Co2DOOM is enjoyed by scorching earth connoisseurs everywhere.

War with soot and particulates, not with Co2

Here is an interesting article written by Brian Wang.  The article puts forth the argument that the world (governments and the IPCC) should address climate change through reduction of soot and particulates as opposed to Co2.  This is an interesting proposal, and Brian has backed it up with many facts, from the article:

  • Particulates currently produce 80% of the temperature increase compared to CO2.
  • Particulates leave the atmosphere in 2 weeks. So if particulate production were reduced by 50%, then in two weeks the impact would start to occur.
  • Particulates are black and absorb more heat. They darken ice and increase ice melting. White ice would reflect more sunlight.

Ok fair enough, those are some good points.   He then goes on to point out Euro 6 emissions standards shortcoming:

The costs of fitting a GPF (Gasoline Particulate Filter) to meet Euro 6 limits have been estimated in a range of studies. The respected ADAC estimate the cost is just €50, whilst the Commission12 is more cautious with a range of €40 - 130. It reduces the particulates from a car by 1000 times.

While this to us looks like something manufacturers were able to negotiate out of the emissions agreement, considering this not only reduces pollution but extends the life of engines.  

Mr. Wang then points out considering the Paris agreement:

The recent Paris climate agreement is based upon voluntary targets made and set by each country

We would like to point out he forgot the word "politicians" at the end of that sentence as it should of read: The recent Paris climate agreement is based upon voluntary targets made and set by each country's politicians.  

 

Idling vehicles of UN climate dignitaries who want US to cut emissions - YouTube

NOAA Adjustments Correlate Exactly To Their Confirmation Bias

NOAA Adjustments Correlate Exactly To Their Confirmation Bias