Sounds to me like a call to action for young people to choose chimney sweep as the ecological job choice!
A Stanford researcher has proven that reducing soot emissions rather than carbon emissions will slow the melting of Arctic sea ice faster.
Stanford researcher Mark Z. Jacobson developed a special computer model of air pollution, weather and global climate that has atmospheric processes that do not appear in other models. With this, he observed the effects of soot from both fossil fuels like gasoline, coal and diesel, and from solid biofuels like dung, wood and manure. According to his findings, both types of soot combined together is the “second-leading cause of global warming after carbon dioxide.”
Climate models previous to Jacobson’s have misread the effects of soot in the atmosphere, hence, it has been ignored when it comes to national and international global warming policy legislation. Soot is now second place in the global warming contribution ranks, putting itself above methane. Soot also “prematurely” claims the lives of more than 1.5 million people each year, and causes respiratory illnesses in millions more worldwide.
While decreasing carbon emissions is important and at the top of the list, reducing soot emissions from fossil fuels and solid biofuels could slow the progression of global warming almost instantly. Jacobson came to this conclusion because soot only lingers in the atmosphere for a few weeks, and then it is washed out. Contrarily, carbon emissions stay in the atmosphere up to a century, which is a large gap of time before visible results of emission cuts are available.
Hmmm… “Climate models previous to Jacobson’s have misread…” Statements like this keep popping up. How long are ‘previous models’ going to be wrong until we really know what’s causing global warming?
What I “meant” was don’t post if you are putting your job/job performance at risk.
As to the sensitivity of the atmosphere to levels of Co2, there are websites/posts dedicated to it. But I’m not going to start with having to argue the earth is a globe and not flat with you.
Arguing ONLY FROM incredulity really is shameful.
Bobbo, I’m not worried about 8 inches of sea level rise. I am worried about 8 meters of sea level rise.
#22–Mike==good man. Course, you can’t get to 8 meters without going thru 8 inches, but at least you are on the right team. It does all add up and it is a long term trend on the order of 200 years from now, give or take. Whats happening NOW is the argument on whether or not we are already at or past the “tipping point” variously defined as even if we stopped increasing our co2 input, or if we reduced to zero our input, how much will the ocean go up in the next 200 years. Not even a relevant issue when its clear hooman kind is hell bent to keep adding as much c02 as is possible.
Maybe I should have said “Beijing in not on wheels?”
Not at all clear that 8m or even 8 feet is in the cards. The last 12 years show roughly no warming, peak to peak. This leads me to think that overall warming will be on the lower end of projections, not the higher end. I tried to test this, but The Climate Explorer does not show any model runs outside a very narrow range, high or low, so testing to see which ones are closer to the actual results for the first 10% of the forecast is not available.
The various models are themselves the results of different physics, initial value of the environment, and parameterizations to make the models run with available computers. I have seen where changing a few key variables in a model changes the output from 6C, all in the same physical model. Just changing the aerosol and cloud effect was this huge. Unfortunately, at the time I had no idea that the first ten years would be flat, and didn’t think to look at the results for ten years between the models.
There is only “no empirical evidence” only if you choose to ignore what evidence there is. The earth is warming. The scientific community, save a couple weathermen, abandoned the idea that sunspots and solar flares drove global temperature shifts, back in the 1920′s. So what be the cause? Or, like blood letting and scientology, do you guys choose belief over reason. Many of the climate models have been shown to underestimate the effects of global warming, so by your reasoning, or lack thereof, does this make the models not alarmist enough? Or do you once again choose to believe they are wrong as well because they belie your beliefs? Check out the studies done on temperature rise in the days following 911.
A semi related question to the denialists. Kirsten Sanford, Stupid , corrupt or gullible?
Finally, a “transparent” study.. (lol)
I eagerly await to see the attempted (and vague) Climate / Energy bill amendments based in part, off this study.
One of the amendments will likely read as follows:
Any source of particulate matter (soot) expelled into the air must be fitted with a yet-to-be-invented “device” of astronomical cost.
