• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Atmospheric chemistry: Warming or cooling dust?

Lord of Planar

Lord of Planar

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
66,386
Reaction score
22,119
Location
Portlandia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
From Nature Geoscience:


Mineral dust particles interact with solar and terrestrial radiation. Statistical analyses of observational data and global simulations reveal that atmospheric dust is coarser than previously thought, and could cause warming of the atmosphere.

-----

The largest, by contrast, will also absorb longwave terrestrial radiation, and thereby heat the atmosphere in the same way that greenhouse gases do.

-----

Currently, assessments of the radiative effects of dust rely on numerical models to simulate dust in the atmosphere, including simulations of the distribution of dust properties such as size. However, comparison with observations indicates that models include large errors in simulated dust properties.
​

Atmospheric chemistry: Warming or cooling dust? : Nature Geoscience : Nature Research

The slow number of items over the years said to warn, or mitigate warming less, continues to appear.

I almost feel sorry for you AGW fanatics... Almost...
 
Lord of Planar said:
From Nature Geoscience:


Mineral dust particles interact with solar and terrestrial radiation. Statistical analyses of observational data and global simulations reveal that atmospheric dust is coarser than previously thought, and could cause warming of the atmosphere.

-----

The largest, by contrast, will also absorb longwave terrestrial radiation, and thereby heat the atmosphere in the same way that greenhouse gases do.

-----

Currently, assessments of the radiative effects of dust rely on numerical models to simulate dust in the atmosphere, including simulations of the distribution of dust properties such as size. However, comparison with observations indicates that models include large errors in simulated dust properties.
​

Atmospheric chemistry: Warming or cooling dust? : Nature Geoscience : Nature Research

The slow number of items over the years said to warn, or mitigate warming less, continues to appear.

I almost feel sorry for you AGW fanatics... Almost...
Click to expand...

many ppl think tha earth has global warmin cuz all tha forest fires
 
11Bravo said:
many ppl think tha earth has global warmin cuz all tha forest fires
Click to expand...

Well, the soot from the burning does cause warming in the atmosphere, and worse is the melting effect for any that falls on ice.

I don'y know the chemical composition of smoke from forest fires. There is obviously more than just soot. Other aerosols generally have a cooling effect because they reflect most of the light spectra, whereas soot absorbs almost all the light spectra.

Natural dust changes in concentration like most atmospheric constituents, but is short lived.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Well, the soot from the burning does cause warming in the atmosphere, and worse is the melting effect for any that falls on ice.

I don'y know the chemical composition of smoke from forest fires. There is obviously more than just soot. Other aerosols generally have a cooling effect because they reflect most of the light spectra, whereas soot absorbs almost all the light spectra.

Natural dust changes in concentration like most atmospheric constituents, but is short lived.
Click to expand...

thats scary
 
Lord of Planar said:
Well, the soot from the burning does cause warming in the atmosphere, and worse is the melting effect for any that falls on ice.

I don'y know the chemical composition of smoke from forest fires. There is obviously more than just soot. Other aerosols generally have a cooling effect because they reflect most of the light spectra, whereas soot absorbs almost all the light spectra.

Natural dust changes in concentration like most atmospheric constituents, but is short lived.
Click to expand...
The old saying is, Where there is smoke there is fire!" but the opposite really is true,
where there is fire there is always some form of smoke. (along with soot, CO2, lots of volitional organic compounds, ect.)
 
Lord of Planar said:
From Nature Geoscience:


Mineral dust particles interact with solar and terrestrial radiation. Statistical analyses of observational data and global simulations reveal that atmospheric dust is coarser than previously thought, and could cause warming of the atmosphere.

-----

The largest, by contrast, will also absorb longwave terrestrial radiation, and thereby heat the atmosphere in the same way that greenhouse gases do.

-----

Currently, assessments of the radiative effects of dust rely on numerical models to simulate dust in the atmosphere, including simulations of the distribution of dust properties such as size. However, comparison with observations indicates that models include large errors in simulated dust properties.
​

Atmospheric chemistry: Warming or cooling dust? : Nature Geoscience : Nature Research

The slow number of items over the years said to warn, or mitigate warming less, continues to appear.

I almost feel sorry for you AGW fanatics... Almost...
Click to expand...

