Daily Kos

Really bad news on global warming

Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 08:00:45 PM PDT

If you think the weather's bad now, just wait a few decades...

In the last few weeks, some new and very disturbing research on global warming has come out.  If this research is correct, then global warming may turn out to be a much more serious problem than anyone had previously imagined (this is partly taken from wilfred's earlier diary that slipped off the main page quickly).

Here's the gist: the sun is getting dimmer.  Well, it's not actually getting dimmer itself, but for the last fifty years, less and less light has been getting through the atmosphere because of pollution from burning fossil fuels.  From the BBC:
Comparing Israeli sunlight records from the 1950s with current ones, Dr. Gerry Stanhill was astonished to find a large fall in solar radiation.

"There was a staggering 22% drop in the sunlight, and that really amazed me." Intrigued, he searched records from all around the world, and found the same story almost everywhere he looked.

Although the effect varied greatly from place to place, overall the decline amounted to one to two per cent globally every decade between the 1950s and the 1990s.

Why?  Pollutants like soot, sulfur compunds, and ash from burning fossil fuels block the suns rays.

Now, this could be a good thing.  Less light getting through = less global warming.  In a sense, that's true, but there is a very disturbing implication of this research.  What this means is that the strength of global warming is much, much stronger than we had previously guessed.  We've only detected a bit of warming so far.  1 degree Fahrenheit in the last 100 years.  This new research says: if not for the effects of atmospheric dimming, we'd be getting warmer faster.  A lot faster.  

Ok, you're saying, so what?  If pollutants slow down global warming, then that's good.  Well, here's the rub (from the BBC again):

As things stand, CO2 levels are projected to rise strongly over coming decades, whereas there are encouraging signs that particle pollution is at last being brought under control.

"We're going to be in a situation unless we act where the cooling pollutant is dropping off while the warming pollutant is going up."

So, while we're cleaning up the nasty particulate pollution that causes asthma, lung cancer, etc., we may be dramatically increasing the rate of global warming.

And it gets even worse.   If we cut our fossil fuel usage we may actually make planetary temperatures soar!.  Here's how it works:

  • we reduce our usage of fossil fuels
  • CO2 levels decrease, but only slightly at first because CO2 stays in the atmosphere a long time once it gets there
  • levels of pollutants that dim the sun decrease more quickly because they don't stay in the atmosphere as long
  • the effect of the decreased CO2 is dramatically outweighed by the increased strength of the sun and temperatures go up, up, up      

The researchers say cutting down on the burning of coal and oil, one of the main goals of international environmental agreements, will drastically heat rather than cool climate.
[snip]
 Take away fossil fuel by-products like sulfur dioxide without tackling greenhouse gas emissions, and the extra heat will speed warming, irreversibly melting ice sheets and rendering rain forests unsustainable within decades, Dr Cox said.

So, with respect to fossil fuels, the primary driver of global warming, it may almost be inconsequential whether or not we cut emissions because global warming may be too powerful.  One caveat: this is new research, so this isn't certain yet.  But if it turns out to be true, we (and I use this in a planetary sense) may be in big trouble.
Temperatures could increase in the worst case by up to 10 degrees by the end of the century, the researchers said -- much more than current estimates.
 That's 10 degress Celsius.  Which is 18 degrees Fahrenheit.  The current best estimate is that we'll warm 2.5 to 10 degrees F in 100 years.  Even at the lower end of that range, we're likely to have massive problems from drought and heatwaves to more severe storms and higher sea levels.  18 degrees higher and it's the end of the world as we know it...

Here's the really ironic part.  Now, instead of denying global warming, the anti-environmentalist right-wingers will surely say, "look we can't cut fossil fuel emissions because we'll fry the planet."  They'll go from denying it exists to embracing the latest research.

The good news is that the sooner we act, the better, and it's not necessarily too late.  We need to:

  • sign the Kyoto protocol
  • start negotiating the next climate treaty
  • embark on a Manhattan project for non-polluting, renewable energy sources, and
  • pour as many resources into climate research as we can.  The more we know, the better we'll be able to make things better.

Resources and information:

Tags: (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 69 comments

  •  And.. (none / 0)

    Look at this one: Unbearable thaw grips Russian zoo. It mentions unusually high temperatures this winter in the Russian Baltic region.

