Why cleaner air could speed global warming

[Big Don]

Why cleaner air could speed global warming

Aerosol pollution, which is now on the downswing, has helped keep the planet cool by blocking sunlight. Tackling another pollutant, soot, might buy Earth some time.

By Eli Kintisch The LA Times EXCERPT:

April 18, 2010

You're likely to hear a chorus of dire warnings as we approach Earth Day, but there's a serious shortage few pundits are talking about: air pollution. That's right, the world is running short on air pollution, and if we continue to cut back on smoke pouring forth from industrial smokestacks, the increase in global warming could be profound.

Cleaner air, one of the signature achievements of the U.S. environmental movement, is certainly worth celebrating. Scientists estimate that the U.S. Clean Air Act has cut a major air pollutant called sulfate aerosols, for example, by 30% to 50% since the 1980s, helping greatly reduce cases of asthma and other respiratory problems.

But even as industrialized and developing nations alike steadily reduce aerosol pollution -- caused primarily by burning coal -- climate scientists are beginning to understand just how much these tiny particles have helped keep the planet cool. A silent benefit of sulfates, in fact, is that they've been helpfully blocking sunlight from striking the Earth for many decades, by brightening clouds and expanding their coverage. Emerging science suggests that their underappreciated impact has been incredible.

Researchers believe greenhouse gases such as CO2 have committed the Earth to an eventual warming of roughly 4 degrees Fahrenheit, a quarter of which the planet has already experienced. Thanks to cooling by aerosols starting in the 1940s, however, the planet has only felt a portion of that greenhouse warming. In the 1980s, sulfate pollution dropped as Western nations enhanced pollution controls, and as a result, global warming accelerated.

There's hot debate over the size of what amounts to a cooling mask, but there's no question that it will diminish as industries continue to clean traditional pollutants from their smokestacks. Unlike CO2, which persists in the atmosphere for centuries, aerosols last for a week at most in the air. So cutting them would probably accelerate global warming rapidly.

In a recent paper in the journal Climate Dynamics, modelers forecast what would happen if nations instituted all existing pollution controls on industrial sources and vehicles by 2030. They found the current rate of warming -- roughly 0.4 degrees Fahrenheit per decade -- doubled worldwide, and nearly tripled in North America
END EXCERPT

 

[RandomPhantom700]

You're a little late posting this, BD. April Fools Day was over 2 weeks ago.

 

[Sukerkin]

It is nonetheless true, astounding as it might seem. I think I mentioned this in our last go around the Global Warming issue? Or was is the time before that?

Doesn't matter. Airborne particulates have worked to shield the planet from more severe warming effects and also, some studies argue, helped protect us from the worst of the ozone layer problem caused by CFC's :faints:.

Nothing we do either as individuals or as a species is ever simple ROFL.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

The entire science behind global warming, as I understand it, is that the particular pollutants retain the heat within the atmosphere, much like how a car window causes the interior to heat up even on a cool or temperate day. Now apparently they do the exact opposite?

Perhaps we're talking about different pollutants? One has one effect, one the other?

 

[Andrew Green]

The entire science behind global warming, as I understand it, is that the particular pollutants retain the heat within the atmosphere, much like how a car window causes the interior to heat up even on a cool or temperate day. Now apparently they do the exact opposite?

Perhaps we're talking about different pollutants? One has one effect, one the other?

Sounds more like tinting windows if looking at it from a car perspective. The window is there, and it's not going anywhere fast, by cutting down we remove the tint long before the window disappears. Making the problem worse before it can get better.

 

[cdunn]

The entire science behind global warming, as I understand it, is that the particular pollutants retain the heat within the atmosphere, much like how a car window causes the interior to heat up even on a cool or temperate day. Now apparently they do the exact opposite?

Perhaps we're talking about different pollutants? One has one effect, one the other?

Particulate pollution increases the planet's albedo, the total light (and therefore, energy) reflected to space. When light strikes the earth, it is later radiated back in the form of infrared radiation. Greenhouse gasses, most notably CO2 and CH4, absorb this radation, and turn it into atmospheric heat. This heat is eventually re-radiated, but this temporary retention is what makes the Earth a relatively comfortable place to live, instead of the roughly 0 F average temperature we would have without an atmosphere. It is arguable as to where the effects of human influence begin and end - but the more appropriate questions are ones that involve policy responce to observations that warming is happening, anthropogenic or not.

