Cleaner Air Could Speed Global Warming 344
Hugh Pickens writes "Scientists estimate that the US Clean Air Act has cut a major air pollutant, sulfate aerosols, by 30% to 50% since the 1980s, helping greatly reduce cases of asthma and other respiratory problems. But NPR reports that this good news may have a surprising downside: cleaner air might actually intensify global warming. One benefit of sulfates is that they've been helpfully blocking sunlight from striking the Earth for many decades, by brightening clouds and expanding their coverage. 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. But thanks to cooling by aerosols starting in the 1940s, the planet has felt only a portion of that warming. And unlike CO2, which persists in the atmosphere for centuries, aerosols last in the air for a week at most, so cutting them would probably rapidly accelerate global warming. The author of 'Hack the Planet' says: 'As we take away that unexpectedly helpful cooling mask, we're going to be facing more global warming than we expected.'"
Everything! (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm getting pretty tired of everything causing/amplifying global warming. We're fucked, we get it it!
If we are to err (Score:4, Insightful)
If we are to err, I'd rather we erred on the side of clean air than polluted air.
Trolls. Everywhere. (Score:4, Insightful)
Climate change scientists have now resorted to trolling us.
Seriously. Cleaner air is bad for the planet? Shut up. As someone who has asthma, this pisses me off. I like breathing, thanks. Stop wasting time blaming the Clean Air Act and look at practical ways to cut carbon emissions in ways that don't knock us back to the stone age.
KTHXBAI.
--
BMO
Re:Trolls. Everywhere. (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously. Cleaner air is bad for the planet? Shut up. As someone who has asthma, this pisses me off. I like breathing, thanks. Stop wasting time blaming the Clean Air Act and look at practical ways to cut carbon emissions in ways that don't knock us back to the stone age.
This will probably sound wrong, or at least politically incorrect but... Cleaner air can speed global warming while still killing everyone who suffers from asthma.
Natural facts don't usually care about consequences on human health.
So, I think you're point should be more oriented towards something like: "The fact that cleaner air, which we need, may have a cooling effect, should only make us fight much stronger against the original sources of the warming itself."
Re:Trolls. Everywhere. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:get their stories straight (Score:3, Insightful)
Air pollution (gases like co2) accelerate global warming.
Air pollution (dust and other stuff that blocks sunlight) slow global warming (aka "global dimming").
Whether or not humans are contributing to this is not an issue I'll get into but these two points are fairly obvious to anyone with half a clue.
Re:Trolls. Everywhere. (Score:5, Insightful)
To paraphrase George Carlin, the planet has been here for what? 4 and a half billion years, and we've been here a hundred thousand years, maybe 200 thousand. And we've only been engaged in heavy industry for a little over 200.
Do the math. If the entire age of the Earth was reduced to one calendar year, when did humans appear?
December 31st, 11:59pm.
The planet isn't going anywhere.
*** WE ARE. ***
Sulfur aerosols also cause ozone depletion (Score:4, Insightful)
Destroying ozone is bad? Right? Or scientists would say otherwise? May be that's the major reason why scientists didn't recommend to trigger volcano eruption to negate greenhouse effect back in 90s? Now there're scientists told me aerosols are good? I'm not sure whom to trust anymore.
Anyone would help me citing are welcome, as I've already transformed the corresponding references into carbon dioxide which joined the greenhouse gas party in the heaven.
Re:Trolls. Everywhere. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Trolls. Everywhere. (Score:4, Insightful)
Eminently put. The planet is not in trouble, global warming or not. The planet has been much hotter and much colder, with significantly different atmospheric conditions (higher CO2, higher O2, vastly different contents pre-O2, etc), not to mention the continents that have been in vastly different positions. In fact, the time we are living in is comparably speaking an anomaly. For most of the time since the Earth was formed, there has been no ice on this planet whatsoever.
So the Earth is absolutely not in trouble. We, on the other hand, might be in trouble. If the worst predictions of the climate scientists become reality, sea level rises may destroy a lot of our fixed infrastructure, such as cities. Humanity will likely survive, but life wouldn't be as easy as now.
Re:Trolls. Everywhere. (Score:3, Insightful)
Climate change scientists have now resorted to trolling us.
Seriously. Cleaner air is bad for the planet? Shut up.
It would be nice if it were simple, wouldn't it? If we could just say "pollution bad, stopping pollution all good effects."
Grow up. Reality is often quite a bit more complicated than we'd like it. Wshat seem like mixed messages mirror that. Cholesterol can be good and bad, different types. People shouldn't use heroin, but for a small subset of users, sudden withdrawal can actually cause death. Antibiotics kill bacteria in an infected patient, but if you dump in enough drugs to kill all the bugs at once the patient could also die because of an immune response to a chemical released by the dying bacteria.
It's entirely possible that some pollutants are currently having good effects, and when we clean up our act things will get worse before they get better. Shooting the messengers is an immature response.
Anyway, this business about this pollutant countering global warming has been known since the early 90's at least [google.com]. It's not like the scientists just suddenly made this up, you just weren't paying attention until it showed up on slashdot.
