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.
Johnny D (08:32:20) :
“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?”
In a world of reason the outcome of this article, since nobody really
likes smog, would be precisely a return to the question of the
constituents and workings of RF.
The beginning of recantation?
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/04/beginnings-of-recantation.html
kadaka
“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…”
Fossil fuels are the problem, having helped us greatly on our road
to modernity, the externalities now come:
CO2 is the main constituent and the biggest problem (AGW)
SO2 is the dirty constituent, can have a cooling effect, but always
entails more CO2 release
NOx are difficult to control
particles incl. heavy metals
+ the transition to other energy forms when stocks are depleted
Johnny D (11:38:44) :
James Sexton (11:00:50) :
“I look forward to the day I can once again comment on the weather without concerning myself with the inane musings of a small person perceiving that we have the power of some climate god.”
“It’s not about having the “power of some climate god”. It’s about CO2 absorbing infrared radiation and aerosols scattering light. That’s all. Not hippy-dippy mystical stuff. No climate-god-like power needed.”
Yes, and if it was that simple, I’d agree with you. But, as you’ll surely agree, you’ve over simplified the dynamics of our climate to the point of sophistry. Your statement seems to assert a quantifiable relationship between our climate with CO2 and aerosols. Through the decades of data gathering and research, no such relationship has been demonstrated. Nor has any reasonable hypothesis has been put forward on how to find the quantifiable relationship. Until one can state CO2 does x and aerosols does y and if one emits n amounts of x and m amounts of y, our climate will be z, then it is indeed “hippy-dippy mystical stuff which no one on earth understands.
NickB. (13:30:41) :
“If there is a hubris more pronounced than the control of the weather, it’s that we can control our own nature and stop our expansion.”
Very much agreed.
Imran (06:39:34) :
I went on Google and typed in “global SO2 emissions” … these are the first2 links that come up …. neither of which supports your statement. Did you just make this up ?
The graph in the second link just shows a steady rise over time fort the last 100 years. I think your reading a little too much into this argument about correlations between warming and trends in SO2.
The article you linked; I can’t open; but I think it is one of 4-5 super-
imposed in a graph of a report I left at the office (sounds suspicious),
and the one not showing a downturn 1980-2000. The second graph I
doubt a little. You will find support for my view in IPCC2007. But, what
do I really care about this issue? Only, if it could somehow help in clearing
out the climate forcing components and then used to check the IPCC
models.
Now, that you mention brown clouds, it struck me that such diffuse
(but important!) sources of SO2 would not be included in statistics?
So that might affect…
James Sexton (14:07:47) :
“Through the decades of data gathering and research, no such relationship has been demonstrated. Nor has any reasonable hypothesis has been put forward on how to find the quantifiable relationship. Until one can state CO2 does x and aerosols does y and if one emits n amounts of x and m amounts of y, our climate will be z, then it is indeed “hippy-dippy mystical stuff which no one on earth understands.”
Yes, if you choose to ignore the entire body of existing climate science that’s out there, then that is the conclusion you would come to. If you actually look through the real scientific literature and assessments that are out there (if you don’t like the IPCC, try the USGCRP), I think the conclusion would be that we have decent estimates of those numbers, with quantitative uncertainties, even. Of course there’s still uncertainty, but that most certainly does *not* mean that we know nothing.
Volcanic ash cloud: Met Office blamed for unnecessary six-day closure
Daily Telegraph on 19 Apr 2010 BST at 10:06 PM by Caroline Gammell, David Millward and Bruno Waterfield
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/7608722/Volcanic-ash-cloud-Met-Office-blamed-for-unnecessary-six-day-closure.html
The Met Office has been blamed for triggering the “unnecessary” six-day closure of British airspace which has cost airlines, passengers and the economy more than £1.5 billion.
Matthias Ruete, the European Commission’s director-general of transport, said air traffic authorities should not have relied on a single source of scientific evidence before imposing the widespread ban. He suggested the no-fly zone should have been restricted to a 20 to 30-mile limit around the volcano.
“The science behind the model we are running at the moment is based on certain assumptions where we do not have clear scientific evidence,” he said.
Pass that by me again!
Johnny D (14:55:45) :
“Yes, if you choose to ignore the entire body of existing climate science that’s out there, then that is the conclusion you would come to. If you actually look through the real scientific literature and assessments that are out there (if you don’t like the IPCC, try the USGCRP), I think the conclusion would be that we have decent estimates of those numbers, with quantitative uncertainties, even. Of course there’s still uncertainty, but that most certainly does *not* mean that we know nothing.”
