Now here's a real problem we should focus on. Soot (AKA "black carbon") is underrated as a cause of glacial melting, snow pack melting and other climate changes. Additionally, it's something we can change without putting ourselves into the dark ages.

Now this is a real problem unrelated to temperature change.

Soot is actually a major health hazard. Passing legislation to require reduced particulate emissions from diesel engines and coal-fired power plants would protect both lungs and snowpacks.

Unfortunately, much of the soot in the atmosphere is beyond the US's control since Asia and the tropics are major sources of soot with coal-fired power plants and vehicles with minimal polulution controls and extensive burning of fields and forests as part of slash and burn agriculture.

I suspect that many Chinese now realize it is possible to have clean skys after the relative success of the Beijing Olympics in reducing air pollution. It will be interesting to see if that results in a starting push for clean air measures similar to the US and Europe in the 60s and 70s.

Implementing measures to reduce air pollution is a tax of its own that would benefit air quality and reduce energy usage because the cost of burning the fuel would go up. Its another example of how energy conservation efforts should be targeted at addressing multiple issues, not just greenhouse gases, in order to get the biggest bang for the buck. Focusing on greenhouse gas emissions alone could allow for serious other issues, such as soot generation, to continue. As a result, a simple carbon tax could actually be counter-productive.

Soot is one area I believe man is having a negative impact. The headline of the article you posted is "Soot-stained Snow Melts Sooner".

During the 1950's and early 1960's my father managed Laurel Mountain ski area 40 miles East of Pittsburgh; we live in apartment on top of the lodge and the lodge was at the top of the mountain.

"Soot-stained ?" The mills in western Pennsalvania were not exactly 'clean' back then..yes I remember soot-stained snow and have always known is caused increased melt.

The study of anthropogenic and natural sources of dust and soot and their "warming" effects on global ice and snowmelt through the reduction of albedo is nothing new:
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~sgw/PAPERS/1984_Annals.pdf

Obviously the cooling effect of the soot particulates in the atmopshere (reflecting solar energy) is being overpowered by the warming effect of the soot particles already accumulated on the snow and ice. Otherwise we would not be observing the reduction in the Arctic sea ice extent and worldwide glacial retreat for the past 50+ years.

Some key questions for the skeptics:

1) The emissions from the burning of fossil fuels releases both CO2, carbon soot, and others into the atmosphere and these emissions and particles are being found in the polar regions and elsewhere. Yes there are occasional major volcanic eruptions and wildfires and other natural sources of soot that may also contribute, but if the majority of these soot particles can be directly traced back to man's fossil fuel burning sources (see DRI research comment below), then isn't man actually responsible for some if not all the reported changes of the global climate (anthropogenically)?

The following web link:
http://www.physorg.com/news105888386.html

says:

"Scientists from the Desert Research Institute (DRI) and their collaborators have determined that Northern Hemisphere industrial pollution resulted in a seven-fold increase in black carbon (soot) in Arctic snow during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, according to new research into the impact of black carbon on Arctic climate forcing."

2) How do you reconcile this bit of global pollution information that appears to run counter to all the skeptic arguments that man can only influence the localized climate and there is no way that we can affect it globally? If man's pollution is indeed responsible for the reduction in polar ice and distant glacial extents on a global scale, then how do you consider that only a local climate change?

3) How can you so readily accept the misinformation being spread out there from the energy industries PR campaigns and conservative think tanks that man is not responsible of the changing of the global climate without question, when this information of how soot from our emisisons may be partially if not fully responsible for the melting of the polar and glacial ice either directly or indirectly, contradicts all of those statements?

Interesting article.
However there are a few things that are left out.
What is the ppm of soot in the arctic?
What about the soot from around the world? Can you determine exactly where it comes from. Simply study of wind patterns reveal a lot.
Throwing some soot on snow in your backyard may sound interesting but it is not a conducive study by no means.
I am so tired of hearing all of this global warming without good scientific study. Most of it would fail in 7th grade science.
If there really is global warming then lets have some all inclusive studies.

I am one who believes that we should take care of the earth but not be led astray by poor and political science.

Do a better job or be quite.

Thanks

The Soot won't matter!

A new study by NOAA indicates that global warming will continue for another thousand years no matter what we do.

They predict (LOLOLOL) that sea level rise will top out at 3 to 6 feet by AD3000.

Wait a minute!!!! Hansen says 20 feet this century.

This can't be right!

Isn't this getting just a bit too silly?
And these people expect to be "Respected".

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090126_climate.html

I guess this must indicated that we are experiencing global cooling.....
...
Oh, wait no, the report is fabricated because they want to get more research money.

Blah, blah blahhhhh!

And another is fired to being honest.

Bond University Dismisses Climate Change Sceptic

http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/01/bond-university-dismisses-climate-change-sceptic/

And the AGW crowd just can't see any intimidation out there against speaking up about the Fraud.