For those particulate emissions who’s sources are produced from the creation, use, or burning of “fossil fuels,” a cost multiplier of 10x is to be affixed to the aforementioned “device”
All Corporations who’s Gross yearly profits exceed $1 billion, will be allowed to purchase “particulate offset credits” at a ratio of $ -10³ per metric ton of particulates, from the Outer Cayman Island Keynesian Exchange (CIKEOUT) -described elsewhere in this Bill.
Appendix A: These offsets are only to be made available to Foreign and Multinational based corporations. all U.S. based Corporations and LLC’s are forbidden from participating in the CIKEOUT program, or any other program that could result in the breakout of prosperity or economic growth in America.
Appendix B: The particulate device may never be located near, or combined with, the “carbon dioxide offset device” as this would cause the Federal Astronomical Cost Calculator™ to malfunction, which of course, would result in the immediate breakout of prosperity, economic growth and Liberty, in America.
-s
-as few others have mentioned, look to the Sun and Space in general for all causes of “weather” -earthbound or otherwise. -and of course, Electricity.
I thought particulate pollution like soot actually contributed to global cooling because it would nucleate more clouds and increase global cloud coverage.
Global warming is undeniably caused by human activity. It’s caused by politics.
I’m sorry but maybe I’m missing something. Isn’t soot ALSO carbon?
If we’re talking carbon emissions, wouldn’t that include soot?
The latest Alarmist Review here:
http://huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-sachs/making-sense-of-the-clima_b_667075.html?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=080210&utm_medium=email&utm_content=BlogEntry
#25 The connection between the little ice age and vastly reduced sun spot activity is as solid as anything going. We may not understand what was going on but then that is the entire problem with climatology. The science is most definitely not in.
We don’t have enough valid data nor do we even know what data we need to stick in the modals nor do we have computers powerful enough to crunch the numbers and last and not least we can’t even predict some of what we need to know to make long range climate forecasts that aren’t crap.
Predicting solar activity for decades at a time is not an exact science and there is no question that it impacts both weather and climate.
Gee Do-ill quite the ego going there substituting your ignorance for the developed body of climate science built over the decades.
Once again, everything you post is wrong. I can only accept on faith that you get some sort of perverse pleasure out of crowing your ignorance.
Silly Hooman.
One on RealClimate’s top global warming scientist bloggers, Gavin Schmidt, inadvertently threw his co-global warming scientist blogger, Michael Mann under the bus.
http://climateaudit.org/2010/08/01/the-no-dendro-illusion/
#33 said..
–snip–
–snip-
I call 1st dibs on driving the bus.
..and second dibs.
(-just in case he starts getting up)
-s
Is there anybody out there with a mind, who can use it?
by molecule count CO2 in the atmosphere is 6 molecules per 10,000.
IF we take the 3 percent contribution by man (I have not researched that figure), … then the ratio goes to 2 molecules per 100,000.
Now whatever radiation that goes up and vibrates these molecules what temperature increase do you think this would produce?
The AGW man-pig-bears have taken a fantastic analytical tool that can detect parts per million by shining a minute amount of radiation which some parts of the spectrum are absorbed and completely BS’ed those without the use of their minds into believing that this is a macro thermal phenomena.
Guess what, the heat of the day is transferred via thermal conduction and water vapor transpuration into ground air (involving all the molecules) which goes up due to hot air density reduction.
Will there be an credit exchange for soot?
And I always thought Algore was a dirty politician!
cgp==refute this guy:
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/04/19/radiative-physics-yes-co2-does-create-warming/
Bobbo, there is nothing to dispute in the absorption physics. A molecule will absorb some radiation. But look at the trace numbers. The commenters put him straight as to other factors. He after the comments puts in the following refutation. Mild! Now about nothing!
absolutely and unequivocally did NOT calculate atmospheric sensitivity. I have not proven that any of the warming would even be measurable with current instruments. I’ve written nothing about feedback,convection or anything else. You have found a number of good issues which need proper addressing to claim CO2 is a dangerous warming gas, I have demonstrated that despite that problem, CO2 is at least a mild warming gas. Mild meaning anything between 0 and 2C per doubling with possible additional feedback warming or cooling coming from other things.
