"Emitted by natural and human sources, aerosols can directly influence climate by reflecting or absorbing the sun's radiation. The small particles also affect climate indirectly by seeding clouds and changing cloud properties, such as reflectivity.
A new study, led by climate scientist Drew Shindell of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, used a coupled ocean-atmosphere model to investigate how sensitive different regional climates are to changes in levels of carbon dioxide, ozone, and aerosols. The researchers found that the mid and high latitudes are especially responsive to changes in the level of aerosols. Indeed, the model suggests aerosols likely account for 45 percent or more of the warming that has occurred in the Arctic during the last three decades. The results were published in the April issue of Nature Geoscience." Since aerosols are claimed to CAUSE global warming, I would like to question anyone's "scientific research" that claims to somehow help it by creating the destruction of our atmosphere with aerosol pollution. Also, Andrew claimed earlier in a private message that "Aluminium is not envisaged as a suitable candidate for geoengineering by most authors." I would like to educate Andrew on the situation in America, where geo-engineers at the IPCC measure Aluminum by the ton. Andrew likes to blame this problem on "volcano eruptions." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEfJO0-cTis I like to blame the problem on "ignorance." "Chemtrails exist only in the minds of believers." -Andrew Lockley I apologize, Andrew. Maybe I'm a "conspiracy theorist" for not calling it "stratospheric aerosol geo-engineering." Your weather modification program has murdered millions of people to date. I hope to God that you people wake the hell up and stop spraying "sulfur, metal, and dust" for "global warming." 7 lawsuits have now been filed against this program in the United States. Your "clouds" created by "persistent contrails" look absolutely disgusting. Like represents like, and like breeds like. I hope that anyone with any type of class whatsoever would recognize this and stop associating themselves with this program. Have a great, sunny day. On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Alan Robock <[email protected]>wrote: > Dear Russell, > > You are comparing apples and oranges, or apples and something that is not > even fruit. Are you doing this on purpose to fool readers or did you not > even read the papers and understand what was done? > > Here are the differences: > > 1. TTAPS looked at three scenarios of global nuclear war, and our > scenario was only 100 Hiroshima size weapons, with a total explosive power > of 1.5 MT (which could produce 5 Tg of smoke). So the scenarios differ by > factors of 67 to 6,667 in terms of explosive power and about 100 in terms > of smoke generated for the TTAPS baseline case. Why would you expect the > response to be the same? > > 2. The TTAPS model had no heat capacity at the surface, so it was a model > of the response in a continental interior. I think what you plotted was > our global average response. The globe is 70% ocean. So the global > average response would be more than10 times smaller than the middle of a > continent. > > Do you think anyone will be fooled by your figure? Wouldn't you be > surprised if the response did not differ by factors of 100 to 1000? > > > Alan > > Alan Robock, Professor II (Distinguished Professor) > Editor, Reviews of Geophysics > Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program > Associate Director, Center for Environmental Prediction > Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-848-932-5751 > Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644 > 14 College Farm Road E-mail: [email protected] > New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock > > On 9/26/2012 6:32 PM, Russell Seitz wrote: > > Here are the time-temperature curves of the 1983 'nuclear winter ' model, > and those of Robock et al. 2007 , superimposed on the same scale: > > > > http://s1098.photobucket.com/albums/g370/RussellSeitz/?action=view¤t=TTAPSROBOCK.jpg > > > > >>> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/jfeEpqIpJ0gJ. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