Nice. You start a thread and link to an article that most can't read without having to spend money.

Why do you even bother?

longview said:
The old saying is, Where there is smoke there is fire!" but the opposite really is true,
where there is fire there is always some form of smoke. (along with soot, CO2, lots of volitional organic compounds, ect.)
Click to expand...

Not true. Most of the fire made in homes and business around the world used for heating does not produce smoke. If it does there is a problem with the combustion process. Especially with the burning of natural gas and propane.
 
Buzz said:
Nice. You start a thread and link to an article that most can't read without having to spend money.

Why do you even bother?
Click to expand...

Why don't you go see what one of your bloggers tell you to believe.

Maybe a question would be in order?
 
Buzz said:
Nice. You start a thread and link to an article that most can't read without having to spend money.

Why do you even bother?
Click to expand...

I've noticed this a couple of times lately. I think it might be part of his would-be "I am so an expert!" campaign :lol: [Edit: A suspicion further reinforced by his reply to your question, now that I've seen it.]

A less charitable interpretation would be that the results don't necessarily say what he wants to imply. As the paper suggests, atmospheric dust of natural origin is likely to have little or no trend over time. The anthropogenic fraction was estimated at 20-50% in the studies cited by the 2001 IPCC report, but this was substantially reduced in AR4 (and AR5), leading to an estimated impact range of -0.3 to +0.1W/m^2 from mineral dust in both the 2007 and 2013 reports (AR4 TS 2.2 and AR5 WG1 Table 8.5). As far as I can see this paper does not contradict that information, suggesting only that atmospheric dust's effect is closer to the higher rather than lower end of that range.

While Lord of Planar (very objectively :roll: ) attempts to make a jab at "AGW fanatics" in his post, it doesn't seem to change the estimated effects of anthropogenic global warming at all. At most what it might do after validation and further research is shift the attribution of perhaps 7-12% of greenhouse gas warming (~0.2/2.7Wm-2 to 0.3/2.7Wm-2) into anthropogenic dust warming. However it could just as plausibly end up meaning that the anthropogenic fraction of total warming is larger and the natural fraction smaller than previously thought.



Still, from a brief glance over a couple of papers it looks like a fascinating (and very complicated!) topic, so I'm glad it's been raised for discussion. For example while only two sentences of it met LoP's needs, a more complete excerpt from the OP paper provides some insight into the cycles and climatic effects of mineral dust:
The distribution of the physical and chemical properties of dust is highly heterogeneous around the globe and over years. Integrating this heterogeneity is a key difficulty in studying the effects of dust on climate. The lifetime of dust in the atmosphere is about a week or two, which is too short to be homogenously distributed throughout the atmosphere. It is, however, long enough for long-range transport via atmospheric circulation (Fig. 1). These properties and the lifetime of dust determine its radiative effect on climate. Currently, assessments of the radiative effects of dust6 rely on numerical models to simulate dust in the atmosphere, including simulations of the distribution of dust properties such as size. However,
comparison with observations indicates that models include large errors in simulated dust properties7.

The radiative effect of dust also depends on the reflectivity of the underlying Earth’s surface. For example, dust appears brighter to the human eye than the ocean surface (Fig. 1). Incoming shortwave solar radiation is reflected back to space by dust instead of being absorbed by the ocean, which results in a net cooling of the atmosphere. Inversely, over bright surfaces such as snow or ice, dust appears darker. The solar radiation is absorbed by dust rather than reflected by snow or ice, and therefore causes a reduction in the outgoing radiation that results in heating of the atmosphere. Over dust sources, such as desert, dust plumes may be undistinguishable from the surface, which results in no net radiative change.​
 
Last edited:
Buzz said:
Nice. You start a thread and link to an article that most can't read without having to spend money.

Why do you even bother?



Not true. Most of the fire made in homes and business around the world used for heating does not produce smoke. If it does there is a problem with the combustion process. Especially with the burning of natural gas and propane.
Click to expand...
Actually they all produce some form of combustion product, it may not be visible,
but it is there.
 
longview said:
Actually they all produce some form of combustion product, it may not be visible,
but it is there.
Click to expand...

Yep.

Without at least a catalytic converter, there is always some aerosols and unwanted gasses like NOx
 
Lord of Planar said:
Why don't you go see what one of your bloggers tell you to believe.
Click to expand...