I guess, that’s the crux of the difference. I’ve looked, as best I can, at the body of work of existing climate science. I find it woefully inadequate to explain past and present conditions, much less future. There isn’t even an existing general formula that explains our current conditions, certainly not anywhere close to the scenario I’ve given above(with the xyz, nm..ect.) I submit, we don’t have decent estimates of the effects of aerosols or CO2 towards their effect on our climate. Jeez, there isn’t even an agreement of where our climate is. I assume you don’t give any credence to the work done here and many other places regarding our data collecting methods and how we subsequently deal with the data. No one can tell you or I, with a straight face, they know what the average global temp is, much less what it should be. If they can’t tell us that, then they can’t tell us the effects of CO2 nor aerosols nor the mechanisms in place that deal with the gases and how it works.
There is seemingly an infinite amount variables(and certainly unquantifiable) that goes into our climate system. I know of no mathematical, algebraic, nor statistical formula that can give definitive values when the amount of variables is unknown. I’m open for enlightenment on that issue, if someone can just show me.
John (10:11:38) :
Something CodeTech alluded to earlier.
I don’t want to turn this into a second-hand smoke argument but…
Of all the supposed pathogens & carcinogens in SHS, the only one they could use as a marker for SHS was nicotine. The reason was simple, the background levels in the modern home for all the others are so high, they couldn’t discern between them & those from SHS.
Is this background in the modern home something to do with problems with asthma?
There have also been concerns raised about the attempt to bring up our children in clinically clean environments.
Too many variables & where to start.
DaveE.
The real question is: Are the actions of humans going to cause CATASTROPHIC global warming? Is it even possible that actions of humans could do so? The originator of this modern myth, Hansen, in 1988 said that if something wasn’t done almost immediately, in 7 years a “tipping point” would be reached when there would be the onset of catastrophic warming. 1995 has long since come and gone, and there isn’t the slightest indication that anything untoward regarding catastrophic global warming is occurring at all. That is what I would call; falsification of a hare-brained alarmist hypothesis. That is what I am extremely skeptical of. I am skeptical even of the possibility of anthropogenic CATASTROPHIC global warming.
Fiddle the numbers as they will, there is no indication that humans could even do so. Human actions are less than puny compared with natural forces, as was seen when Tambora erupted in 1815, Krakatoa in 1883, when the New Madrid earthquakes occurred in 1811/1812, and other natural disasters far to numerous to numerate.
The present eruption of the volcano in Iceland is causing considerable grief in Europe as of now, and it is not that large of an eruption.
There are a good many other things of far greater danger, and we humans are virtually helpless in the face of them.
But . . . the politicians want to raise taxes, the university professors want to have a grant cash cow to milk, and the greedy want to become richer.
So they all will be extreme and alarmist . . . and the clowns and monkeys of the mainstream media circus will be loath to inform, as nothing captivates their viewers so much as predictions of gloom and doom.
David Alan Evans (17:30:33) :
“Of all the supposed pathogens & carcinogens in SHS, the only one they could use as a marker for SHS was nicotine. The reason was simple, the background levels in the modern home for all the others are so high, they couldn’t discern between them & those from SHS.
Is this background in the modern home something to do with problems with asthma?
There have also been concerns raised about the attempt to bring up our children in clinically clean environments.”
I’m assuming you’re referring to allergy induced asthma, such as pollen inducing allergies. That’s another part of the world that still isn’t fully understood. Allergic asthma is set into motion by the IgE protein. It degranulates white blood cells causing a histamine release(among other things)………….but wait, you’re not asking how, you’re asking why. I digress. An opine of mine, it’s the bubble effect. We sterilize everything for our children.(mine excluded). Typically, if our bodies haven’t been exposed to a pathogen, they react poorly. Witness Montezuma’s revenge. It doesn’t seem to effect locals, only people that are not immune to the pathogen. Conversely, for a true allergic reaction, one needs to be exposed at least once prior to an allergic reaction occurrence.(Newborns are the exceptions because for a short time they utilize the mother’s immunity.) In allergic responses, this is sometimes cured by a desensitization.(a repeated and increasing exposure to a pathogen/trigger. or “shots” if you will.) Obviously, then there must be not only a environmental aspect to the uptick in asthma occurrences, but another factor. I believe we are witnessing genetic alterations via the bubble effect. Of course this is only an opinion, and I haven’t been in the business for quite some time, but I was trained by the best(my appeal to authority, lol) in the country once. Or, it could be, because of the increase in CO2, we are seeing an increase in plantlife, hence an increase in pollen, hence an increase in allergies, thus an increase in allergic induced asthma. Or, as is most likely, a combination of both increase of pollen and a decrease of exposure. My apologies for my ramblings, I believe them to be true, although some assertions may require clarification and am willing to back them up(my opinions are simply that). Sadly, beer has gotten the better of me tonight and I’d have a horrible time clarifying much of anything……….hope that cleared things up for you. 🙂
Dang, and I didn’t even address the SHS issue…….I’d think if SHS causes asthma, then we’d see a genetic alteration similar to the bubble effect and subsequently a decrease in occurrence rather than in increase.
