot more than this.  Possibly known experts in the field publishing in reputable journals and saying that this information has altered their long held conclusions.  I can't imagine how it would, but I don't read the science journals to ignore their conclusions and invent my own.  I'm waiting for the 'tards to start saying "Al Gore", "Al Gore", "Al Gore"...

Answer 7

Solid, science-supported alternate theories would be nice.

Yes, albedo change (such as due to soot) is a known factor in the process.  And airborne soot is largely caused by... coal fired power plants?  Automobile exhaust?  One more reason to make more efficient use of gasoline and minimize coal power plant emissions.  Larger forest fires due to bark beetle survival and more intense droughts due to global warming?  We'd better get a handle on this issue quickly.

You left out some details regarding the reduction in sea ice:

"When that sea ice reached lower latitudes, it rapidly melted in the warmer waters."

From what I've read of these studies, that ice reached lower alttitudes because it became "unhooked" from the land masses that had contained it for the rest of the century.  That happened due to the unusual warming.

A new wind circulation pattern is blowing more warm air towards the North Pole than in the 20th Century, scientists found.

The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) report found that in 2007 winter and spring temperatures were "all above average throughout the whole Arctic and all at the same time" unlike in previous years.

"This is an unusual feature and it looks like the beginning of a signal from global warming," the Noaa's James Overland told reporters.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/natur...

Researchers suspect that loss of Arctic sea ice may be caused partly by global warming and partly by changing atmospheric pressure and wind patterns over the Arctic that move sea ice around, which also help to warm Arctic temperatures. Changes in air pressure and wind patterns may likewise be a result of greenhouse gas buildup in the atmosphere.

“The warming we see is another indication that climate is now changing, and in ways that may not have been experienced in several million years,” says David Rind, a senior researcher at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/A...

Edit -

Researchers at the University of Washington have shown that the decreasing sea ice trend is linked in part to a cyclical atmospheric pressure system, called the Arctic Oscillation. This oscillation refers to a pattern of low- and high-pressure systems between the Arctic and the mid-latitudes. When the oscillation is in its positive phase, as it has been generally over the last 20 years, air pressure tends to be low over the Arctic Ocean. This pattern pulls in warmer air from the surrounding area in a low-level counter-clockwise spiral and helps to break up the sea ice and blow it out of the Arctic.

Serreze believes that the September 2002 low-ice mark was reached due to unusually warm temperatures and frequent storms that worked in tandem to break up and melt the ice. The Arctic oscillation was in a positive phase the previous winter and appears to have played a role. But the Arctic Oscillation doesn't explain everything, and there are signs that it may be moving back to a more neutral phase. Whether this will be just a temporary shift is not known. Yet the ice continues to retreat.

"The more recent years have shown indications of a recovery in the Arctic Oscillation towards more neutral conditions, but we've still seen decay in sea ice," Serreze says. He wonders if the ice has thinned to a point where it has reached a threshold; a situation where thin ice and warming waters reinforce each other, regardless of pressure patterns like the Arctic Oscillation.

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/arctic-03...

Regardless of the wind patterns however we do know that temperatures are increasing:

"Ground-based surface temperature data shows that the rate of warming in the Arctic from 1981 to 2001 is eight times larger than the rate of Arctic warming over the last 100 years. There have also been some remarkable seasonal changes. Arctic spring, summer, and autumn have each warmed, lengthening the seasons when sea ice melts from 10 to 17 days per decade."

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/eart...

Scientists do not find the decrease in Arctic Ice to be any reason to question global warming:

Arctic sea ice has long been recognized as a sensitive climate indicator. NSIDC Senior Scientist Mark Serreze said, “Computer projections have consistently shown that as global temperatures rise, the sea ice cover will begin to shrink. While a number of natural factors have certainly contributed to the overall decline in sea ice, the effects of greenhouse warming are now coming through loud and clear.”

http://nsidc.org/news/press/2007_seaicem...

In fact, the continued decline in Arctic ice is a grave concern:

NSIDC scientists monitor and study Arctic sea ice year round, analyzing satellite data and seeking to understand the regional changes and complex feedbacks that we are seeing. Serreze said, “The sea ice cover is in a downward spiral and may have passed the point of no return. As the years go by, we are losing more and more ice in summer, and growing back less and less ice in winter. We may well see an ice-free Arctic Ocean in summer within our lifetimes.” The scientists agree that this could occur by 2030. Serreze concluded, “The implications for global climate, as well as Arctic animals and people, are disturbing."

http://nsidc.org/news/press/2007_seaicem...

I'll look more into the links separated from the soot points at the bottom, thanks.

Edit -

It has always been more accurate to say "greenhouse gases" instead of CO2, but CO2 is a particular concern simply for its rate of growth and largest potential for impact in coming decades.  If your point degenerates into unfounded conspiracy theories, further engagement here is a waste of time.

Edit -

Whether we're talking CO2 or soot, I'm in complete agreement with people who point out that we certainly can't ignore the impact of "developing" countries:

"During the early 1980s the primary sources of Arctic particulate pollution are believed to have been from Russia and Europe. Those sources have decreased substantially in the past two decades, but the computer simulations indicate increasing emissions from South Asia have made up for some of the reduced Eurasian pollution. Koch and Hansen suggest Southern Asia also makes the greatest contribution to soot deposited on Greenland."

Answer 8

Newsflash: Anthropogenic activity is the source of much of the soot.

Anthropogenic Global Warming theory is bigger than just CO2. I don't know where you got the idea that CO2 was the only concern, but it's not.  It's simply one of many.

And FYI, the same scientists writing reports about a concern over soot, are also writing reports about their concern over CO2.  It's the cumulative effect of all warm forcings that concern scientists.