Here’s a headline I thought I’d never see.
Why cleaner air could speed global warming
Now we hear that may be a good thing. Make up your minds!
This is an amazing admission of ignorance. It's been known for years that air pollution (SO2) is a negative climate forcing. This was detailed in the 3AR. I'm sure it's been known since before that. To act like it's now some new revelation is simply stupid.
And he's the science blog of the year? What a joke....
Actually David Appell, I'm quite certain the ignorance is yours for not recognizing a bit of satire when you see it. Or maybe it was purposeful. I'm asking.
And of course you dishonestly left out the rest of what I said, choosing only the part that suited your view:
"Though I think oceans have a good share of the cause too."
...meaning lower aerosols plus changes like PDO increasing a categorical percentage of the warming.
Of course I know about aerosols, I have an entire section on it at WUWT. See the "aerosols" in the categories selector on the right sidebar. The second story says
"Asian pollution delays inevitable warming" So yes I'm quite familiar with the issue.
Or how about the story below it?
From the BNL press release, some serious questions about climate sensitivity and aerosols.
Why Hasn’t Earth Warmed as Much as Expected?
And you know, if you really thought I was missing the point, you could have asked.
But no, don't let that get in the way of a good character assassination.
You've posted on WUWT with a "reasonable" stance. I've given you quite an extensive discussion opportunity there which you ended with a high note:
"2010/04/05 at 6:37pm
Thanks — it’s been fun. But I am unable to keep up with the comments here and still get my work done.
Perhaps I’ll be back.
You could have asked if I knew about aerosols and reflected -vs- transmitted, you could have looked at the section at WUWT on aerosols, your certainly are no stranger to WUWT, nor even unwelcome.
Yet you did none of those things, you made an assumption. You assumed I'm ignorant, then abuse me.
That is not professional at all. I thought better of you given the science magazines you've written for. I thought you'd at least do a modicum of checking before character assassination.
Of course, you can still fix it.
Watts' job is not to spread knowledge. It is to spread FUD and talking points.
Unintentional or not, the text and image of smog in LA form a poster on top of the news article.
That poster is the kind of thing that could be put up on a wall in a public place as propaganda. It shows a photo of smog, reminisces about an issue which people remember and then implies that some - unmentioned group - are changing their minds.
What is the point of the poster part of the article? It serves no educational purpose. It's probably just entertainment but I think many people won't get that. The text is not obviously satire, in fact the exlaimation looks like astonishment by the sheer lunacy of the suggested turnaround.
Look at that! Can't believe it! Those warmists are at it again! Now they are telling us that smog may be a good thing! Make up your minds! Something about the oceans.
Why not just post the news article on it's own? Or don't post it at all because it isn't news. Well to be honest people who are misled by those kind of posters on top of posts are probably a lost cause anyway, so you have my permission to carry on.
Regarding Anthony Watts,
Post a Comment