Kipp Alpert:This is from an article by Chris Colose.It explains how global warming works.It is not hard to understand.
This is the physical science basis.
The gas density of a planet with an atmosphere declines with height as gravity pulls molecules to the surface, and with less weight overhead as you go up, there is a resulting expansion and cooling of air molecules with altitude.
If we now introduce some gas in the lower atmosphere that is transparent to incoming solar radiation, but opaque to outgoing long wave radiation, CO2 will absorb and emit the infrared photon in a random direction, or it may transfer its energy to a neighboring molecule and warm the air where that gas resides.
The sun hits the earth and is reflected outward. Fifty percent is absorbed by co2. This is called warming.No Polotics,no spin.THE FACTS.
Kipp

Steve Rowland:I know you like to cherry pick your data from Austrailia.They are the third largest COAL producer.The USA is the number one largest coal producer and China is second.As Brett described,soot cuts down the suns abilility to reflect heat out; and it does get in Natures way of reflecting the sun back into space. Man is changing the climate.Look what happened when we put a hole in the ozone,and everyone started to get skin cancer. Man did this.

I'm usually pretty open to scientific information.. but a 60% drop in the Cascade' snowpack over the last 50 years?
If this is the case shouldn't we be seeing a few more red-flags about this specific fact in addition to this semi-obscure article on the global warming blog. To cite data like that in such a nonchalant sort of way seems to be asking for skepticism.
Further, from the viewpoint of a Northwest skier and avid weather follower for about ten years, my more casual--but honest-- observations seem to conclude the exact opposite.
Mt. Baker set the "world-record snowfall" for a season in 98-99 with 1,150 inches of snow. In the past 10 years they have really only had one or two bad years, most years falling on or close to average. Obviously this is one location, but from what I can gather other ski areas are reporting similar information in their snow reports.
A 60% drop in snowpack suggests to me that these ski areas would be ready to close up shop for good, and this is obviously not the case.
Finally, my casual reading of this blog has always led me to believe that at elevation the snowpack is actually greater than usual because of increased evaporation off the oceans and precipitation, but that snowpack at the typical rain-snow line has diminished because of rising freezing levels.

... so I'm thrown for a loop by this specific "60% drop in snowpack" statistic.

I remember during the 70s it was put forward that one possible response to the coming ice age would be to spread soot on Greenland and other ice sheets to keep them from advancing into our back yards.

I thought at the time it is really ill advised to make control inputs into a system that is poorly understood. I still think it.

Aaron

As far as I can tell, most of the world is not covered by snowpack. Therefore, the temperature increase measured in the air above the soot covered snowpack is probably local in nature. So this research appears to indicate that the large -scale melting may actually not be a direct function of the global temperature. Very interesting.

By the way, apparently recycling may be contributing to global warming. We should burn the recyclables to make electricity instead to reduce global warming. Greenhouse gases can make for strange bedfellows. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/4365681/Recycling-could-be-adding-to-global-warming.html

How do you reconcile this bit of global pollution information that appears to run counter to all the skeptic arguments that man can only influence the localized climate and there is no way that we can affect it globally? If man's pollution is indeed responsible for the reduction in polar ice and distant glacial extents on a global scale, then how do you consider that only a local climate change?

IF? That is a big IF!

Can you prove your assertaion or is mere conjecture?

How are man made pollutants exactly responsible for less polar ice and what is the exact extent?

Well laty fricken dah the less white the snow the quicker it melts. Wow now the light bulb come on.

I thought the reason the polar ice was disappearing (well sort of Ice extent in the artic is showing signs of rebounding from a low and ice in the antartic is growing) was becuase the air temperatures was increasing thus melting the ice. (Kipps favorite law of thermodynamics)

Which (to me at least) runs counter to the idea that the sun warms the oceans,some of the energy is then transfered to the atmoshpere where it ultimately escapes into space, then some of the energy is routed to the polar regions where it is transfered into space.

You know energy is transfered from areas of high energy to areas of low energy.

The greater the delta T (change in temp) the higher the rate of heat transfer.

The problem with the model of the earth in thermo is we do not understand all those lags between changes in temps and the amounts and rates of heat transfer.

3) How can you so readily accept the misinformation being spread out there from the energy industries PR campaigns and conservative think tanks that man is not responsible of the changing of the global climate without question, when this information of how soot from our emisisons may be partially if not fully responsible for the melting of the polar and glacial ice either directly or indirectly, contradicts all of those statements?

Only you Kipp readily accept the idea that the energy industries and conservative think tanks are in a giant PR campaign of misinformation.

What is this about snow in the southern Persian Gulf?

Ian,

If you want a good site that tracks western snowpacks, here you go:

http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/snotelanom/basinswe.html

Keep in mind that the most useful metric they measure is the snow water content since that tells you how much water is locked up in the snowpack currently. They also track total accumulation of precipitation, but that ignores snow that has already melted and left the river basin (and thus does us Westerners no good come summer).

Currently, most western snowpacks are at or below normal for this time of year with the exception of Arizona, Colorado, and parts of New Mexico.

I think Brett this blog is really missing the boat.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/28/forecasting-guru-announces-no-scientific-basis-for-forecasting-climate/ from no other that the Head of the Forecasting Institute. Yesterday it was Hansen's Ex-Boss at NASA saying the same. This is why WUWT and other really serious sites such as climate audit are getting Best Science Blog of year awards year after year..

