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.
there was this guy, i don’t remember his name, that did a nice study after the 9/11 air traffic shutdown that showed the effect of the pollution made by planes on the reduction of temperature.
I’d rather be warm and clean than cold and dirty
What is the hard evidence on this? Was there not some time back a study suggesting that aerosols are in fact warming rather than cooling?
Everything causes global warming. Or was that nothing? Yeah, that’s it…
Everything _and_ nothing causes it!
Now where’s my Nobel?!
They say if you start to think everyone else is crazy it may be time to check your own sanity. Is it just me?
So much bad science, and so little time….
So to summarise:
1. AGW is real, and now catastrophic events are unavoidable.
2. Catastrophic AGW events haven’t taken place because of the Sulfates.
3. Cutting the amount of sulfates will speed up the effects of AGW.
4. Not cutting industrial emissions will lead to even worse AGW.
5. Lowering soot will help reduce AGW.
6. Geo-engineerng may mimic the cooling effects of Volcanoes.
….Well theres your problem solved, we need more Volcanoes, actually, i’ve got one I prepared earlier, its barely ticking over now, give the word and i’ll crank it up.
This is the real “decline” that the wikipedia climategate gang really tried to hide and the climategate emails show the (failed) climate forecasters knew the decrease in particulates was potentially a BETTER explanation of the warming than CO2.
This is the main cause of the sharp rise in temperatures at the end of the 20th century which is the phallus of the global warming religion. Take away that sharp increase and all you’ve got is the fact that when we measure temperatures today using electronic measuring to milliseconds devices we measure them higher than they used to be when they were measured by hand in the warming/cooling sun at times set by sundials using mercury thermometers which weren’t calibrated from one decade to the next.
Typo “Now we here that may be a bad thing” Should be Hear 🙂
[Thanx, fixed. ~dbs]
I wouldn’t worry about it. We probably have more muck in the air over Europe at the moment than could be produced by a billion factories over the next billion years.
More seriously, a simple historical view makes this theory look very doubtful to me. The development and spread of the industrial revolution coincided with the ending of the Little Ice Age. Had pollution reduced temperatures we would have seen the reverse.
We would not be seeing Urban Heat Islands we would be seeing Urban Cold Islands.
Fart proudly.
Since there’s no evidence that CO2 causes warming, then why are they still pushing the lie?
The Vostok ice cores show that CO2 lags every major change in temperature.
Typo?
“Now we here that may be a bad thing.”
Now we hear that this may be a bad thing.
I think these lines may need cleaning up.
“Now we here that may be a bad thing. Make up your minds! Though I think oceans have good share of the cause too. From the LA Times”
[Thanx, fixed. ~dbs]
I might be uninformed, but wouldn’t a layer of smog help trap heat into cities, increasing the UHI?
Iceland is working on the global pollution layer though, so need no to despair for the easily alarmed.
Surely this is easy to test empirically for the many places that have good records of the level of their air pollution. As aerosols last only a short time in the atmosphere, all one has to do is to check whether local temperature increases over a longer period are correlated to longer-term reductions in air pollution in the same places.
Right people, I have a theory:
As I stated before, since the jet airliner ban here in the UK, we’ve been getting crystal clear blue skies – without even wisps of cloud. It’s coincided, and seems to be directly related. So…
Could global warming actually be caused almost entirely by jet airliners? Let me explain. Clouds (formed by jet engine droplets) would cause LOWER daytime temperatures, but would cause HIGHER nighttime temperatures. And it’s just this, the Diurnal Temperature Range between day and night temperatures which is indicated as giving us higher overall temperatures. Remember that warming is chiefly Northern Hemispheric – and that’s just where most of the aircraft fly.
I would be pleased to hear your thoughts.
Ok.I am confuzzed.SO putting less pollutants into to the air is bad,but so is a non-pollutant called CO2.Isn’t it about time we hauled the Goracle into to court for fraud?
This is nonsense on stilts. Nothing is really known about the effect of particulate aerosols, except that it’s used as a fudge factor in the models whenever they need some cooling. We’re not even sure of the sign of the effect of aerosols.
It never ceases to amaze me the stuff so-called journalists will swallow.
Black is white, warm is cold, high is low and true is false….
Makes me want to cry (but I’ll laugh instead).
(1) “the world is running short on air pollution”
(2) “cutting them would probably accelerate global warming rapidly”
The first statement acknowledges that air pollution has been cut. Yet warming has been negligible or even reversed this century, thereby refuting the second statement.
So is China, one new coal fired power station a week reportedly, saving us from the dreaded warming? Life is very confusing…
Also can someone clarify; does a lot warmer temperatures in the arctic regions lead to lower average temperatures elsewhere if the average world temperature only increases by a fraction of a degree? Something seems wrong somewhere!
“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.”
CO2 is supposedly a major problem precisely because it stays in the atmosphere for so long. The length of time it stays in the atmosphere is talked up by AGWers.
So, applying that logic, if aerosols last a week at most, cutting them would have MINIMAL effect.
Or is this another case of how all logic applies only in one direction.
“…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.”
They haven’t a clue! They need to get a proper fix on the complex effects of all gases/water vapour and aerosols (both natural and man-made), before trying to model future impacts.
More risible Cargo Cult science from the CAGW ‘team’.
When will they produce a meaningful hypothesis which is capable of being falsified?
Nothing like a “Heads I Win Tails You Lose” scenario to screw us all up!
This can’t be a UNIPCC sponsored article as they are pronouncing that CO2 stays in the atmosphere for centuries! The IPCC at leasetonly claims 1 century’s duration!
I see a computer model based precautionary principle risk averse PDR of EU regulation is at the bottom of the blanket ban on air flight!
Should read “least”. Apologies. Here’s what I should have added:-
http://blogs.euobserver.com/waterfield/2010/04/19/cowardly-europe-has-lost-its-nerve-over-volcano-ash-and-this-absurd-air-travel-ban/