Re:Sulfur aerosols also cause ozone depletion (Score:2, Insightful)
Why can't people understand that stuff can both be good and bad at the same time?
And CFC's(r12, r22 etc) have been banned and replaced with alternatives that don't contain chlorine. So the sulfur aerosols don't really have mush CFC to "trigger".
i.e sulfur aerosols was bad in the 90s because we had mush Chlorofluorocarbon in the atmosphere.
Why is this "surprising"? (Score:1, Insightful)
In the 1970s, the Ecomentals wouldn't stop shrieking all air pollution triggering an ice age [wordpress.com], ZOMG MUST FIX NOW!!!!!!1!!!
There's nothing surprising about Doomsayers saying Doom. The world is just about to end, always has been, always will be.
Re:Trolls. Everywhere. (Score:5, Insightful)
>>It would be nice if it were simple, wouldn't it? If we could just say "pollution bad, stopping pollution all good effects."
Indeed. When lecturing on AGW last Thursday, it was amusing when my students asked if the volcano erupting was good or bad for the environment.
The simple fact is that there's no simple answer. If you're an endangered bird who only nests on whatever-the-hell that volcano is, you're pretty much fucked. If contrails from airplanes have a cooling effect, then grounding a bunch of planes might warm the atmosphere. The particulate matter will slightly cool the atmosphere. If you're a specialized form of algae that eats volanic ash in saltwater, it might be great for you, but terrible for the fish nearby.
The really tragic fact about Greens, is that they're stupid. They simply don't understand that every choice is always a mixture of pros and cons, good effects and bad effects and side effects. Their mindset (based on the precautionary principle) is that if ANYTHING is negative about an option, they must file a lawsuit and get it banned.
This has led to:
1) A ban on nuclear power here in California. 40% of America's CO2 comes from coal and gas energy plants - if we'd gone nuclear since the 70s we'd have not killed tens of thousands of people (what? people die from coal?), and met every CO2 target out there, beyond Copenhagen or the farcical disaster that is Kyoto.
2) The Sierra Club successfully shutting down a massive solar plant. (What? Solar is a green energy? But think of all the DESERT that would be covered by those panels! 25 tortoises live there!) Good luck getting more companies to put money into proposing green power generators, assholes. Similar stories exist for wind and tidal projects across the country.
3) Demolition of hyrdoelectric dams. (What? Hydro is a green source of energy!? But fish are friends, not food!) Spending $300M to blow up two hydro plants seems like a good investment, right? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elwha_Ecosystem_Restoration)
4) The introduction of the SUV. CAFE killed the station wagon, but idiot legislation can't kill demand for a product. So we no longer have the wood-paneled station wagon (1972 Country Squire: 18MPG) and now have the most Green-hated thing ever, the SUV (2009 Nissan Armada: 14 MPG).
5) The Clean Air Act lowering particulate counts, as the article says. Not that Clean Air is a bad thing - I certainly wouldn't want to live next to one of those belching, polluting smokestacks. (Like the cooling tower on a nuclear plant, like idiot wunderkind Al Gore showed in an Inconvenient Truth, but I digress.) But it does reduce the "protective" cooling effect particulate matter has in the atmosphere.
As long as idiot Greens continue thinking in all-or-nothing terms, they'll continue making decisions that are horribly bad both for the environment and for the economy.
Re:Everything! (Score:4, Insightful)
ranting bullshit
modded down
on Slashdot
Now that is surprising
Respect, Please (Score:2, Insightful)
There are lots of idiot "deniers" (the Fox News viewer) and idiot "believers" (the California soccer mom saving the planet with her Prius). If we're trying to have a productive discussion about A-GCC, these people should be ignored, since they only rile people up and make them forget about the important details
For those "believers" out there looking to challenge their own views, there are some thoughtful "denier" arguments about A-GCC that you should read. The "believers" out there have an intellectual duty to read them, just as "deniers" have an obligation to contemplate arguments from "believers". If you're on a "side" with A-GCC, you're probably doing it wrong, because the scientific method isn't about picking sides.
Here's an excellent speech from a well-known "denier". [crichton-official.com]
*Disclaimer: I personally don't know what the hell's going on with A-GCC, and I don't think anyone really does. I have seen thoughtful, analytical, convincing arguments from "believers" and "deniers" alike. I have also smelled a lot of money getting involved on both "sides", which makes me even more hesitant to trust anything I read. The oil industry is on the "denier" side, and Goldman Sachs is on the "believer" side. I don't know which I trust less.
Re:Everything! (Score:1, Insightful)
will have to go back to the drawing board to find a new raison d'etre for hating libertarian capitalism
As if it was hard to find a reason to hate those greedy, selfish, corrupt, immoral fucks :)
In other words (Score:3, Insightful)
the people who are firmly in the man made global warming camp will keep throwing things at the wall until something sticks.
