Comments Phillip Huggan has made

  • missing negative forcing

    If soot is a previously unknown positive forcing, perhaps the temporary (soon to be extremely positive post 2025 or so) negative forcing comes from a 65 year ocean circulation cycle suggested by a new German computer model?:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7376301.stm
    ...suggests surface temperatures should be following the green dotted line.  But they are higher.  I'll hypothesize they are higher because of the soot underaccounting.  The scary thing about this graph is that it doesn't extend beyond 2025.  Beyond 2025, I think the ocean circulation pattern would cause a dramatic warming beyond what previous computer models suggested.  Another scary thing is the model suggests global climate is very sensitive to ocean currents, and most/all computer models underrepresent the amount of freshwater that will be delivered into oceans in the decades ahead.On New study: Ordinary soot second biggest driver of climate change posted 1 year, 6 months ago 14 Responses

  • soot sources and computer models

    Good point meander, about the soot sources.  I suggested soot from inefficient 3rd world stoves be addressed because I read a 2006 paper that claimed soot from this source is twice as bad as soot from, say, forest fires.  It isn't just soot that would be difficult to calculate as a CO2e.  C02 from airplanes is 2-4x as bad as from other sources.  Planting coniferous trees may result in a positive temperature forcing because of the reduced winter snow cover.  It is known hydro dams in northern or mid latitudes are generally okay, but in the tropics are "bad" (I think because carbon in tropical soils gets unsequestered).  Even something as basic as cloud climate forcing is dramatically affected by altitude.  I guess this is a warning for administrative structures to adapt to new scientific findings fast.

    The last time I attempted a layman's guess at unresolved science I was wrong (I thought fast melting Bering Sea ice cover was because of altered ocean currents but it was really changes in cloud cover), but I'll try again.  This new computer model: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7376301.stm
    suggests surface temperatures should be following the green dotted line.  But they are higher.  I'll hypothesize they are higher because of the soot underaccounting.  The scary thing about this graph is that it doesn't extend beyond 2025.  Beyond 2025, I think the ocean circulation pattern would cause a dramatic warming beyond what previous computer models suggested.  Another scary thing is the model suggests global climate is very sensitive to ocean currents, and most/all computer models underrepresent the amount of freshwater that will be delivered into oceans in the decades ahead.

    I also suggested focusing upon sooty stoves because of the health benefit, the 2x soot multiplier over other soot sources, and soot in general because it only lingers in the air for a few weeks; for this emissions source, the warming could immediately be reduced.On Why hybrids beat diesels posted 1 year, 6 months ago 21 Responses

  • sot as CO2e

    The logical conclusion of the March 24 2008 soot article, if the research is verified or if such verification takes to long, is for environmentalists to lobby the UNFCCC, UNEP, EPA and other such agencies to include soot as a CO2e in existing and future GHG reduction frameworks.

    By far the cheapest way to prevent near-term lung disease and long-term starvation/dehydration deaths in this regard is to rapidly induce (fund) the 3rd world to switch to clean burining stoves.On Why hybrids beat diesels posted 1 year, 6 months ago 21 Responses