Ian:Increased precipitation is one sign of global warming.For three years in Connecticut,it has been unusually warm.This year is very cold. Local weather,is local,and natural trends still cause changes in weather. Global warming is caused by the absorption of the IR(heat)by co2 and other gases, in the atmosphere.From microwave satellite data, from observational data, Global Warming has even been photographed by infrared camera's. The Earth's temperatures have been rising for the last 150 years,and by 2100,is expected to rise by 2to5 celsius. What happens in your part of the world is normal. The northern hemisphere will be one of the last places that the severity of Global warming will be evident.The warming of the boreal forests
in the world, and the megafires in california is another clear indication, that the perma frost is melting. The Arctic is warming at an alarming rate(for different reasons). The Earth is much more warm than it should be considering the low solar output. So please, before you become a skeptic, learn the science for yourself. It's no that hard. Than you can decide from a position of knowledge. By the way,today I was saying the same thing myself. It's hard to believe in global warming while your freezing your butt off. There not so lucky in souteast asia,or the melting Arctic.Yes,this problem is extremely serious, and you are living in one of the better places as warming is added to natural variations. KIPP

Ian is correct about the 60% number is wrong. If you follow the link in Brett's piece above, you'll find a link to another LiveScience article from last year. The only 60% number in that article is:

�The models Barnett and his team ran show that up to 60 percent of the trends in water flow observed from 1950 to 1999 can be attributed to human effects, mainly global warming.�

60% of the trend cause is NOT a 60% decline in snow pack!

paulm, you wrote, "I guess this must indicated that we are experiencing global cooling.....
...
"Oh, wait no, the report is fabricated because they want to get more research money.

"Blah, blah blahhhhh!"

The same thing could be said about every report that deals with warming, especially the Blah, blah blahhhhh!.

Hmmm...Well after digging out from about 13" of global warming yesterday (sidebar: The accuweather forecast for my area was about 6" total with the dreaded weather alarm stating a closer 8.7", I presume these numbers were created by the models) I was first struck by the idea that the basis for their comments is a model. Don't need to rehash that topic do we?

The second thing that comes to mind is that we are continually told that the sun plays no part in global warming yet even if the soot is created by man, it only has an effect if the sun is involved. I wonder if the soot in the arctic is as effective since the sun angle is so much more oblique, so is there really a valid concern about soot in the arctic?

Third, could we trouble the researchers to tell us what the snowpack was like 55 years ago, or maybe 100 or more? It seems to me that timeframes are being consistently cherry picked to bolster the argument of the research. Maybe not but it sure seems like it. Remember how floods weren't going to happen for 100 years or so. And then when the public wasn't too excited about it, it became 20 years, and then when even the 20 didn't seem to be too big of an issue, the leading scientist turns around and says it is 4 years.

Dennis:

We could go on all day arguing over what makes an AGW skeptic. It all depends upon how you define "AGW". If you mean man can and has affected the climate, then yes, I acknowledge that.

What I am skeptical of is the role of CO2 in climate change, the use of unverified climate models to *prove* AGW, and the hype and scare tactics being used to further a political agenda.

We seem to agree that soot is underrated both as a pollutant and a cause of observed environmental and climate changes.

Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Soot is a pollutant.

For starters, "over the past 50 years" gives you a clue about how they come up with a declining "trend," since the '50s were pretty cold - pick your period, pick your trend. Then, their "study" uses a "model" to determine the effects (what a surprise). The Chinese open a new coal fired power plant every, what is it, week? All this additional soot (they don't yet have pollution controls, i.e., scrubbers, like we do in the US) and yet the Arctic sea ice extent is increasing now, and global temperature has been on a decreasing trend for the last 7 years, with no net warming in a decade. Where's the dramatic soot effect that's supposed to be accelerating the melt and the warming?? Undoubtedly, the "model" grossly overestimates the effect, like most models used to predict human-induced climate catastrophe.

If you want to talk about the benefits of reducing soot as a pollutant that is not something we have an argument about, but stop trying to make it out as another brick in the nonexistent "climate catastrophe" wall.

Ian: Many ski resorts make their own snow. They can still have their resorts open with lower snowfall amounts because they produce their own snow. Plus I have no idea what the last section of your post means.

Brett, the direct source (found in about a minute using google) has much more detail, some helpful graphics (maybe you could update with one of these) and a poetic concluding sentence:

"While greenhouse gases work unseen, soot bares its dark nature, with a cloak that slowly steals summertime's snow."

Mark: "I thought the reason the polar ice was disappearing (well sort of Ice extent in the arctic is showing signs of rebounding from a low and ice in the Antarctic is growing) was because the air temperatures was increasing thus melting the ice."

Mark, you do know that due to the complex nature of the earth/atmosphere interaction, that two things (or likely even more events) can happen in the atmosphere at the same time right? It is quite possible that both the heating of the oceans and the increased melting due to carbon soot can occur in combination with each other to melt the sea ice. What makes you feel AGW is just due to only one component of man's pollution and landscape changes? It is a combination of all net changes.

Mark: "What is this about snow in the southern Persian Gulf?"

So now we are talking about weather events in the short term again? You just have gotten your information from ICECAP because they always like to look for snowstorms in the winter. It's remarkable that you can find them in the coldest months of the year.