#38 cgp…
I commend and greatly appreciate your out of the box thinking and actually taking to the time not only use your brain, but actually think critically about the world around you. I feel you may be open enough to appreciate some illumination about how our weather (as well as the universe) really works. Especially if it comes from someone with a long history who is very well credentialed and has even taught Physics at the University level here in the states.
If you’ve gone this far, now is the time to take it much much further.
Last night I was organizing some old shortwave broadcasts & podcasts that I have which relate to science and other topics which are by academia or military people who actually have done their own research and discovered, like so many others who, after actually looking deep into the many data and maths which supposedly explain how everything around us works, realized in short order, much of it cannot hold water under even the most minute of scrutiny.
Anyway, one such person is James Mcanney. he is an old University level Physicist Professor and much more.
I figured since most people only think that those with a major background in higher academia and PhD’s, have the ability to know or tell “the truth”, they may be more inclined to give McCanney a listen.
My intention has always been to discover the Truth and share it with as many as possible. When it comes to the Sciences, Weather, The Universe and now Metaphysics, I have always tried to enlighten people as to the real Truths when I myself finally understand them in hopes they will snap out of the fictions and begin to see for themselves, just how deep the levels of misinformation go, as well as how many decades if not centuries, this as been going on for and why. (across all topics possible)
I ran across McCanney’s Science Hour last winter. When he started talking about the Plasma-Electric model of the Universe, I was like “holy crap, there really are actual American born and raised academia types who know the *true* physics behind celestial bodies, the universe and how Earth’s weather systems are actually driven. And in this case, most importantly, he’s not afraid to talk about it in public. (hooray!)
Turns out, his once a week shortwave broadcasts are well grounded using “the old” empirical method of science and explained well with laymen in mind, and he does this without alienating those already privy to the subject matter.
Here is a brief snippit of his Bio:
I think that is a pretty good indication of someone who is well grounded, been around the block a few times, and yet still respected in his field(s)of work.
I feel his recent broadcast from May 20, 2010, which is about one of Jupiter’s bands suddenly disappearing, makes for a decent introduction to him the Plasma Model, and the tragedy that our modern sciences have been for some time now. In this particular broadcast, he does a brief background re-hash for new comers of the plasma model, electric weather, and his broadcast in general.
Some topics covered:
- Several newly discovered” planetary phenomena, (some of which he predicted back in the 70′s at Cornell University (and is documented in his books),
- A comment on the problem with the physics behind the currently accepted “dirty snowball’ comet model, in spite of all the new data the completely refutes it. Also explaining how and why NASA has to keep the charade up.
- Comments on new data from the Mars rovers that contradicts currently accepted solar system models
- Explains what drives storms, hurricanes and tornadoes.
- A brief update on the Gulf Oil spill and some contradictions in the reports of it.
—
He is nonchalant in his explanations and makes extra effort explain things in simple, yet relevant terms.
He is very good in explaining the why’s and how’s of the charades that are maintained in science, should it be relevant to the subject matter for the weeks topic, and uses very simple facts or observations, depending on the data available to explain.
–
One hour is all I ask for you to make your own decision.
–
Link to the http://jmccanneyscience.com/JamesMcCanneyScienceHour_May_20_2010.mp3” rel=”nofollow”>May 20th, 2010 program. His “>main Radio Archive page where you can find all his broadcasts going back to around 2003 and his front page.
Note: his website has always been, well, -butt ugly. However, he makes up for it in huge spades with all the real knowledge information and he provides in his broadcast
articles and books. no candy coated BS.
Enjoy.
-s
damn. -please xcuse my grammatical errors in post #39. I only proofed it once with tired eyes.
-s