Global warming? Global cooling!
Atmospheric researchers have provided observational evidence that burning fossil fuels has a direct impact on the solar radiation reflectivity of clouds, thereby contributing to global climate change.
Joyce Penner, professor in the University of Michigan Department of Atmospheric, Oceanic and Space Sciences, U-M graduate student Yang Chen, and assistant professor Xiquan Dong from the University of North Dakota Department of Atmospheric Science, reported their findings in the Jan. 15 issue of the journal Nature.
Most evidence that increased levels of fossil fuel particles (aerosols) affects the reflectivity of clouds, thereby producing a cooling effect on the climate, has been indirect. “This made it difficult to determine the impact this phenomena, known as the indirect aerosol effect, has on the global climate,” Penner said. “Our data makes the direct connection and opens new areas of study.”
Solar radiation, which adds to global warming, is reflected back into space by clouds. Cloud droplets are increased with higher levels of aerosols, allowing for less radiation, or heat, to reach the lower atmosphere. The end result is a measurable cooling effect on the climate.
Considering that 3000 people died to provide the data, you’d think it would be more discussed. Extensive studies on jet plane groundings during the 9/11 attack also show that there is significant man-made global cooling effects are underway. Anybody going to curtail their flying to help the environment? I thought not.
quoting from the article:
Anyway, increasing the aerosol content of the atmosphere was the “how much is the blue sky worth” option discussed in the Fixing Global Warming thread :-)
This isn’t news.
There’s even some notions that global warming increases humidity, which increases cloud formation, which in turn increases the earth’s albedo. So, we may just luck out and the whole issue proves to be a self-correcting problem. Wouldn’t that be nice?
That said, if you’re open-minded and want to step beyond championing the occasional outlier to bolster your argument, I encourage you to monitor the earth sciences section of sciencedaily.com (or some such). You’ll see that the bad news far outweighs the good news. And much of the good news isn’t necessarily all that good.
For instance, in the report you cite, note that only jets contribute to the formation of clouds. So, does that mean we have to fly more jets to balance out the increased pollution created on the ground? Sounds somewhat far-fetched.
I also find it slightly ironic that you cite old “good” news shortly after some recent news which is pretty bad:
Black Soot And Snow: A Warmer Combination
Soot ‘makes global warming worse’
There was also a recent bit about the vicious cycle between forest fires and global warming. I couldn’t refind the link. But there’s plenty via google.com.