Also note, smokers have decreased in numbers substantially from a generation and 2 generations ago.
jonjermey (00:42:45) :
It can help by natural selection
mikael pihlström (14:38:52)
A bit OT (sorry)
Interesting to see you quoting IPCC.
Do you agree with their Hypothesis that CO2 stays in the atmosphere
for > century, or do you think the 30+ papers (published over 60 years) by numerous scientists from many countires, which conclude CO2 stays in the atmosphere at most 20 years (most papers indicate UNDER 10 years) is more
likely?.
By the way, the published papers rely on measurements, the IPCC hypothesis does NOT (but 100+ years timescale of CO2 staying in the atmosphere is required by their ludicrous CAGW scaremongering hypothesis, for without it, that hypothesis lacks even internal coherence)
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a5e507c9970c-pi
A graphic comparing the findings of the various studies.
Also apparently isotope mass balance calculations indicate that if the IPCC is correct then the atmosphere must have 1/2 of its current CO2 mass..
Which is the source of the unfindable Carbon sink thats required to hold this missing CO2, and make the IPCC calculations work.
Sounds like a work of fiction doesn’t it?….
BTW, studies conducted so far to find this mysterious mising sink have failed… not too surprising really, thats what happens when you ignore the real science
cheerio
JIm
Johnny D (14:55:45) :
I find it laughable that you refer to the “real science”, the organisation
whose findings you appear to be supporting has been ignoring the real science for quite some time now…
BEANS! Beans are the answer.
If everyone were to go on an all bean diet the increased smog/ozone should offset the additional methane.
Then all we need to find is a way to scrub the air to remove the smell.
Satire is a form of humour where the writer or speaker tries to make the reader or listener have a negative opinion about someone, by laughing at them, making them seem ridiculous or foolish etc. If someone is being satirical, their aim is not just to amuse, but to affect the person that they dislike; to hurt them, ruin them, etc.
http://www.usingenglish.com/glossary/satire.html
LarryOldtimer (19:04:37) :
“The real question is: Are the actions of humans going to cause CATASTROPHIC global warming? Is it even possible that actions of humans could do so?”
———
Very general level refutation, I must say, of detailed theories how
humans could bring about this result together with cascading feedback
from nature.
“The originator of this modern myth, Hansen, in 1988 said that if something wasn’t done almost immediately, in 7 years a “tipping point” would be reached when there would be the onset of catastrophic warming. 1995 has long since come and gone, and there isn’t the slightest indication that anything untoward regarding catastrophic global warming is occurring at all.”
—-
Assumimg you cite him correctly, the onset would be the warming
trend of the 90’s.
“But . . . the politicians want to raise taxes, the university professors want to have a grant cash cow to milk, and the greedy want to become richer.”
——
Science is always based on grants. In view of total spending on
science the sums are not extraordinary and there is no special
category for AGW-proponents.
The greedy could probably make much better money in the finance
sector …. actually they did to a degree, which made the whole system
breakdown, creating tax pressure …
James Sexton,
In response to your earlier comment regarding unknown variables. There is one branch of study, possibly the only one, designed to deal with this problem. Econometrics was developed to find and describe relationships between time series data sets, even when all of the variables in the equation are not known. Sorry I don’t have the link handy (stupid mobile phones) but the VS discussion on Bart’s blog is an eye-opener if you have the time and are interested.
The VS conversation started, AFAIK, here at WUWT with a post on a “new mathematical analysis” by B&R. CO2 and temperature fail the first test for “real” correlation (vs. apparent or spurious correlation) – which in Econometrics is a requirement before causation can even be considered.
It’s an obscure area of expertise, but it was developed more than anything to let the data speak for itself… and before anyone implies this is some type of half-baked voodoo science, it should be noted that its development has resulted in two Nobel prizes and that it has long been established as the gold standard in Economics for verification. Many established and proven micro relationships have failed extrapolation to macro theory, and many great sounding macro theories have also failed proof due to the appropriately stringent nature of these tests.
If we used the kind of statistics Tamino does, I can assure you there would be all sorts of interesting Economic theories floating around – many of which would sound quite logical and reasonable… and they would have absolutely no relationship to the real world or predictive power.
Were it not for Econometrics, Economics would look a lot like Climate Science… being ruled by fad “theories of everything”, groupthink, and cults of personality (well, more than it is today at least ; ) I’ve said it before, but as far as I am concerned, Climate Science is more like Economics (what I refer to as a fuzzy science) than a hard science like chemistry.
For grins, ask an Economist sometime how we’re doing on our Global Economic Computer Models and what the world economy will look like in 100 years. When you see their mouth drop and the look of disbelief in their eyes at the audacity of such a question you will have, in essence, seen what is missing from Climate Science. Mainstream Climate Science has no repect for the complexity of the system they are studying, and that is the core of the problem.
Its 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.
Fart proudly.
(Title of an essay by Ben Franklin.)