In the last year or so it really comes across as if they are desperate to find an angle. When holes (read doubt) start getting punched in one idea they first defend it by relentless attacking those who question it and then they drop their stance and move to another idea. It really has gotten old. Too many of them have vested interest in companies that are making a killing off the whole FUD (both sides do it, but the MMGW side is king lately) and they just come across as bad marketers.
After reading this story it all comes down to, we are damned if we do and we are damned if we don't.
I just want to know... (Score:1, Insightful)
When is the Green movement going to implement their final solution? That is, when will the governments of the earth begin roundups and executions of 90% of the global population to return the earth to its natural state? That is, after all, the only possible route to the goal that they seek.
Re:Trolls. Everywhere. (Score:3, Insightful)
The irony is that you ask people to not have such a black and white view on the environment, yet you have a black and white view on politics. When environmental issues come up, it is always very complicated. It is NEVER just greens being naive.
For example, in the wiki article that YOU site, it claims the removal of the dam was for reasons of safety, the salmon, erosion, and nutrients in the riverbed. Which of those is a "green" issue? While "green" folks supported this in various ways, I'm sure there where others who supported this for selfish reasons.
The dam wasn't producing much power either. It could have had a system to support the salmon. It was built unsafely, even broke at first, but was hacked together later. I think the point with that dam is that it was a piece of crap that did more harm than good.
So... (Score:3, Insightful)
"The fact that cleaner air, which we need, may have a cooling effect, should only make us fight much stronger against the original sources of the warming itself."
So... you're planning to get rid of the Sun? ;)
Re:Trolls. Everywhere. (Score:4, Insightful)
>>You mix up the meaning of the precautionary principle. It's not the idea of not doing anything because something might have something negative. Rather, often, if something has great risks, even if relatively unlikely, it is better to do the other alternative. And the more unknown things are, the more cautious you should be.
No, I hit the precautionary principle dead on. It paralyzes the decision making process by replacing the weighted balance of pros and cons (which is the alternative, mind you) by allowing anything to block action.
In practice, it means that no power plants get built for thirty years in a state that has grown rather significantly since then.
The worst part is, people don't even realize it is self-contradictory. Sometimes doing nothing is the worst possible alternative, by a long shot.
Re:Trolls. Everywhere. (Score:5, Insightful)
>>The irony is that you ask people to not have such a black and white view on the environment, yet you have a black and white view on politics.
Since I apparently have a black and white view of politics, I'm vastly interested in what you think those are.
>>For example, in the wiki article that YOU site, it claims the removal of the dam was for reasons of safety, the salmon, erosion, and nutrients in the riverbed. Which of those is a "green" issue?
Indeed. (I'm aware of this, having linked the article for you to read.) As I said with the volcano example, there's always a lot of effects, both good or bad, with every decision. But the trend in general to blow up dams is a very troubling one. We need more power plants, not less.
And flood control is a not-insignificant issue, also. In Japan, the Shinto nature-loving country on the other side of the Pacific, every single (well, over 95%) of every river and stream in Japan is dammed. Mainly for flood control issues, but they also produce about 10% of their total power needs from hydro in places like (the very lovely) Kiso River Valley. It's quite jarring to the American eye to see square waterfalls, square streams, and massive hydro plants in the middle of what could be their Yosemite Valley. But they do have something to it.
Re:If we are to err (Score:1, Insightful)
>>> I would rather stave off global warming, so if anyone needs me, I'll be outside emptying cans of hair spray, bug poison, and cooking oil into the atmosphere.
>>>
A very short-sighted view. IMHO I'd rather live in a warm planet with clean air, than a non-warmed planet with poisonous air. Think of the benefits of a warmer planet:
- Australia and Arabia will probably become tropical rather than desert, just as they were in the age of dinosaurs
- The U.S. and EU will become near-tropical and experience little snow.
- Canada will become warm enough to grow food, even in the far north
- Siberia will become warm enough to grow food
Now think of the benefits of poisoned air:
-
-
-
Yeah I can't think of any either.
Re:Respect, Please (Score:3, Insightful)
The oil industry is on the "denier" side, and Goldman Sachs is on the "believer" side. I don't know which I trust less.
I'm no fan of Goldman-Sachs, but since you raised the question: do you know how much money G-S has devoted to lobbying and funding pro-AGW research? I wonder if it's reached 1% of what the fossil fuel industry has spent. Or even .001%. To the best of my knowledge, G-S hasn't even been thinking about energy pricing for that long, let alone considering it a core part of their business. I certainly wasn't aware that they'd been a major player in developing our scientific understanding.
I don't mean to be argumentative but this sounds a lot like a talking point intended to try to make it look like both sides are equally incentivized by money (and therefore can't be trusted). Honestly, I've always wondered why a bunch of independent scientists and politicians would push for unpopular policies that derive them almost not personal benefit (and put them at substantial political risk) if there's really no reason to worry about the effects of AGW. It sounds to me like invoking the evil Goldman Sachs is a way to respond to this very important question in a kind of emotional "sounds good as long as you don't actually look at the sums involved" way.
Re:I just want to know... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Everything! (Score:1, Insightful)