It is also a pertinent question to ask what the relative influence of removing the particulates from burning coal is compared to the influence of the addtional greenhouse that coal burning puts into the atmosphere. The right pollution helps, but it is like drinking a poison and an antidote at the same time? Have you got enough antidote for all the poison? Better hope so, cause dead is a binary state.

One of the more relatively possible forms of climate engineering that has been proposed is to seed the upper atmosphere with particulates, with minimal co-generation of CO2 - This works, and has been observed in the past in response to natural events - Pinatubo, Krakatoa, Tambora, Laki all produced recorded volcanic winters, with their massive ash outputs. The pertinent questions are of the form: Do we want to do it, can we afford it, and whose responsiblity is it, and who is allowed to pull the trigger and make the decision to do it? Many arguments can be made over the price, right, and responsiblity, but in the end, we have a sterling example of the overall power of the greenhouse effect available to us.

We won't get that far in the span of Human existance, but it can get very, very uncomfortable for our immediate descendants. They may or may not be able to adapt, but we shouldn't be the ones forcing that point on them. At some point, we have to make decisions not for now, but the deep future.

 

[blindsage]

I find it interesting that the OP conveniently cut of the last couple paragraphs of the article.

But surely the answer can't be to slow our drive to clean our air. One way to buy time might be to tackle another air pollutant that warms the planet: soot. In 2008, scientists estimated that so-called black carbon, soot's prime component, is responsible for 60% more global warming above that caused by greenhouse gases. Cleaner-burning diesel engines in the West and more efficient cookstoves in the developing world are the answer. But on both scores, "relatively little has been done to address the problem," says the Boston-based Clean Air Task Force.

In the face of severe climate risks, credible scientists are beginning to study geo-engineering -- tinkering with global systems to reduce warming directly. One scheme is to spew sulfates or other sun-blocking particles miles high in the stratosphere. If it worked, it would mimic the natural cooling effect of volcanoes, replacing the near-surface sulfate mask with a much higher one. But the possible side effects could be dire, including damage to the ozone layer. The potential geopolitical implications, like wars over the thermostat, could be devastating as well.

We might need geo-engineering to stave off the worst effects of the warming. But most climate scientists think we're not there yet. And so the most important thing we can do now is to train our sights on both the unexpectedly helpful sulfates and the unexpectedly pernicious carbon. We can't continue to only focus on traditional pollutants without reducing greenhouse emissions. We simply have to find a way to clean our air of both.

 

[blindsage]

Perhaps we're talking about different pollutants? One has one effect, one the other?

Yes.

 

[Rich Parsons]

But surely the answer can't be to slow our drive to clean our air. One way to buy time might be to tackle another air pollutant that warms the planet: soot. In 2008, scientists estimated that so-called black carbon, soot's prime component, is responsible for 60% more global warming above that caused by greenhouse gases. Cleaner-burning diesel engines in the West and more efficient cookstoves in the developing world are the answer. But on both scores, "relatively little has been done to address the problem," says the Boston-based Clean Air Task Force.

So Diesels with better fuel economy and poor emissions is a bigger problem to global warming than other factors. The US has rules that makes Diesels less cost effective by requiring emissoin traps and processing. While Europe promotes Diesels by taxing Gas/petrol and not taxing Diesel by magnitudes less.

But as to global warming, I still say it is a system that we have to look at and not just one piece and hang our hats on that one piece.

The system can be the Solar System to include Solar Flares and energy absorbed from the Sun.

But as to making it more managable, let us look at just the Earth.

First do some research:

1) Review all earth quakes in the last 10 years and locations and magnitudes.
2) Review the Magnetic Pole shift in the last 150 years
3) Look at Volcano eruptions in the last 50 years and where and the magnitudes

Then step back and let the data settle in and think about it.


The Core of the earth rotates to generate the magnetic field around the earth that is our major shield from radiation form the Sun.

As it spins energy is given off and it goes somewhere.
Where does it go?
Magma into the Atlantic Rift?
Pressure release from Volcano's?
Shifting plates which leads to earthquakes?


Now, step back and look at the science of the above and try to understand what can and cannot be done at this time.

Should research monies be spent on trying to come up with better measuring technology to get more data on the System (Earth)?


Of course breaking it down further to look at what the effects of Clear Burning of Rain Forests in Brazil and elsewhere do as well asn localized air quality (* LA Smog *) and see what can be done there.

But if you are going to talk about Global warming, I hope people actually look at the Globe/Earth and try to understand the system from even a very high level.