I find it pretty funny when the hysterics promote a certain action thinking they are saving the earth from climate doom. Because they have lost so much credibility in recent years due to excessive fearmongering, their response is predictably to ramp up the doomsterism to an even higher level. One big target was to limit ship emissions, which due to diesel burning caused high levels of particulates and sulfur dioxide release. So that was brought under control, but according to this and other research the effect of this has been to make the earth warmer because those emissions led to more clouds which helped keep things cooler. Although not stated by the authors, this is an acknowledgement that clouds are likely the key regulator of short and long-term temperature trends and we don’t know all the impacts humans might have had on clouds, but it seems to be the case that nature adjusts for a perturbation by creating more or fewer clouds. If the hysterics are so concerned about warming, maybe they should look to increase shipping emissions.
Note that what this is really saying is that in the absence of this human intervention to limit another human intervention, the temperatures would have been higher over the last few decades, which the climate hysterics will only take to mean we are burning up even faster than they believed. The authors fall firmly in this camp. To me all it suggests is that there are natural cycles, and we have no clue what would be happening in the absence of the extensive spread of human activities around the globe, but it is unlikely that we have substantially perturbed the system in a direction it wasn’t going already and that the system will reverse direction whenever it feels the need to do so, all according to natural cycles driven by a very complex set of factors. (Nature Article)
