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.
English Pensioner (04:08:44) :
… carbon dioxide is coming from the Icelandic volcano? This is the real reason why aircraft can’t fly as the lack of oxygen causes the engines to “flame out” (as with BA9 in 1982).
You’ve discovered the secret, sir. It causes us pilots to “flame out,” too, and our union is behind it all. Please don’t spread it around, as contract negotiations are in the offing.
Old news. I did a story on this back in July ’08: http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2008/06/common-climate-misconceptions-why-reducing-sulfate-aerosol-emissions-complicates-efforts-to-moderate-climate-change/
😛
REPLY: Tell it to the LA Times then, don’t complain here – A
One must laugh at the swings and balances that Mankind is responsible for.
I often think political leaders have god complex. And then in the morning and the cold light of day I know they have.
In Business practice there is a rule, 80 per cent I own or can influence.
In Maths Physics the rule is different, I control nothing. I am only an observer.
The observer does not contriol the universal experiment. We never have.
Pollution, Sustainabilty make sense, but this inverse Terrafrom none.
If the system disrupts it will.
Hubris.
They speak like gods knowing the infinite.
The world is over their bullshit. Show or fold.
Busted straights.
Inside straights.
Coulda woulda and shoulda.
Leave the clothes at the door.
I’m starting to feel like the CAGW promoters are in a point-by-point reply mode. Just a few days ago I said this when I was discussing the Intellectual Ventures Lab’s StratoShield SO2 injection plan:
No matter what happens, no matter what we do, the future carbon-credit barons will always yank the facts around to say the CO2 is the problem, always was the problem, always will be the problem, and the only solution is to reduce CO2 emissions through carbon trading, as has been successfully done post-Kyoto and mainly in Europe (successful for the traders). Well, when the yanking isn’t done by the human-self-haters who feel we only have the right to live peacefully like the other animals in a Back-to-Eden wilderness paradise.
Heck with this nonsense. This time they’ve twisted things too far, and now they conclusively point to a better solution. We’ll go with the inexpensive SO2 injection as Intellectual Ventures Lab proposed instead of the economy-thrashing carbon trading. Then we will have a means deployed to alter global temperatures. Then we can more accurately see just how much adjusting the temperatures really need, if any. And we’ll have our clean air without all the “hidden warming” jumping out from its secret hiding place. We will win, not them.
[snip – let’s leave religious icons, even if humorous, out of this ]
TerrySkinner. Yes, but are you saying you believe that the crystal clear skies are as a result of volcanic ash? What I’m saying is that they as a result of no jet airliners flying. I believe (as many scientists do) that the exhuast actually causes clouds (not the only cause, of course). So no jets = only ‘normal’ clouds.
What I’m further saying is that being as we know that nighttime temperatures have risen over the past 50 years then that would beautifully explain it. During the daytime, jet-caused clouds would cool the Earth (by stopping sun radiation), but at night would keep the warmth in. This would explain why nighttime temperatures have risen. And it’s nighttime temperatures that is the cause of much of the recorded globally-high temperatures. QED, jet engines are causing global warming!
Sigh, I can’t believe people even give credence to such a farce. IMHO, the only climate effect less smog has is an increase of local temp readings. Smog is/was local only to large metropolis’. So, we could see an increase in the UHI variance from real temps. Sox no more changed the climate than CO2 is currently. Of course, I could be wrong and all of this ‘better is warmer but warmer is worse’ stuff could be correct, in which case, we’re all doomed regardless of what we do.
About 3 years ago I attended a talk by a university environmental chemist who had studied atmospheric chemistry using such things as Antarctic ice cores. He said that it is currently believed that our atmosphere is probably the cleanest it has been in 150 years and likely much longer than that – due especially to the elimination of forest fires that in many countries are now fought aggressively, or which have been reduced through preemptive clearing fires, fire breaks, etc., plus great reductions in aerosols and other air pollution sources during the 20th century.
Actually, John, considering how brief my post was I’d appreciate if you could at least quote it in context.
The premise of the article is that reductions in pollution have reduced asthma, which is either a lie, misinformation, or wishful thinking. In actual fact, incidence of asthma has increased. For me, that claim at the beginning of the article completely destroys the credibility of the remainder of the article.
The people I know whose children are never exposed to cigarette smoke seem to have a lot of inhalers lying around. The people I know who smoke don’t have asthmatic children. The only statistically significant finding from the massive WHO report on secondhand smoke was that children of smokers have lower incidence of lung ailments (that report was buried). Do the math.