I could also give you the fact that there is a massive heat wave in Australia during their summer as per MichaelSTL on the Weather Underground site on Jan 28:

"Australia's south-east is still enduring a massive heat wave, with Adelaide reaching 45.5 degrees Celsius early this afternoon. The Bureau of Meteorology says some country towns are even hotter, with 46.2C recorded at Ceduna on the Eyre Peninsula. Forecaster Simon Timkey says this is the closest Adelaide has come to its hottest ever day. "That is the hottest day we've recorded here in over 70 years and in fact the third hottest on record in Adelaide," he said. "The only two times that it's been hotter were both back in 1939, 46.1C on the 12th of January and 45.9C on the 10th of January." The bureau is forecasting a total of six days of 40 degree-plus heat, which would equal the city's hottest ever heatwave set in January 1908."

I could do that, but then I would be reverting to the underhanded tactics that the skeptics think they can somehow make someone think that this bit of short-term weather reporting is important to proving that AGW isn't really occurring.

Gary in Olympia, you're mixing apples and oranges. Snowpack can change greatly even while runoff remains constant.

John Galt: "Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Soot is a pollutant."

You seem to be disregarding the fact that both CO2 and carbon soot comes from the same fuel burning sources. What do you call the emissions coming out of smokestacks of power plants?

Isn't carbon monoxide a pollutant? It only has one less atom of oxygen then CO2, but they can both come out your tailpipe through the same combustion process. So why wouldn't CO2 be considered a pollutant as well?

One official definition of a pollutant comes from Sci-Tech Encyclopedia:

"The presence in the atmospheric environment of natural and artificial substances that affect human health or well-being, or the well-being of any other specific organism."

I also think that if you completely filled your room with CO2, you would find it difficult to breathe comfortably for any length of time. I would think that it would be considered a pollutant because it can affect human health in higher concentrations, which goes to the definition of a pollutant from Sci-Tech.

Shall I go on or is that enough?

Rich Clement said.....

"What is the ppm of soot in the arctic?" and "Can you determine exactly where it comes from?"

The ppm is measured to very exacting standards, Rich, by sensors placed at various locations in the arctic and elsewhere, and, yes, they can determine exactly where it comes from.

You then continue by saying "I am so tired of hearing all of this global warming without good scientific study."

I YOU had done some study, sir, you would not be making disparaging comments. Read....and THINK.....before you post again!

Increased precipitation is one sign of global warming.

I thought decreased precipitation is one sign of global warming!

Numbers Watch has compiled this list of things caused by global warming (http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm)