    Presidential politics is like jumping into raw sewage with your mouth open -- Batfish

    by Frank on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 07:39:26 PM PDT

    •  FauX's Brint Hume (none / 0)

      had a guest who said "yes we are having global warming" but he said "it isn't as bad as they are making it out to be."
          It's like they can't go with the no global warming meme anymore so they are minimizing it.
          BTW I jsut saw it on my Dad's T.V. mine doesn.t go there unless RabidNation is on.  
  •  Nice diary (none / 0)

    This is a big issue, obviously, but I think that we're already too far along the path to really stop this completely, unless some huge scientific breakthrough comes along.  All we can do is delay global warming.  Anyway, National Geographic did an article on global warming last month that I found to be very informative: Global Warming Fast Facts.  
    •  wait... (none / 0)

      did you just put the link in your diary, or am I losing it?
    •  I try to be a bit optimistic (none / 0)

      though in my weaker moments I agree with you that it's too late.  

      BTW, that link was good.  I added it to the diary.

      In times like these, you have to grow big enough to hold both the loss and the hope. - Ann Pancake

      by Scott in NAZ on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 07:48:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  oh ok (none / 0)

        sometimes I skip over things, and I thought I might have...I always feel stupid when I post a link that's already posted.  
      •  P.S. (none / 0)

        the Nat. Geo. article says this:

        * Coral reefs worldwide are "bleaching". losing key algae and resident organisms, as water temperatures rise above 85 degrees Fahrenheit (29.5 degrees Celsius) through periods of calm, sunny weather. Scientists worry that rapid climate change could inhibit the ability of many species to adapt within complex and interdependent ecosystems.

        Another reason losing coral reefs is bad is that scientists are doing research on coral for medicianl purposes: see this other National Geographic article:

        Tiny proteins that give coral reefs a mysterious glow may be key to keeping coral species alive, according to scientists. Those same proteins, they say, may also help blaze trails to new health cures.

        [snip]

        Away from the oceans, the medical community is using fluorescent protein in the lab to monitor and study biological processes associated with AIDS, Alzheimer's disease, cancer, and a host of other diseases.

        Also, see this NOAA site for even more reasons why losing coral reefs is bad.  There were also articles saying that places that the tsunami hit with coral reefs were not damaged as badly.  They said the reefs broke up the wave, so the places weren't damaged as badly as places without coral reefs.  Same with mangroves.

    •  Why have to do what we can do (none / 0)

      The biggest problem: how to stop the polluters?

      On the "bright" side, real global warming means that Social Security would not be in any problem when we retire ;-)(

  •  Saw this in the paper today (none / 0)

    I still don't understand how people <cough>Michael Crichton<cough still deny global warming.  Thanks for all the research.

    Outta here, I don't deal well with sites that condone racism.

    by fabooj on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 07:44:01 PM PDT

  •  The issue is what are we going to do about coal (none / 0)

    There isn't enough petroleum to bother with.  Our production is on the verge of decline like it or not.  We will be using coal for a transportation fuel like the Nazis did before long.  Then our vaunted 200 yr coal supply will evaporate in decades.  And we'll toast ourselves in the process.
  •  Just wondering... (none / 0)

    If pollutants are reflective, then I can see how this would lead to less energy being transmitted to the earth.

    However, I might just as well expect that pollutants would absorb solar energy. In this case, less light would hit the surface, but the heat energy would be absorbed in the atmosphere. This would cause heating of the atmosphere.

    I guess pollutants such as soot, ash, sulfur compounds must be primarily reflective for the above to be true.

    •  Depends on the pollutant (none / 0)

      Brominated hydrocarbons in the Arctic stratosphere, and chlorinated hydrocarbons in the Antarctic troposphere (I think it's the troposphere) aren't reflective, but they are eating monster holes in the ozone layer... but that's another story.


      Blind faith in your leaders, or in anything, will get you killed. -- Bruce Springsteen

      by Plutonium Page on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 07:57:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's clouds also (none / 0)

      The BBC article addresses this, but I think that clouds that form with lots of pollutants in them hold more water than low-pollutant clouds, and the more water in the clouds, the more reflective they are (check the BBC article for more info).

      In times like these, you have to grow big enough to hold both the loss and the hope. - Ann Pancake

      by Scott in NAZ on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 08:07:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  just to add a little more... (none / 1)

      to the previous comments. Particulate pollution (aerosols) can be have a negative (cooling) or positive (warming) impact. Inorganic aerosols tend to scatter the solar radiation, resulting in less light reaching the surface, thus having a cooling effect. Sooty aerosols tend to absorb the light which has a warming effect.

      As for clouds, aerosols interactions with clouds (the "indirect effect") is an espcecially hot topic right now. The concept is understood, but measuring and trying to quantify the forcing is extremely difficult. It will most likely be the next big push in aerosol studies.

