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?
#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.
damn. -please xcuse my grammatical errors in post #39. I only proofed it once with tired eyes.
-s
Thanks listening to him now.
sorry soundwash, but an hours’ listening and a browse of his giant military laser satellites manipulating weather signals a complete gook, no I’ll take that back, he has theories that maybe he has not fully tested.
We got lasers in planes that have limited demonstrations, but what is the mass of that system, into space, but to now zap hurricanes?!?
But he obviously has some off square thinking and a DIY mindset which I like. I’ll be listening in on him.
Hi cgp, apologies for the delay.
I appreciate your honesty, -and know exactly where your coming from -and would think him a “gook” as well if all i knew was what we all “know”..
For a few years now, i have learned how to read water vapour satellite weather images, and have become pretty good at spotting weather manipulation.
The problem you see, is that all the “good evidence” studies and research, are typically stashed behind the for-pay “walls” produced by Universities and Engineering organization. -most do not even show up in web searches.
Without major access to these data, all use average “joes” have no problem calling everything “unknown” quackery or conspiracy.
Once you gain a little insight and manage to lift the wool from your mind, *everything* you thought was just ramblings of madmen, appears before you as plain as the screen your reading this on.
If I may enlighten you with a “kernel of truth” as to McCanney’s claims of satellite guided weather.
Here is a 2006 abstract from a search I did on the IEEE site (The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers)
Title: Thunderstorm solar power satellite issues dealing with weather modification
Authors: Eastlund, B.J.; Jenkins, L.M. (note: Eastlund is the guy who held the patent for the HAARP array, amongst other nifty toys)
The abstract:
Source
So you see, McCanney is not just talking out his arse when he makes these claims. There is plenty of precedence for what he claims. You just have to know where to *look*.
You may also wish to look at all the abstracts on that page. They paint an even bigger picture and some clarity overall.
Also note: I think he uses the term “laser” mainly to simplify the concept. Visible lasers are “old” tech. you get far more efficient transfer and use of energy by using wavelengths which are not readily absorbed by the atmosphere. And your goal would be to change the electrical charge state of the storm, or its surrounding areas in order diffuse or lead it elsewhere. They really only refer to “heat” to keep inline with the whole fasad that weather and climate are products of the mixing of “hot, cold, dry and wet” and nothing more.
If i recall..most all the data revealed in the climategate scandal had almost zero reference or consideration for the effects the Sun (and cosmic energies in general) plays on weather.
Anyway, i hope the above has helped in a positive manner and further peaked your curiosity and perhaps, helped to make you realize, we never were in Kansas to begin with.
Lastly: if one abstract, a case does not it make..(and rightly so) then perhaps a small motherload of Laws, Bills and some other errata will help solidify the matter.
Enjoy!
-s
arrgh….could the OP please close the “strong” statement. i believe i forgot to close it.
I only meant to bold the Title.
ie: Thunderstorm solar power satellite issues dealing with weather modification
thank you.
-s