A complete list of things caused by global warming

Acne, agricultural land increase, Afghan poppies destroyed, Africa devastated, Africa in conflict, African aid threatened, African summer frost, aggressive weeds, air pressure changes, airport malaria, Agulhas current, Alaska reshaped, moves, allergy season longer, Alps melting, Amazon a desert, American dream end, amphibians breeding earlier (or not), anaphylactic reactions to bee stings, ancient forests dramatically changed, animals head for the hills, animals shrink, Antarctic grass flourishes, Antarctic ice grows, Antarctic ice shrinks, Antarctic sea life at risk, anxiety treatment, algal blooms, archaeological sites threatened, Arctic bogs melt, Arctic in bloom, Arctic ice free, Arctic ice melt faster, Arctic lakes disappear, Arctic tundra to burn, Arctic warming (not), Atlantic less salty, Atlantic more salty, atmospheric circulation modified, attack of the killer jellyfish, avalanches reduced, avalanches increased, Baghdad snow, Bahrain under water, bananas grow, barbarisation, beer shortage, beetle infestation, bet for $10,000, better beer, big melt faster, billion dollar research projects, billion homeless, billions face risk, billions of deaths, bird distributions change, bird loss accelerating, bird strikes, bird visitors drop, birds confused, birds decline (Wales), birds driven north, birds return early, bittern boom ends, blackbirds stop singing, blackbirds threatened, Black Hawk down, blood contaminated, blue mussels return, bluetongue, brain eating amoebae, brains shrink, bridge collapse (Minneapolis), Britain Siberian, brothels struggle, brown Ireland, bubonic plague, budget increases, Buddhist temple threatened, building collapse, building season extension, bushfires, business opportunities, business risks, butterflies move north, camel deaths, cancer deaths in England, cannibalism, caterpillar biomass shift, cave paintings threatened, childhood insomnia, Cholera, circumcision in decline, cirrus disappearance, civil unrest, cloud increase, coast beauty spots lost, cockroach migration, coffee threatened, cold climate creatures survive, cold spells (Australia), cold wave (India), computer models, conferences, conflict, conflict with Russia, consumers foot the bill, coral bleaching, coral fish suffer, coral reefs dying, coral reefs grow, coral reefs shrink , coral reefs twilight, cost of trillions, cougar attacks, crabgrass menace, cradle of civilisation threatened, creatures move uphill, crime increase, crocodile sex, crops devastated, crumbling roads, buildings and sewage systems, curriculum change, cyclones (Australia), danger to kid's health, Darfur, Dartford Warbler plague, death rate increase (US), Dengue hemorrhagic fever, depression, desert advance, desert retreat, destruction of the environment, disappearance of coastal cities, disasters, diseases move north, Dolomites collapse, dozen deadly diseases, drought, ducks and geese decline, dust bowl in the corn belt, early marriages, early spring, earlier pollen season, Earth biodiversity crisis, Earth dying, Earth even hotter, Earth light dimming, Earth lopsided, Earth melting, Earth morbid fever, Earth on fast track, Earth past point of no return, Earth slowing down, Earth spins faster, Earth to explode, earth upside down, earthquakes, earthquakes redux, El Ni�o intensification, end of the world as we know it, erosion, emerging infections, encephalitis, English villages lost, equality threatened, Europe simultaneously baking and freezing, eutrophication, evolution accelerating, expansion of university climate groups, extinctions (human, civilisation, logic, Inuit, smallest butterfly, cod, ladybirds, pikas, polar bears, possums, walrus, toads, plants, salmon, trout, wild flowers, woodlice, a million species, half of all animal and plant species, mountain species, not polar bears, barrier reef, leaches, tropical insects) experts muzzled, extreme changes to California, fading fall foliage, fainting, famine, farmers benefit, farmers go under, farm output boost, fashion disaster, fever,figurehead sacked, fir cone bonanza, fish bigger, fish catches drop, fish downsize, fish catches rise, fish deaf, fish get lost, fish stocks at risk, fish stocks decline, five million illnesses, flames stoked, flesh eating disease, flood patterns change, floods, floods of beaches and cities, flood of migrants, flood preparation for crisis, Florida economic decline, flowers in peril, food poisoning, food prices rise, food prices soar, food security threat (SA), football team migration, footpath erosion, forest decline, forest expansion, frog with extra heads, frostbite, frost damage increased, frosts, fungi fruitful, fungi invasion, games change, Garden of Eden wilts, genetic diversity decline, gene pools slashed, giant oysters invade, giant pythons invade, giant squid migrate, gingerbread houses collapse, glacial earthquakes, glacial retreat, glacial growth, glacier grows (California), glacier wrapped, global cooling, global dimming, glowing clouds, golf course to drown, golf Masters wrecked, grandstanding, grasslands wetter, Great Barrier Reef 95% dead, Great Lakes drop, great tits cope, greening of the North, Grey whales lose weight, Gulf Stream failure, habitat loss, haggis threatened, Hantavirus pulmonary syndrome, harmful algae, harvest increase, harvest shrinkage, hay fever epidemic, health affected, health of children harmed, health risks, heart disease, heart attacks and strokes (Australia), heat waves, hibernation affected, hibernation ends too soon, hibernation ends too late, HIV epidemic, homeless 50 million, hornets, high court debates, human development faces unprecedented reversal, human fertility reduced, human health risk, human race oblivion, hurricanes, hurricane reduction, hurricanes fewer, hurricanes not, hydropower problems, hyperthermia deaths, ice age, ice sheet growth, ice sheet shrinkage, icebergs, illness and death, inclement weather, India drowning, infrastructure failure (Canada), industry threatened, infectious diseases, inflation in China, insect explosion, insurance premium rises, Inuit displacement, Inuit poisoned, Inuit suing, invasion of cats, invasion of crabgrass, invasion of herons, invasion of jellyfish, invasion of midges, island disappears, islands sinking, itchier poison ivy, jellyfish explosion, jets fall from sky, jet stream drifts north, Kew Gardens taxed, kidney stones, killer cornflakes, killing us, kitten boom, koalas under threat, krill decline, lake and stream productivity decline, lake empties, lake shrinking and growing, landslides, landslides of ice at 140 mph, lawsuits increase, lawsuit successful, lawyers' income increased (surprise surprise!), lawyers want more, legionnaires' surge, lives saved, Loch Ness monster dead, locust plagues suppressed, lush growth in rain forests, Malaria, mammoth dung melt, mango harvest fails, Maple production advanced, Maple syrup shortage, marine diseases, marine food chain decimated, Meaching (end of the world), Mediterranean rises, megacryometeors, Melanoma, Melanoma decline, methane emissions from plants, methane burps, methane runaway, melting permafrost, Middle Kingdom convulses, migration, migration difficult (birds), migratory birds huge losses, microbes to decompose soil carbon more rapidly, minorities hit, monkeys on the move, Mont Blanc grows, monuments imperiled, moose dying, more bad air days, more research needed, mortality increased, mountain (Everest) shrinking, mountaineers fears, mountains break up, mountains green and flowering, mountains taller, mortality lower, Myanmar cyclone, narwhals at risk, National security implications, native wildlife overwhelmed, natural disasters quadruple, new islands, next ice age, NFL threatened, Nile delta damaged, noctilucent clouds, no effect in India, Northwest Passage opened, nuclear plants bloom, oaks dying, oaks move north, ocean acidification, ocean acidification faster, ocean deserts expand, ocean waves speed up, oceans noisier, opera house to be destroyed, outdoor hockey threatened, ozone repair slowed, ozone rise, Pacific dead zone, penguin chicks frozen, personal carbon rationing, pest outbreaks, pests increase, phenology shifts, plankton blooms, plankton destabilised, plants lose protein, plants march north, plants move uphill, polar bears aggressive, polar bears cannibalistic, polar bears deaf, polar bears drowning, polar tours scrapped, popcorn rise, porpoise astray, profits collapse, psychiatric illness, puffin decline, radars taken out, railroad tracks deformed, rainfall increase, rape wave, refugees, reindeer endangered, release of ancient frozen viruses, resorts disappear, rice threatened, rice yields crash, rift on Capitol Hill, rioting and nuclear war, river flow impacted, rivers raised, roads wear out, robins rampant, rocky peaks crack apart, roof of the world a desert, rooftop bars, Ross river disease, ruins ruined, Russia under pressure, salinity reduction, salinity increase, Salmonella, satellites accelerate, school closures, sea level rise, sea level rise faster, seals mating more, sewer bills rise, severe thunderstorms, sex change, sexual promiscuity, shark attacks, sharks booming, sharks moving north, sheep shrink, shop closures, short-nosed dogs endangered, shrinking ponds, shrinking shrine, ski resorts threatened, skin cancer, slow death, smaller brains, smog, snowfall increase, snowfall heavy, soaring food prices, societal collapse, soil change, songbirds change eating habits, sour grapes, space problem, spectacular orchids, spiders invade Scotland, squid aggressive giants, squid population explosion, squid tamed, squirrels reproduce earlier, stingray invasion, storms wetter, stormwater drains stressed, street crime to increase, subsidence, suicide, swordfish in the Baltic, Tabasco tragedy, taxes, tectonic plate movement, teenage drinking, terrorism, threat to peace, ticks move northward (Sweden), tides rise, tigers eat people, tomatoes rot, tornado outbreak, tourism increase, trade barriers, trade winds weakened, traffic jams, transportation threatened, tree foliage increase (UK), tree growth slowed, trees in trouble, trees less colourful, trees more colourful, trees lush, tropics expansion, tropopause raised, truffle shortage, truffles down, turtles crash, turtles lay earlier, UFO sightings, UK coastal impact, UK Katrina, uprooted - 6 million, Vampire moths, Venice flooded, volcanic eruptions, walrus pups orphaned, walrus stampede, war, war between US and Canada, wars over water, wars sparked, wars threaten billions, wasps, water bills double, water scarcity (20% of increase), water stress, weather out of its mind, weather patterns awry, Western aid cancelled out, West Nile fever, whales lose weight, whales move north, whales wiped out, wheat yields crushed in Australia, wildfires, wind shift, wind reduced, wine - harm to Australian industry, wine industry damage (California), wine industry disaster (US), wine - more English, wine - England too hot, wine -German boon, wine - no more French , wine pass� (Napa), wine stronger, winters in Britain colder, winter in Britain dead, witchcraft executions, wolves eat more moose, wolves eat less, workers laid off, World at war, World War 4, World bankruptcy, World in crisis, World in flames, Yellow fever.
-----
If you see anything missing, please send a note to warmlist@numberwatch.co.uk and they will gladly add it to the list.