      Cheers,
      atmos

  •  One potential (4.00 / 2)

    mitigator may be the ongoing research into actively stripping CO2 from the atmosphere...Los Alamos is working on that.

    Essentially, a huge plant is constructed in which wind or solar power is used to force the atmosphere through a filter - the atmosphere is bubbled through a calcium magnesium solution or through narrow tubes lined with Ca/Mg-based thin film reactive media - and blocks of Dolomite are formed by stripping CO2 and reacting it with calcium and magnesium.

    Interesting.

    The only way to ensure a free press is to own one

    by RedDan on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 07:56:02 PM PDT

    •  I had no idea they were doing that at LANL (none / 0)

      I just checked out LANL's site, and found this.

      That's really cool.


      Blind faith in your leaders, or in anything, will get you killed. -- Bruce Springsteen

      by Plutonium Page on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 08:02:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It is really cool (4.00 / 5)

        and it fits into a diatribe I have been working on:

        Science Works!

        From the air you breathe to the paint on your house, from the car you drive to the medicine you take for everything from a headache to cancer to aids, from the steel in your apartment building to the microwaves and radiowaves and electrons you use to communicate, relax, enjoy and educate yourself via TV, VCR, DVD, internet, cell phone and at the movies...SCIENCE WORKS.

        I am a geologist, and when I was getting my PhD, we were talking about these problems - using iron filings to stimulate planktonic growth and carbon sequestration, grinding up olivine and peridotite to make ultra-fine reactive powders and films to react with CO2 and form stable, storable and usable minerals....

        SCIENCE FUCKING WORKS, so HANDS OFF the textbooks, fuckers!

        The only way to ensure a free press is to own one

        by RedDan on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 08:11:12 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Science does fucking work! (none / 0)

          And nothing makes me go nuts like the "intelligent design" morons.


          Blind faith in your leaders, or in anything, will get you killed. -- Bruce Springsteen

          by Plutonium Page on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 08:31:12 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  The Iron Filings Idea Went Bust (none / 0)

          some time ago as I recall.

          Also didn't I just read about a refutation of the idea that increased temps would accelerate plant growth thereby soaking up more carbon?

          Science definitely works but one of the ways is by showing us that screwups are often easier than fixes.

          We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

          by Gooserock on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 08:35:08 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The iron filings idea did (none / 0)

            go bust - the hypothesis was tested and found wanting...and the whole idea about increased plant growth and faster carbon uptake has been tested for years in real growth situations at Duke, my alma mater, and have shown that short term growth is increased, but that the growth is poor quality, low-survival, and that the soil is severely adversely affected...long term, that style of growth leads to weak, vulnerable trees and plants, stripped soil, and huge fule growth for massive fires (woo woo!).

            However, the minerals idea is still burbling along...

            and more to come.

            As for screwing up being easier than fixing - that is simply a restatement of one of the biggies - the second law of thermodynamics - entropy increases.

            Now go clean your room!

            The only way to ensure a free press is to own one

            by RedDan on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 08:39:12 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I don't get our intended points (none / 0)

            altough I am scientific type. Does science screws up too much, or fixes too much? Did someone try to apply the idea of "accelerated growth with increased temperature" to global warming (or vice versa)?

            I don't even know what "iron filings" are about. That's the advantage of science that wrong theories go away fast (and if they really wrong, the never come back). That's quite different than repeating the same Social Security or "climate ok" stories no matter how often they are debunked.

        •  God bless Science (n/t) (none / 0)

          I agree, it does fucking work. Even our current American Taliban, which talks bad about science 24/7, wouldnt give up its conveniences in a heartbeat.

          Cindy McCain: "In Arizona The Only Way To Get Around The State Is By Small Private Plane"

          by assyrian64 on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 11:12:27 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Come to think of it, our American Taliban, (none / 0)

            with its unaware, hypocritical embrace of science, eg, driving SUVs, enjoying Faux News Iraq War 3-D graphics, while at the same time dissing evolution, global warming, etc., do seem to have a ton in common with their Nissan-driving Afghani Taliban brothers, dont they?

            Cindy McCain: "In Arizona The Only Way To Get Around The State Is By Small Private Plane"

            by assyrian64 on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 11:32:43 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  How about intentional pollution? (none / 0)

      Moderately large volcanic eruptions, such as Pinatubo, eject enough sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere to cause demonstrable cooling over the entire earth for a few years (1 - 1.5 degrees C, if I remember correctly, from Pinatubo).  

