Global Warming and Air Pollution

I guess "The Science" (tm) isn’t so settled after all.

“The Science is Settled”

The Washington Post ran a story today, which calls into question whether global warming is man-made.

Two new studies offer a potential explanation: fewer clouds. And the decline in cloud cover, researchers say, could signal the start of a feedback loop that leads to more warming.

Researchers are still unsure exactly what accounts for this decrease. Some believe that it could be due to less air pollution: When particulates are in the air, it can make it easier for water droplets to stick to them and form clouds.

Another possibility, Goessling said, is a feedback loop from warming temperatures. Clouds require moisture to form, and moist stratocumulus clouds sit just underneath a dry layer of air about one mile high. If temperatures warm, hot air from below can disturb that dry layer, mixing with it and making it harder for wet clouds to form.

But those changes are difficult to predict — and not all climate models show the same changes. “It’s really tricky,” Goessling said.

The scientific papers cited in this article document that reduced aerosol particulates in the sky appear to be causing a decrease in low-cloud cover. This is because water surrounds such particulates and causes cloud formation. So the decreasing cloud cover, particularly in warmer regions, is causing temperatures worldwide to increase.

---

*Albedo is the fraction of light that a surface reflects.

Another preprint study conducted by NASA confirms these findings. That study reaches back 23 years to the present, to verify their results.

Less air pollution could be the reason for global warming…

So although the peer-reviewed paper doesn’t clearly articulate why this is happening. According to the Washington Post, many scientists believe the most reasonable explanation is that less air pollution worldwide is causing less cloud cover, causing the earth to warm faster than predicted. Others believe it is a feedback loop from disturbed cloud patterns, which is causing the decreased cloud cover.

But scientists don’t know why there is decreased cloud cover worldwide and are in hypothesis generating mode for an explanation, because the science isn’t settled.

Spin, spin, Spin

The Washington Post story hypes these new studies that suggest a counter narrative to CO2 causing global warming as just accounting for the last two years of increased global temperatures (on average). But this is not actually what these new papers show. Clearly, when Pravda on the Potomac is willing to publicly question the climate change narrative, we have reached a turning point.

---

The Cost of Another Out of Control Public Health Response:

After going back and forth with various AIs on how much money the US government has spent on climate change initiatives, a very rough estimate can be placed, almost half a trillion dollars since the “problem” was identified.

Whoops!

This was a half trillion dollars of our money to fight a problem that mainstream scientists now admit most likely isn’t caused by all the “usual suspects.”

To think that the US government, in their panic to combat global warming, has spent almost a half trillion dollars to hamper the US economy, restrict consumer choices, force EV and environmental mandates, and to force the stoppage of domestic drilling for a product that may actually reduce global warming.

It turns out the science isn’t so settled after all.

Of course, geo engineering involving cloud seeding will conveniently increase cloud cover. So, one hypothesis is that this is all about justifying high altitude cloud seeing/geoengineering programs.

When NASA scientists are publishing papers with information counter to the propaganda being deployed, I think it is safe to say that the real data no longer fit the hypothetical model. And no, it doesn’t take an atmospheric scientist to figure that out. Regardless, it is clear that the promoted narrative involving increasing CO2 levels driven by human activity, fossil fuel use, and cattle is no longer “settled” science.

But what will we do with all those electric vehicles when their batteries no longer work?

Under O’Biden, scientism had become the new religion of the Federal Government. Maybe we need a new executive order to clarify this will no longer be the case?

---

---