Kipp Alpert:
Ian:Increased precipitation is one sign of global warming.For three years in Connecticut,it has been unusually warm.This year is very cold. Local weather,is local,and natural trends still cause changes in weather. Global warming is caused by the absorption of the IR(heat)by co2 and other gases, in the atmosphere.From microwave satellite data, from observational data, Global Warming has even been photographed by infrared camera's. The Earth's temperatures have been rising for the last 150 years,and by 2100,is expected to rise by 2to5 celsius. What happens in your part of the world is normal. The northern hemisphere will be one of the last places that the severity of Global warming will be evident.The warming of the boreal forests
in the world, and the megafires in california is another clear indication, that the perma frost is melting. The Arctic is warming at an alarming rate(for different reasons). The Earth is much more warm than it should be considering the low solar output. So please, before you become a skeptic, learn the science for yourself. It's no that hard. Than you can decide from a position of knowledge. By the way,today I was saying the same thing myself. It's hard to believe in global warming while your freezing your butt off. There not so lucky in souteast asia,or the melting Arctic.Yes,this problem is extremely serious, and you are living in one of the better places as warming is added to natural variations. KIPP

Posted by Kipp Alpert | January 28, 2009 11:42 PM

Hey KIPP you really ought to come up with a better explanation.

I have a pdf file of an explanation for AGW and the greenhouse effect that has the earth radiating more energy into space than it recieves from the sun. How can a climate scientist call hiomself a scientist when he lacks such a fundamental understanding of thermodynamics!

Let see the artic is warming, we had a super el nino 10 years ago, maybe just maybe Kipp since the earth has so much water covering it, that it takes 10 years for that heat energy to makes it's way through the system and to the pole where it rejected into space.

Heat and energy balance Kipp. The most energy that the earth can radiate into is limited by the amount of energy that it recieves.

The greenhouse effect is merely the atmosphere converting one form of energy into another. And if you can find me a process that converts energy that is at or greater than 100% efficient, then KIPP you will be very very rich man.

Good luck on that fools errand.

