Here’s a headline I thought I’d never see. In the 60’s and 70’s we were bombarded with images like these:
Now we hear that may be a good thing. Make up your minds! Though I think oceans have a good share of the cause too. From the LA Times
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
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.
More at the LA Times
UPDATE: 4/19 Since one professional science writer (who will remain nameless for now since I’m giving him a chance to retract his personal attack) was unable to determine that the three intro sentences I wrote were poking fun at the fact that “clean air, a problem?” was a bit of satire, I thought I should include this caveat for those unable to discern. – It’s satire.
I suppose I’ll have to make this caveat from no on, since alarmists seem to have no capable sense of humor- Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“now we here” ??
Sorry too bee picky.
Typo police: “here” should read “hear” under the photo.
[Thanx, fixed. ~dbs]
A typo!
“Now we here..” should be “Now we hear..”
[Thanx, fixed. ~dbs]
Sorry, but incidence of asthma is increasing, not decreasing. Cleaner air is nice, but it is NOT decreasing asthma.
How to make a picture of a city look like it is smothered in thick smog; use a long telephoto lens, say 300-400mm maybe more, from a distance on a hot, sunny day.
What on Earth do we do?
Yeah, right.
So that’s the reason Global Warming is actually cooling. (But it will come back much worse. Worse than we thought!)
Just like the potato I string round my neck to keep the wild elephants in Yorkshire away from me. Effective, isn’t it?
Personally I’d keep on preventing the smog by cleaning up emissions. And I’d just let the climate Keep On Doing What a Climate’s Gotta Do.
Not exactly news this, but nice to see the LA Times has caught up.
So now the politicians have an excuse to tax and control us even more, because the more we c ut back on fossil burning, the more we contribute to reducing glbal dimming, which means more global warming – err I mean Climate Change – and we’re all going to die, and won’t somebody think of the children(‘s children’s children).
Anthony, you should change
“Now we here that may be a bad thing.” to “good thing”… otherwise it makes no sense.
[Thanx, fixed. ~dbs]
Quote – “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.”
Quote from former topic:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/18/new-weekly-feature-wuwt-sea-ice-news/
pgosselin (09:56:45) :
Joe Bastardi predicts a big melt this year. That’s my feeling too.
http://www.accuweather.com/world-bastardi-europe-blog.asp?partner=accuweather
(see THURSDAY 6 PM)
I’d be gratefull for a few comments on the issues touched by Mr Bastardi about the soot (ash in tropo) for example and its impact on climate in the context of this post of “Clean air, a problem?”
What I mean especially is “warming thruough cooling” (in FRIDAY NOONISH, Joe vs the Volcan, ICELANDIC VOLCANO NOT LIKELY THE WEATHER-CHANGING TYPE).
I think it is very interesting issue, not only to laymen.
Thank you.
Regards
I think that’s called “having your cake and eating it as well” – blame us for air pollution, but also tell us that things will get worse now that we’ve solved air pollution, by and large.
Oh, btw, typo in the strapline just below the photos – it should be “hear” and not “here”.
Keep up the good work, though. Love this site.
[Thanx, fixed. ~dbs]
“Now we hear […]”
[Thanx, fixed. ~dbs]
Obviously cigarette smoking must reduce global warming too. And drinking alcohol, and eating fatty foods.
So, CO2 – which may or may not have an influence on future global temperatures, or SOx which definately has an influence on current health.
I know which one I’d prefer.
We’re doomed! Whatever we do is only going to make matters worse. UK readers amy remember Corporal Jones and Private Fraser form Dad’s Army…masters of panic and despondency. Look like they’re back.
I’m just expecting a prophet to rise up somewhere and lead humanity once more to the Promised Land. If it takes the form of Michael Mann or Phil Jones I promise to shoot myself first.
Must dash – Four Horseman from the Apocalypse riding down the drive. And there’s a beast with strange markings……..looks like 666?????
Soot at the North Pole means warming.
Soot over China means cooling.
Clean air legislation ain’t helping.
What! Just who are these’scientists’ fooling?
Don’t worry, China, India and others will keep up the good work.
Even the few people I know who are AGW proponents believe they are being bombarded with ‘global warming’ scare stories, which are all too obviously BS.
The net effect is increasingly becoming the exact opposite of what the alarmists are trying to achieve – scepticism.
Clean air warmer temperatures no problem
Of course if you are a global warming scientist, then there are explanations for the cooling trends from the 40ties through to the 70ties and from 2000 until now.
