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?
I agree with Uncle Dave.
Deforestation, CO2, hockey stick graph, global cooling, global warming, climategate, now it soot.
This blog, bless it, has the WORST headlines ever. So…er…we’re STILL saying humans are influencing the environment, and C02 is still the “leading cause” but just that soot is a “second-leading cause of global warming AFTER carbon dioxide.”
So we should work on removing soot, which as this points out clears faster from the atmosphere, but is MORE difficult to reduce. Why? Because it’s from MORE sources. You have to control every tailpipe, stove, fire, etc, in 3rd world and developing countries. In the 1st world we’re (getting) much better at car emissions (just remember what they were like, and LA was like, in the early 70s). And C02 from coal plants or similar are easier to deal with because you have a relative small pool of sources (only SO many plants). But soot? That comes from millions of points. Much harder to get your hands around.
Or maybe Jesus/Vishnu/Isis/Thor/Shiva/Zeus/Quin Yin/Jehovah will magically save us. Yes, why do anything, lets just ask (insert your local god here) to save us instead. Problem solved. Next?
Uncle Dave wrote: “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?”
I wonder how many times they are going to say that climate models are wrong before we really know that global warming is a religion? And like many religions is based on observations of things we don’t understand or misinterpreted.
“How long are ‘previous models’ going to be wrong until we really know what’s causing global warming?” – as long as science and politics stick together over this. The first axiom of any “new model” should be to eliminate need that some human activity must be the most important cause. Than the bits of the puzzle will fall in place very quickly.
To the science: same as CO2 has two different and canceling warming/cooling effects in particular atmosphere of the Earth (more of it warms lower layers while cooling upper layers, than convection evens it up) soot does the same – it s responsible for a good part of “global dimming” which cools Earth reducing total incoming Solar energy while in the process in the article it warms atmosphere somewhat.
Sun is dominant energy source and the dominant factor of global warming or cooling. And we are not in charge of it.
No problemo.
Soot credits.
Nuf said.
Wait till they finally conclude that the chief cause of global warming is the exhaust of high flying jets.
Only flights 3000 feet up will be permitted.
“How long are ‘previous models’ going to be wrong until we really know what’s causing global warming?” //// What a retard!
Let’s ask instead: “How long are ‘previous models’ going to be wrong until we really know what’s causing humans to die before age 100?” /// You know, some say its heart disease and others say its cancer but hormones in the water are killing more and more each year. Its all based on the Sun anyway.
What a bunch of buffoons. Cant juggle more than one ball: just give me ONE SIMPLE THING to believe in and don’t give me ANY complexity at all!
And the ocean keeps rising:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level
8 inches in 100 years for about .8C of temperature rise. If that is the continuing trend, I’m not too worried. People like Joe Romm and James Hansen and Al Gore claim a much higher level like 4 meters in this century and twenty feet after that.
Man-made and naturally occurring CO2 COMBINED account for 3.618% of all greenhouse gases on Earth (Water vapor is 95%).
Man-made and naturally occurring CO2 COMBINED account for 0.0387% (0.117% is man-made) of the Earth’s Atmosphere.
Of all the billions of tons of CO2 man releases, this only makes up 0.117% of Earth’s atmosphere. Is our contribution significant?
The “scientific” consensus with the AGW crowd is that this 0.117% is statistically significant.
Mikey==not worried eh? and why would a continuously rising sea level not be of concern to you? You think New York City is on wheels?
Ha, ha. What a dolt.
The model is VERY CONSERVATIVE in its predictions of Sea Level Rise with many feedback mechanisms already being measured as stronger than thought.
But if you are dumb enough, nothing to worry about. Screw your kiddies, you’ve got yours right?
Ooops, the comment of (0.117% is man-made)was meant for the paragraph on man’s contribution of CO2 with respect to all greenhouse gases only.
Guyver–not that it matters but how can A be more than A + B?
What is your scientific basis for wondering whatever level of co2 is statistically significant or are you arguing from your own ignorance only?
But the general answer is yes==the models are based on co2 having that effect on the atmospheric temp, ocean temp/acidification and so forth.
Should be just as sensitive on getting the stuff out of the atmosphere as well.