Ian,

Also keep in mind that when Mt. Baker broke the snow record, it took the record from Mt. Rainier (which held the previous record since 1972). Our mountains tend to get more snow than anywhere else! The Pacific Northwest tends to get more snow in La Nina years, which is why the snowpack was so healthy last year. While snowpack levels haven't changed much in the past decade, they are much lower than they were forty or fifty years ago.

It's not so much that we're getting less snow; it's just melting sooner. We were doing great this season as of late December, but then we got the Pineapple Express that melted all the pass-level snow and caused all that flooding earlier this month. That put most places back below normal.

Which ski areas do you prefer? I usually go to Crystal or Mission Ridge...usually not great, though Mission Ridge had some great powder back in December. I've never made it up to Mt. Baker.

Steve,

In the Cascade Mts., snow pack is used to predict runoffs.

And my point was that the ONLY 60% number in any of the sited studies/articles was in declaring the human cause of the trend and not any reduction in snow pack or runoff.

Not even Phil Mote, of IPCC snow pack, has claimed any decrease in the Cascades within half of 60%. And his study started in 1950, early in a PDO (lack of instrumentation, he said) and ended before the next shift to a cold PDO.

Kipp according to you everything is a sign of AGW.

Kipp Alpert:

What do you mean 'cherry pick'? What I pick is the only relevant pick. That stuff the Hysterics pick is flotsam.

Soot is a heavy environmental pollutant as opposed to CO2. It is something that can be Seen, and the immediate results Seen. And what is Seen can be quickly alleviated with proper environmental policy.

AGW is such a convenient science; even after returning to quonset huts, we won't be around to see the world we've 'saved', and when the natural cooling really clicks in in 30-40 years or so, the Hysterics can claim their dire predictions were correct and their snake oil 'saved' the world, eureka! Then it's: "Prepare for the next ice age!" "If we don't start now we are looking at catastrophe!" "We can save you, just listen to us 'experts!" "Trust us!" "We are here for YOU!" (notice the gleam of that gold tooth in that lizard grin)

"The Earth's temperatures have been rising for the last 150 years...and the megafires in california is another clear indication, that the perma frost is melting...The Earth is much more warm than it should be considering the low solar output. So please, before you become a skeptic, learn the science for yourself. It's no that hard."

Words of wisdom. Really Deep Thoughts.

John Galt,

Going back to your assumption that CO2 is not a pollutant.

Then what do you think noise is? It is all around us just like CO2 is in the atmosphere. It is good for us since without noise we could not hear or understand what other people are saying or whether the object causing the noise is a threat or very far away to be of concern. However noise is indeed considered a pollutant, an irritant, and a hazard to our health especially with higher decibel levels:

http://stress.about.com/od/situationalstress/a/noise052107.htm

A similar analogy to the effect of higher concentrations of CO2 are to our health if we cannot find oxygen within our breathable air space.

I also don't think the unfortunate astronauts on Apollo 13 would agree with you that CO2 is not an air pollutant because they appeared to desperately want to get rid of CO2 as soon as they could for their own survival.

Dennis Hlinka:
John Galt,

Going back to your assumption that CO2 is not a pollutant.

Then what do you think noise is? It is all around us just like CO2 is in the atmosphere. It is good for us since without noise we could not hear or understand what other people are saying or whether the object causing the noise is a threat or very far away to be of concern. However noise is indeed considered a pollutant, an irritant, and a hazard to our health especially with higher decibel levels:

http://stress.about.com/od/situationalstress/a/noise052107.htm

A similar analogy to the effect of higher concentrations of CO2 are to our health if we cannot find oxygen within our breathable air space.

I also don't think the unfortunate astronauts on Apollo 13 would agree with you that CO2 is not an air pollutant because they appeared to desperately want to get rid of CO2 as soon as they could for their own survival.

Posted by Dennis Hlinka | January 30, 2009 2:36 PM

Cool then water and nitrogen and phosphorous and a host of other stuff could be considered pollutants.

Dennis; Then what do you think noise is?

Good point. However one can make that argument for anything.
Oxygen for example is highly corrosive.
We could just as easily declare it a pollutant and ban it too.

That would be technically correct but not very smart.

CO2 at 5000+ ppm could rightly be called pollution perhaps.
We have a way to go before that is the case however.

Based on Hlinka's provocative analysis attempting to provide backup to prove CO2 is a pollutant, well.................hmmmmm............er.....I'm speechless.......

Gary in Olympia, Phil is quoted in the Times as saying these results are way over-stated. The authors really are claiming a big reduction. Did you see my link above?

Also, Gary in Olympia, FYI Phil says 35%.

"A similar analogy to the effect of higher concentrations of CO2 are to our health if we cannot find oxygen within our breathable air space"

But that is not what the federal law suit was about. No one argued that CO2 was so such high concentrations that it was becoming too dangerous to breathe. As a matter of fact, CO2 from that perspective is in such small quantities that is stilled considered a trace gas. No, California never argued that CO2 has risen to such a degree that it had become poisonous. No, California wished to reclassify CO2 based soley on its GH capability. This is something only Congress can do, and not the courts. But Congress refuses (even now) to do so.