Because I am not like most denialist who almost exclusively rely on bloggers. Nice troll though.

Lord of Planar said:
Maybe a question would be in order?
Click to expand...

O.K... how about a study we can all read and debate. Or do you just not like having to have a fair debate? Seams like you prefer to have an unfair advantage or want to talk about subjects that haven't been studied very much or is still pretty much speculation.
 
longview said:
Actually they all produce some form of combustion product, it may not be visible,
but it is there.
Click to expand...

Lord of Planar said:
Yep.

Without at least a catalytic converter, there is always some aerosols and unwanted gasses like NOx
Click to expand...

Not all combustion products are considered smoke. Smoke can be seen. And condensing water vapor is not really smoke.

Sorry guys but flames do not always produce smoke.
 
Buzz said:
O.K... how about a study we can all read and debate. Or do you just not like having to have a fair debate? Seams like you prefer to have an unfair advantage or want to talk about subjects that haven't been studied very much or is still pretty much speculation.
Click to expand...
Not many new studies fit that. If you think speaking from an informed point of view is unfair... Wow... This is science.
 
Buzz said:
Not all combustion products are considered smoke. Smoke can be seen. And condensing water vapor is not really smoke.

Sorry guys but flames do not always produce smoke.
Click to expand...

I don't think there are any carbon related flames that do not cause soot.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Not many new studies fit that. If you think speaking from an informed point of view is unfair... Wow... This is science.
Click to expand...

So your purpose for this thread was simply an attempt to create the impression that you have a scientifically informed point of view? Your intention clearly wasn't to inform and obviously wasn't to discuss, since you have not responded to my comments. However several of your posts have attempted to project this more-informed-than-thou attitude. If only your would-be stab at "AGW fanatics" hadn't fallen flat on its face and spoiled the illusion :3oops:

Mithrae said:
While Lord of Planar (very objectively :roll: ) attempts to make a jab at "AGW fanatics" in his post, it doesn't seem to change the estimated effects of anthropogenic global warming at all. At most what it might do after validation and further research is shift the attribution of perhaps 7-12% of greenhouse gas warming (~0.2/2.7Wm-2 to 0.3/2.7Wm-2) into anthropogenic dust warming. However it could just as plausibly end up meaning that the anthropogenic fraction of total warming is larger and the natural fraction smaller than previously thought.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Mithrae said:
So your purpose for this thread was simply an attempt to create the impression that you have a scientifically informed point of view?
Click to expand...
If believing that makes yo sleep better a night, go right ahead.

I saw an interesting article that like several others, puts holes in he IPCC numbers. thought it would be good to share it.

Mithrae said:
Your intention clearly wasn't to inform and obviously wasn't to discuss, since you have not responded to my comments.
Click to expand...
Some days, I have no time to waste time responding to being baited. Why should I bother even reading a post that earl on yo say: " I think it might be part of his would-be "I am so an expert!" campaign?"

Mithrae said:
However several of your posts have attempted to project this more-informed-than-thou attitude. If only your would-be stab at "AGW fanatics" hadn't fallen flat on its face and spoiled the illusion :3oops:
Click to expand...
Information of other variables is a good thing. I'm sorry y are in denial.
 
Lord of Planar said:
If believing that makes yo sleep better a night, go right ahead.

I saw an interesting article that like several others, puts holes in he IPCC numbers. thought it would be good to share it.


Some days, I have no time to waste time responding to being baited. Why should I bother even reading a post that earl on yo say: " I think it might be part of his would-be "I am so an expert!" campaign?"
Click to expand...

Then by implication, by posting such an insulting OP you likewise did not expect anyone to bother with that! So - yet again - the only probable conclusion is that the thread was not intended for discussion or to provide information, merely as an attempt to create the impression that you have a scientifically informed viewpoint. That being the case, my suspicion you've quoted there was apparently correct.

Rather than your suggestion that you were so terribly affronted by the fact that I can be just as snide and snarky as you at times (and rather more accurately so, it seems), it's more likely that your refusal to productively answer the substance of my post stems from the fact that the paper in question could indeed "just as plausibly end up meaning that the anthropogenic fraction of total warming is larger and the natural fraction smaller than previously thought."
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom