Who paid for this study?

HarveyD, study paid by someone who expects 'Field study finds soot particles absorb significantly less sunlight than predicted by models; climate models may be overestimating warming by BC'

These same soot particles kill up to 4.5 million people a year, according to new UN studies. That's over 10,000 people a day! I bet those folks weren't so concerned about the climate when they died!

It would be nice to see some mention and respect for those 45 million people who died from soot, during the past 10 years of "research" into climate and soot.

In any event, poly-aromatic hydrocarbons cause cancer so frankly, they should be removed from the energy process as much as possible.

I still feel that the burning of fuels in general is an antiquated use of them. Especially fossil fuels that are frankly too precious to be used in that way.

Is there a way to treat coal and other fossil materials to be processed efficiently in a fuel cell? Where are we on that score?

Harvey: I note you never ask that question when the results are pro-warming.

Rick: you mean the study on MINERS? Hardly representative of the general population..

Here's what I see.. yet ANOTHER scientific study, published in a respected, peer-reviewed scientific journal, that shows the global warming scare mongers are full of crap.

Then a bunch of responses from the usual warmists questioning the integrity of the study's authors, throwing out strawmen, and otherwise ignoring the science and actual debate.

Business as usual in climatology.

No, it's not saying that at all Aaron. It's saying that the method for calculating the absorption rate and spectrum of Black Carbon is not a simple one and further study is warranted. The fact that you can extrapolate some sort of "debunking" of man-made global warming shows that you are not really READING the article.

Go back and read it properly. It states quite clearly that BC as well as pure Co2 are significant factors in absorption of heat.

Aaron, if climate models have overestimated warming by black carbon it means they have UNDERESTIMATED warming by something else and that is bad news because BCs were the low hanging fruit in the fight against Climate Change.

Unlike carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses, which can survive in the atmosphere for decades and centuries, black carbon has a relatively short life span of approximately one to two weeks. Black carbon is part of a group of pollution sources known as Short-Lived Climate Forcers (SLCFs), including methane gas and ozone, which are produced on earth.

But hey, at least you got the "scientific study, published in a respected, peer-reviewed scientific journal" part right.

They could gasify coal, use the synthesis gas in SOFCs with gas and steam turbines for greater efficiency, then sequester the excess carbon.

Warming?

Where's the warming? It does not follow that something else is now more resposnible. That would be true if warming were still proceeding at the CAGW worst estimates.

Warming in NOT occuring at the rate the CAGW Chicken Littles predicted. their estimates from the likes of non scientist Al Gore, or the polemicist quack that Dr. Hansen has become.

This study merely identifies yet another reason that Warming was, and is vastly overestimated and not happening at CAGW rates.

Long before humans existed on the face of the earth, the earth was much hotter and colder and sea levels were much lower or higher. Coal and oil deposits formed during some of those periods. The seas alone can produce sufficient isotopes for energy to last the human race the life of the earth or billions of years and there is several times that amount of energy isotopes in the continents. If all the monies spent on fusion research had been spent on fission, there might have been a way discovered to get the fission energy out of lead, but it won't be needed because enough other isotopes are available until the expanding sun melts the earth in a few billion years. Fission energy is more sustainable than solar energy for humans and costs less.

Breathing 100 percent oxygen will kill quickly, but humans have adapted to survive about 20 percent quite well. This amount kills many organisms and destroys even so parts of human cells which have to be constantly repaired. Much the same is true about nuclear radiation; the cells can repair a certain amount of damage from internal isotopes and external rays. A single fission of an isotope is very unlikely to cause any human's death because there are 4000 a second internally alone and many more cells are repaired every second for oxygen damage.

..HG..

D, we're had this arguement before, and you lost. This time I'll just point out that you yourself are a non-scientist so you will get as much respect from me as you're giving Gore.

OTOH Al Gore did not claim to be a scientist and never gave any estimates himself. He only reported what the actual scientists were saying. Also Hansen, you may think he's a quack but if so he's in good company;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views_on_climate_change http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
"A total of 34 national science academies have made formal declarations since 2001 confirming anthropogenic global warming and urging the nations of the world to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases."

HarveyD, this study was paid for by 1) State of California CARB, 2) US NOAA, 3) US DOE, 4) US EPA, 5) US NSF 6) Canadian Fed. Government, and 7) Canadian Research Council

The opinion of these studies by professors and scientists are directly proportional to the opinion of the administration that is in office at the time. They know where their money is coming from.

Actually Jimr, the real opinion of scientists does not change with the opinion of the administration that is in office at the time. It's only the reporting and censorship of their studies that changes;
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0219-02.htm
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/abuses_of_science/climate-change.html
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/oct/14/nation/na-epa-climate14
http://go.ucsusa.org/RSI_list/index.php [note the list on this one is 743 pages long]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy
http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2004/02/62339
http://fuel-efficient-vehicles.org/energy-news/?p=697

The fascinating thing I find in those who continue to push a 'Climate change awareness' campaign, is the idea that they think that this will naturally lead to an 'emotionally healthy' change in values - witness the widespread emotional and lifelong productivity drop with this in rich countries who have needed to ration for an extended period. Further fascinating, that shaming or inducing fear will somehow make averting climate change more important than the daily dreams, goals, and values of those whose lifestyle choices include CO emitting activities. Not likely. It is as simple as weighing the balance of all the consequences of climate change against a widespread lifestyle reduction. Not going to happen, nor should it, for there is no combination of conservation, reduction, and retreat in lifestyle that will enable 7 billion people to live dignified, 1st world lower-middle class lifestyles. So, is all lost? Of course not, for consumerism, technology, and engineering are the answer as they always have been. These are the tools of improvement, advancement, and increased quality of life. Of course there is risk and uncertainty. But with these fundamental values pushed to noble ends such as in the search and development of high tech energy sources, reduced impact material extraction, and improved health and agricultural productivity with little CO emission, so can we all win. It just requires commitment and duty - and it is those things that are lacking and even being presented as contrary to sustainable and balanced-life goals. You will find that more people will contribute, and more devotedly in a healthy way, to an aspirational goal to reach than running away from a prevailing problem. That goal should be a post-scarcity society, and the result is that many of the climate change agents will be eliminated in moving toward that goal. Ask us not to consume or work less to avoid climate change but to increase in the activities we are doing to engineer an answer. Better to fail in aspiring to a world worth having than a guaranteed slow, psychologically and productivity decline and decay into a marginally lower emission but otherwise mediocre existence where no one's problems are resolved, only mitigated and offset. Climate change is a legitimate concern, but almost all of the low-hanging CO2 fruit has been picked, it is our time to push into victory not try to avoid defeat. There is no issue raised, over the timescales likely, that cannot be engineered to a solution. It is time to move us away from this begin a useless 'moral' issue that accomplishes nothing and move it to a potentially beneficial situation, as the old idiom says 'adversity is the mother of invention' even marginal and long-term uncertain adversity.

The "bright green" movement does not ask you to live in a cave and wear a hair shirt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bright_green_environmentalism

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/07/world/drought-around-world/index.html?hpt=hp_c2