I weep for science when I see misinformation, distortions, and political agenda in virtually everything scientific. Expert spinmasters twist everything to their political beliefs. It’s horrible, shameful, and is creating a generation that are taught contradicting information on many topics.
So from the comments, the skeptics appear to be willing to admit that a negative RF from aerosols cools the climate. So isn’t the logical conclusion that a positive RF from GHGs (or black carbon) would warm the climate?
Well I do get confused. I have read that volcanoes pump out more CO2 in a day than man does over a year, from a retired Met Office employee & weatherman. I have read George “I’m holyer then thou” Moonbat had contacted the US Geological Society? & they said it was the sort of the other way round! Just what is the truth? I find it very hard to believe that these majestic, beautifully awsome, almightily powerful & deadly features of our planet are so benign, especially when we’re discovering ever more outlets beneath the waves!
James Sexton (08:14:36)
“Sox no more changed the climate than CO2 is currently.”
Even the skeptics, like Roy Spencer, admit that SO2 cools the climate. His temperature trends have a big circle around the cooling from Mt Pinatubo in the 1990s. It’s right there on his website.
“No left turn unstoned”. CAGW roadsign.
mikael pihlström (05:40:07) : >And in their virtual world they always list uncertainties and needs for future research, while in the cooling world (which is actually warming), there is no room for uncertainties, no need to meet the arguments, no effort on reading what is actually said.
well said, and i agree that most of the good scientists do put the caveat and ask for more research. The bad ones in IPCC and Al Gore world ( i am referring to the scientists in their camp, not the mouth pieces and thugs ) remove the caveats and exaggerate the numbers.
And, yes, I agree with your statement, except for one correction. you said “which is actually warming”. I think a bit more uncertainty is in order there. and a bit more humility in claiming we actually have a lot do with any warming. And, please don’t come up with “science is settled” nonsense. makes me puke
E. Mitchell: “He said that it is currently believed that our atmosphere is probably the cleanest it has been in 150 years”.
Quite clearly we should use the “precautionary approach” and set light to all the remaining forests in order to restore global temperatures to their “normal” level.
On a similar strand, doesn’t anyone else find it strange that the “precautionary approach” always means banning “boys toys” as I could put it like, cars, planes etc. but it doesn’t mean: “precaution” as in contraceptives which would kind of hurt women where they would make feel it in terms of not being allowed to have children?
Might the cut in aerosols be responsible for the current warming?
one of the things that are missing in all these fly-by claims is a simple “order of magnitude” test, before making such sweeping claims. SO2 might have cooled the earth a bit, but is it 0.0000001 degC or is it 0.0001 degC or is it 0.1 degC?
Size matters.
type:
“that are” should read “that is”. sorry
To add to the confusion not only can the Iceland volcanoe cause cooling it can also cause warming!!!
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90777/90853/6956238.html
Johnny D (08:35:09) :
James Sexton (08:14:36)
“Sox no more changed the climate than CO2 is currently.”
“Even the skeptics, like Roy Spencer, admit that SO2 cools the climate. His temperature trends have a big circle around the cooling from Mt Pinatubo in the 1990s. It’s right there on his website.”
Sorry, I should have been more clear. Man-emitted SO2. I have no doubt there are forcings and built in climate regulators that Nature provides. So far, it is apparent that mankind doesn’t even come close to knowing all the forcings responsible, much less the physical mechanics and weights to the forcings. To make pronouncements and theories and postulates regarding our climate and to insinuate that we’ve significantly altered it is pure hubris and sophistry. It rates right up there with the polar caps holding the earth in and preventing volcanoes. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/16/we-knew-it-was-only-a-matter-of-time/ Surely, by now, at least for some people, the circular arguments of the alarmists are becoming apparent.
Again, if clean air is good but causes warmth and warmth is bad, then we’re all screwed. Color me skeptical, but even without man’s mighty intervention, I think we’ll all survive somehow. Well, when I say “all”, obviously that excludes the many men, women and children mankind has already killed by his interventions in his quixotic quest to save the earth.
I don’t know – typo in the photo and a complete lie regarding asthma in the first 15 seconds of my read. I couldn’t go any further. Journalism is dead.
http://www.joutegrity.blogspot.com
http://www.protectingourhealth.org/newscience/asthma/asthmaknow.htm
a typo of my own…what a nit
that’s http://www.jourtegrity.blogspot.com