From a constitutional point of view, there is sure to be a lawsuit. Only Congress can control interstate commerece. Obama's executive order in effect puts New York and California in charge of emission controls. Since these 2 states have the most autos, the major automakers will in effect follow what New York and California dictate. This is clearly unconstitutional. The other 48 states have no recourse to the law in this case. Obama clearly does not have the authority to grant California or any other state the power to set thier own auto emission standards.

Gary in Olympia, I don't know if this is the source of the confusion, but a different study just came out, this one on overall Western U.S. precipitation trends. It states a 60% figure for the amount of the reduction that can be attributed to global warming.

In related news, California water officials fear that we may be looking at the worst drought in recorded history.

The whole situation looks pretty bad.

Mary: "Based on Hlinka's provocative analysis attempting to provide backup to prove CO2 is a pollutant, well.................hmmmmm............er.....I'm speechless......."

Mary,

Was there was anything I said about the CO2 and other types of pollution (through actual definition) that was wrong scientifically?

Your response was pretty weak (even speechless - thus no noise pollution was created).

Obviously you feel otherwise. What is the scientific basis for your conclusion that it isn't? At least if you would present some intellectual discussion instead of weak (speechless) commentary, I would know where your scientific conclusions come from (besides them being only influenced by your clearly stated politics from your earlier postings).

Gary,

So by your definition, a chemical compound can only be called a pollutant if it exceeds a certain concentration, no matter how toxic, or odorous, or radioactive or any other possible health injurious related characteristic you wish to define? Is that your position?

On what specific criteria do you firmly define that final threshold for each compound because a great number of those compounds have some combination of those multiple characteristics that I listed above. Those multiple characteristics within each compound effects plants, animals and humans in many different ways and at different thresholds.

So how do you set those thresholds and on which species do you set that standard by? Remember, killing plants and animals by passing those lower thresholds also destroys man's food supply so you can't set those standards based on their effects only on man. Because in a way man is indirectly affected if we kill various plants and animals by exceeding those lower thresholds through the break in the food chain.

Once a compound is shown to be possibly injurious to health and well being of any living species, that compound is defined as a pollutant irregardless of it's concentration threshold. The concentraiton threshold can help define that point in which it actually becomes injurious to us or other species, but the compound itself is still considered a pollutant.

JP,

The only thing I was responding to is that the majority of the commenters here are trying to say CO2 is not a pollutant, and I put forth a scientific discussion that counters those arguments. Nothing I said goes directly to the global warming debate.

My "pollutant" argument basically defines whether or not CO2 is a pollutant that is produced both naturally and through man's burning of fossil fuel.

To Mary, Gary, JP, and others,

What is your scientific basis do you have that distinguishes one type of emission from another when all those emission components result from the same combustion process (both natural and man made)?

JP: "Obama clearly does not have the authority to grant California or any other state the power to set thier (sic) own auto emission standards."

Y'know, JP, the ancient Greeks made something of an art out of developing ideas based on first principles. It even worked sometimes (e.g. the concept of atoms), but more often it sent them in the wrong drection (e.g. the four humors). A difference between you and them is that you could easily check your facts.

The first Clean Air Act passed by Congress in the mid-60s, and all subsequent revisions, contain a provision allowing California to use higher standards if a waiver can be obtained from the federal government. There are current lawsuits over California's ability to put into force its GHG provisions without such a waiver, but now the Obama administration is going to grant the waiver. Once they do, per the same law other states can select which of the two standards (federal or California) to use. In the past, so many states have chosen the California standard (there have been over a dozen past waivers) that it has quickly become the new national standard. The same thing will happen here. There is no basis for a lawsuit against Californis or any other state under such circumstances.

You're welcome.

I doubt there is enough fossil fuels in existence to raise CO2 levels to toxic levels, so that's as about as meaningful as the notion that since breathing pure Oxygen has many dangerous side effects

Reply from Mark P:
CO2 itself is not harmful, so you are correct. I drink plenty of it in my soda. I never mentioned this, only that raising its levels may warm the globe.

(http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2005-03/1110848716.Me.r.html), oxygen should be classified as a "pollutant" and regulated by the EPA!

CO2 is an important and necessary part of the biosphere, and if there is anything anomalous about the current level of atmospheric CO2, it is how LOW it is. http://biocab.org/Carbon_Dioxide_Geological_Timescale.html

Corrrection: The paper on western U.S. precipition I mentioned above was from a year ago, not this year.

Another comment on this topic went to the wrong thread: Phil Mote's finding of a 35% snowpack reduction is at least a few years old, so the gap between his 35% and the new paper's 60% may be smaller (although per Phil's comment he thinks they're not consistent regardless).

matt:
"Many ski resorts make their own snow. They can still have their resorts open with lower snowfall amounts because they produce their own snow. Plus I have no idea what the last section of your post means."

Response:
It is a well known fact that many ski areas make their own snow. However, with the incredible bounty of thick base-building snow in the Pacific Northwest, most resorts (Mount Baker, Crystal), don't at all. If they do, they make it early season and at low elevations. So your point is really a non-sequitur if we're talking about the Pac-NW... and really Western ski resorts as a whole.
Eastern Skiing is heavily reliant on snowpack as their weather is far more fickle.