During the first period it was caused by aerosols produced in North America and Europe. The second period of cooling is now caused by aerosols produced in China and India. This thinking was exposed in the Climategate emails.
This is a new form of science. In climatology proofs are based on assumptions and not by measurements.
Climate change can only by caused changes in the compositions of the atmosphere which is mainly caused by human activity, period.
This is why they now are so happy by the current eruptions in Iceland, despite interruptions in their traveling to the many climate conferences. The problem is that the ash from this eruption doesn’t reach high enough altitude in the atmosphere so that it stay long enough in the atmosphere to cause cooling.
However, this is not a problem for them, because the media impact is such that everybody will believe that this eruption will be the cause for the coming cooling when most natural indicators now are switching in to cooling modes.
In this context, what does “Hide the decline” really mean?
Ecotretas
Second sentence:
“Now we here that may be a bad thing.”
“Now we hear……..”?
Sorry to nitpick, AW!
[Note: try reading the five instances of reporting the error above first – mod]
All that aerosol theory is BS, perpetuated ONLY because the real explanation are oceanic cycles causing ups and downs. CO2 driven models can not explain early 20th century warming, nor mid-century cooling, both in contrast with CO2 trends.
Had the aerosol theory been correct, we would have seen the industrial parts of the globe like coal burning Ruhr area or Chinese industrial areas experiencing much colder climate that rural area, which is not the case. We would also see diminishing of Arctic ice during the coldish 60-80ties since aerosols should decrease the snow albedo, which was not the case – ice cover increased as well.
Aerosol theory is the ad-hoc fig leaf to cover the deficiencies of climate models, which can not explain even the sole 20th century record and plug in/out aerosols when needed.
This is it. So we need more coal burning then? And put the CO2 back in the ground? Some sick alarmist could actually propose it.
I’m very sceptical of the CO2 caused MMGW and luckily it’s losing credibility. But the forces at work seem to be on a collision course with human kind in general and modern society in specific. They will keep on trying to find a way to turn back time.
I’m getting so sick and tired of the discussion that I’m giving up on it.
I hope that the US and the UK will get their act together before things have gone completely the wrong way and beyond repair. I wish all of you the best in proving the nonsense of MMGW and providing the facts of science and climate. I’m off.
Perhaps instead of CO the reduction in aerosols at the end of the 20th century is the missing “forcing” that explains the 50% of the temperature increase htat cannot be attributed to natural forcing.
It also adds to the mystery of why the trees have a divergent problem from around 1960 because the aerosols have definitely reduced since then yet the trees are showing a drop in temperature.
Or, the trees are correct and someone has been cooking the temperatures to make it look as though they’re increasing. Nah, that’s impossible, isn’t it?
Eli Kintisch
Make up your minds!
Nothing wrong with the reasoning in your interesting text, only I get a
feeling your are hinting that climate policy supporters are confused and
should make up their minds?
The main point to remember is that whether emissions are
cleaner as today, or contained more sulpur dioxides and particulate
matter like they did before, the main constituent in terms of volume
was and still is carbon dioxide. So, in both cases the buildup of CO2
continues.
Cleaning up emissions in N.America and Europe was necessary due
to health and ecosystem impacts and will soon become necessary in
China too. Although reducing SO2 and particles was a success in the
former regions, the nitrogen emissions have not been tackled, the CO2
neither, and on top of that the fossil fuels reserves are depleting.
Ergo, since the fossil hydrocarbons, despite being excellent fuels, cannot
be our energy solution, the usefulness of aerosol shielding & cooling
are more tactical level than strategic tools.
Two examples: (1) China and India by burning coal as hell during
the next decades, could as a by-product get a cooling shield over
their own territories, but enormous amounts of CO2 would be spread
wide over the globe and warm up territories, which have better pollution control.
(2) there is international legislation coming (or already decided), which
would cut SO2 emissions of ships. Ships emit about 1/5th of total S02,
but in a diffuse way over a large surface. Here micromangement of SO2
could work; reprieve the law, consider subventions for shipping companies
to spread out the routes for more effect, consider subventions for
spraying water aerosols as the ships run, switch to low SO2 fuel when
entering ports.
Won’t the Iceland volcano provide some direct empirical evidence that can be measured re particulate effect? Plus, it should be quite easy to coordinate the ignition of 1000s of sooty fires, say from burning big piles of tires, to measure the effect of that on cooling.
These type of operations are relatively low cost and could provide direct empirical evidence of cheap ways to mitigate supposed AGW. If it is that simple, then it takes away a lot of the push to implement costly CO2 regulations across the world.