10, Bobbo,
With respect to life flourishing, why has it ever been a problem?
Humans build homes in stupid places. So what?
Alarmist perspective based on models assuming causality with no empirical evidence. That’s not science.
12, Bobbo,
Clarified in post # 11.
Stupid question. You claim to be a man of common sense. Is man’s contribution of CO2 0.117% to Earth’s atmosphere statistically significant?
Self-serving models based heavily on assumptions of causality and factoring in all significant variables. Empirical evidence does not seem to be a concern.
I have no problem with encouraging people to be conservationists.
I do see a problem however lining up government coffers by means of a solution looking for a problem through coercion.
Guyver–hah, hah. You are spinning out of control. But sticking to three, and maybe that will help focus your “mind” since logic and relevance do not. You say:
1== 10, Bobbo,
why would a continuously rising sea level not be of concern to you?
With respect to life flourishing, why has it ever been a problem? /// The issue isn’t life flourishing, which I agree it will in all cases, but rather human civilization. Course, you and Mickey don’t worry about that.
2== You think New York City is on wheels?
Humans build homes in stupid places. So what? /// Exactly wrong. Its a stupid place only if it is going to be covered by water in 200 years. Stupid is rebuilding New Orleans, but thats a dance to a different tune. Even now, a “big” storm could flood the subways and basements of the financial district in NYC. But “life will still flourish.”
3== Screw your kiddies, you’ve got yours right?
Alarmist perspective based on models assuming causality with no empirical evidence. That’s not science. /// Thinking Person = “Words to the Wise.” Unthinking Retard = “Alarmist.” I posted Mean Sea Level rise as most take that as “irrefutable” when they get confused by the colder than last year temperature in their own personal refrigerators. It is hard to gauge how stupid an argument to make to try to connect with you Luddites.
#14–Guyver==you say:
1===12, Bobbo,
Guyver–not that it matters but how can A be more than A + B?
Clarified in post # 11. /// No, you make the error I stated.
2== What is your scientific basis for wondering whatever level of co2 is statistically significant or are you arguing from your own ignorance only?
Stupid question. You claim to be a man of common sense. Is man’s contribution of CO2 0.117% to Earth’s atmosphere statistically significant? /// Yes. A doubling of co2 in the atmosphere is predicted to raise the atmospheric temp by 3-5 degrees F in the next 100-200 years. And thats enough to raise the sea level by up to 20 meters.
3== the models are based on co2 having that effect on the atmospheric temp, ocean temp/acidification and so forth.
Self-serving models based heavily on assumptions of causality and factoring in all significant variables. Empirical evidence does not seem to be a concern. /// Self serving? Assumptions?? No one things/says all significant variables are included==just all the known ones? Or all the known ones that can be modeled? I actually don’t know the models that well, just the general reports issued from them.
4== Should be just as sensitive on getting the stuff out of the atmosphere as well.
I have no problem with encouraging people to be conservationists. /// Liar. There is no reason to conserve anything that is not a problem on its creation/consumption/waste.
5==I do see a problem however lining up government coffers by means of a solution looking for a problem through coercion. /// Having nothing to do with the issue. Good Boy.
15, Bobbo,
Like I said before, humans build homes in stupid places. New Orleans is another shining example.
I always bet on nature (which is why I will never own a house in a flood zone). Man in all his ego thinks he can control nature. Man may be able to hold nature off for a while, but in the end nature wins.
So you say. 🙂
So what’s the root cause of this? 🙂 I suspect you believe you know or that you’ll cite some sort of “scientific” consensus.
Ego talk. Try not to be so self-absorbed. 🙂
#17–bobbo scores TKO over Guyver.
Whats up? Too busy at work? Again, another failure to prioritize! Don’t post if you don’t have the time to actually respond.
16, Bobbo,
No man knows less than the man who knows it all. I was being sincere.
I have no problems with promoting conservationism and not pissing in one’s backyard.
If the liberals can pull wool over people’s eyes by “proving” 0.117% is statistically significant, then coercive legislation will come next.
But the bigger issue is you liberals keep expanding your belief in causality of the global warming trend. First it was CO2 and now soot is part of that equation. What’s next? Water vapor?
18, Bobbo,
???
LOL.
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