I've read a little lately about Black Carbon soot, 'dust' particles and, a little surprisingly to me, micro-plastic pollution in the Arctic. Have any good links/insights you want to share?

"White and wonderful? Microplastics prevail in snow from the Alps to the Arctic"
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/1...6/10/11/114018

"Source apportionment of circum-Arctic atmospheric black carbon from isotopes and modeling"
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aau8052

"Short-cut transport path for Asian dust directly to the Arctic: a case study"
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/1...6/10/11/114018

Hello Mjolnir
I'll leave it to you to look up the tonnage numbers to compare man-made to natural (I don't want to spoil the shock) but here's a couple of good ones.

The first is a monthly average increase due entirely to man produced CO2

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon...centration.svg

The whole article is extremely interesting as, among other important issues, it explains why CO2 is so important... in fact outweighing the net effect of all other gasses combined. It's here....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon...9;s_atmosphere

The Big Oil proponents have recently switched from climate change denying. even the man-made variety, and instead now focus on what they call the benefits of increased atmospheric CO2, despite physical effects already currently displacing and damaging many but even the mutations in vegetation and effects on insects and mammals....

https://phys.org/news/2015-12-co2-at...h-century.html

That link only concerns plant life but articles about the devastating effects on deer, caribou, elf and moose ar so common you won't have any trouble finding plenty.

Why should I look it up when you brought it up? Please link a few papers.


Edit: I did find this: "The bulk of aerosols—about 90 percent by mass—have natural origins. Volcanoes, for example, eject huge columns of ash into the air, as well as sulfur dioxide and other gases, yielding sulfates. Forest fires send partially burned organic carbon aloft. Certain plants produce gases that react with other substances in the air to yield aerosols, such as the “smoke” in the Great Smoky Mountains of the United States. Likewise in the ocean, some types of microalgae produce a sulfurous gas called dimethylsulfide that can be converted into sulfates in the atmosphere.

Sea salt and dust are two of the most abundant aerosols, as sandstorms whip small pieces of mineral dust from deserts into the atmosphere and wind-driven spray from ocean waves flings sea salt aloft. Both tend to be larger particles than their human-made counterparts. ...The remaining 10 percent of aerosols are considered anthropogenic, or human-made, and they come from a variety of sources. Though less abundant than natural forms, anthropogenic aerosols can dominate the air downwind of urban and industrial areas.

Fossil fuel combustion produces large amounts of sulfur dioxide, which reacts with water vapor and other gases in the atmosphere to create sulfate aerosols. Biomass burning, a common method of clearing land and consuming farm waste, yields smoke that’s comprised mainly of organic carbon and black carbon." https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/Aerosols

Edit1: Latest figures for U.S. only: 6,676.6 MMT - Total 'greenhouse gases' https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/fi...ve-summary.pdf

I imagine you would like to be informed on a subject you seem want to discuss... apparently not. OK so here's the first hit

https://www.climate.gov/news-feature...man-activities

Not the case at all - just didn't feel like doing your work. There is also the fact that you asked for "amounts of particulate and gaseous materials contributed by Natural vs. Man-Made" which I have to assume is World wide, the totality of which I haven't seen published, at least not in one source.
I'm reasonably sure that anyone following this thread, including myself, was already aware that CO2 generated by Man far exceeds natural emissions, at least since the last great years long spate of volcanic eruptions.
That said, how about methane? Twenty-five times more potent than CO2 and, as the 2020 study I linked at post# 330 seems to indicate, no one has a grasp on how much hydrate emission is rising from the continental shelves of the World's oceans. Thousands of flumes bubbling up at seafloor temperatures once considered inescapable and as yet for unknown reasons.
https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/12/1561/2020/ seems to down play or miss hydrate emission: "The most important source of uncertainty in the methane budget is attributable to natural emissions, especially those from wetlands and other inland waters."

You lumped 'particulates' together when there is disparity in their effects on climate - some increase albedo and have a cooling effect, some such as 'black carbon' and 'brown carbon' do the opposite. I suggest you do more research of your own.

So your education has become someone else's work?
I think you just insulted yourself!

Lol, you missed the point, again. He/she posed a broad, unanswerable question due to it's scope and expected me to do the work - not gonna happen.

A little mid- November anomaly in Australia: https://twitter.com/RyanMaue/status/1459596075879251969

"Unprecedented mid-November cold continues across Australia on Saturday. Almost entire continent blanketed in cool Antarctic polar air."
Yes, yes, I know - just 'weather' not 'climate.'

Maybe you didn't read from the links I posted? One stated 60 times as much man made material as all the world's volcanoes. Links to actual tonnage abound.

Certainly methane is an important consideration, especially if sea temps unleash an accelerated amount of hydrates, but CO2 is more important for net effects because it lasts for hundreds, even thousands of years while methane does not so it's period of effect is far smaller by comparison... also mentioned in two of the articles I linked.

<facepalm> I'm not trying to prove average temps are rising, that's obvious. I am simply countering the idea that human activity is too samll to have an appreciable effect... up or down. If a solid study with objective, repeatable evidence surfaced today, tomorrow or whenever increasing the odds that there was no need for any concern over Human Caused Climate Change, I'd be overjoyed to change my thinking to adapt. It's be a serious relief of concern for my extended family at the very least. That wouldn't change my views that we are wise to develop cheap, clean, sustainable energy sources and abandon fossil fuels at our earliest convenience, but that's because fossil fuels present far more problems than just climate change and hopefully at some point we will achieve large scale nuclear means. Whether that is Molten Thorium Salt or some other fission reactor technology or fusion is fine with me, though I expect fission will come first.

Incidentally it is important I think to recognize that our knowledge of climate isn't binary. It isn't like we know it all or know nothing. We struggle along with what data we have gathered and making sense of patterns that show themselves over time. Thankfully the gathering of such data has accelerated over time and especially in the last 150 years, accelerating every year since. Here's an example, some news of new data which holds hope and others that could be threatening


https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/emissi...ekly20211112-1

https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/icy-gl...-shelf-breakup

Which of course is a position that I've never advanced and I'd remind you that you brought up particulates and aerosols at post# 342.

"Maybe you didn't read from the links I posted? One stated 60 times as much man made material as all the world's volcanoes. Links to actual tonnage abound."
Of course I read the link. It's not like the disparity between anthropogenic and natural source totals of CO2 is new to me. I've tracked NOAA CO2/ppm levels for years. In fact for a few years I put together a document correlating U.S. crop production, yearly temps. and CO2 levels and posted it on several forums:

https://www.hpcfactor.com/forums/for...sts=12&start=1
https://www.survivalistboards.com/th.../post-19347714

I haven't updated it in a couple of years - too many projects, too little time. As I've said repeatedly - climate change is real and the World is heating up. I just think that there are other facets to the story besides mass fixation on CO2.

Attached Thumbnails

 

Seriously, too much misinformation and willful ignorance here for me. I will be around, just not on this thread. bye.

Any reactions from folks to the final outcomes of COP 26? If everyone keeps their pledges (a highly unlikely scenario) the world seems on coursefor +2.4ºC by 2100.

You have to feel for places like Tuvalu, whose highest point is 4.6 metres above sea level. And when you start clicking links on unep.org you find very informed commentary.

1.5ºC is already very bad news for pollinating species. 2.0ºC is totally worse, so what's 2.7ºC going to be like? Food security is at stake. So, never mind the fine details, I'd prefer a focus on the big news.

+1 wpeckham
Report: ‘Whole of society’ effort must fight misinformation

So... are you an accredited climate scientist?