      Since sulfur dioxide is not, to my knowledge, an ozone killer, perhaps a way could be found to transport sulfates into the stratosphere in large quantities while CO2 scrubbing and reforestation were worked on.  Don't know if anyone's working on this.

      Hanoi didn't break John McCain, but Washington did.

      by Dallasdoc on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 08:31:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  This is getting way out of my area of expertise (none / 0)

        but how do you keep the SO2 out of the troposphere?  SO2 is, if I recall right, a major component of smog and not good to breathe.  But I'm sure that people will be looking into that sort of solution, if they aren't already.

        I used to think that gimmicky-sounding solutions like CO2 scrubbers or stimulating planktonic growth in the ocean were a waste of time.  Now I'm starting to think that they may be our best hope.

        In times like these, you have to grow big enough to hold both the loss and the hope. - Ann Pancake

        by Scott in NAZ on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 08:38:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The other problem with SO2 (none / 0)

          is that it tends to be a good basis for the formation of H2SO4...acid rain.

          The only way to ensure a free press is to own one

          by RedDan on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 08:41:04 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'll take some pH 6.5 rain (none / 0)

            To turn on the air conditioner.  Sure, there's down-migration of SO2, but I'll bet the reflective advantage of stratospheric SO2 would far outweigh the global dispersion of returning SO2 as acid rain.  The economics are, of course, the obvious barrier--that's what research is for.

            Hanoi didn't break John McCain, but Washington did.

            by Dallasdoc on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 08:48:30 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The effects of acid rain (none / 0)

              are devastating economically, socially, and environmentally.

              The only way to ensure a free press is to own one

              by RedDan on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 08:52:18 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  But so is global warming (none / 0)

                I think we're going to get into some really thorny debates on environmental ethics in the future, as we find that solutions to one problem exacerbate another.

                In times like these, you have to grow big enough to hold both the loss and the hope. - Ann Pancake

                by Scott in NAZ on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 08:56:14 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  As a New England gardener for 20 years (none / 0)

                I do know about acid rain.  But given a bleak prospect, we will have to make some trade-offs and pay some prices.  I won't argue for SO2 seeding, but I think we have to be prepared to try cooling the earth actively if temperature increases start accelerating.  And we shouldn't do it in ignorance, so now is the time to look into any available possible mitigation strategies.

                Hanoi didn't break John McCain, but Washington did.

                by Dallasdoc on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 09:11:47 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  It also causes international problems (none / 0)

                The acid causing chemicals, NOx and SOx, are shot into the air, they get blown a few thousand miles east, and then they fall as acid rain on someone else.  At least in America, the people who create the acid rain (Missouri, Iowa), and the people who receive it (Pennsylvania, New York) are in the same country.  In other parts of the world, it causes international problems.  It has gotten so bad that Japan and South Korea are threatening to go to with China if China doesn't start to control its pollution.  It is also causing problems in Europe where poor countries like Poland and Hungary are losing their crops to acid rain from the industrial outputs in Germany, France, and UK.

                "I'm going to be on you like a numerator on a denominator." -Principal Skinner

                by dufffbeer on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 10:07:08 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  well... (none / 0)

        there are chaotic factors to consider : nudge the equation in the wrong direction ( but what would that be? ) and suddenly - BAM!  ice age or inferno.
  •  Baloney (none / 0)

    Global warming schlobal warming. I'm sure the fact that it was 60 degrees in January in Chicago yesterday and will be below zeros tomorrow is just a coincidence. Chicago is known for it's balmy January weather.
    •  indeed (none / 1)

      this 65 degrees in Washington DC is actually par for the course.  feeling a little chillier than usual myself
      •  I could go for some global warming right now (none / 0)

        Temperatures are -20 in my part of MN as we speak.  Why don't I get to be in on the fun.

        All kidding aside (the above about the temp is true though), there are so many environmental issues facing not only the US, but also the world, that it's frightening.  Things on all fronts (with only minor victories from time to time) are continually getting worse.  

        The US, and not just Bush II, dropped the ball on global warming when we said no to Kyoto (which still likely doesn't go far enough, even with our involvement).  Before that we dropped the ball in Rio when Bush I all but gave a cold shoulder to the conference.  

        We should be leading the world instead of screwing it, but the day that happens will be the day hell freezes over.  And, with the climate changes, who knows, maybe hell actually will freeze over.

  •  Climate is not Weather (none / 0)

    And the 'average temperature high' is a datum, but weather that is warm in one place or another is not the same as climate information.  Last year here was for a bit the coldest winter period on recent record.

    The original article does not mention whether the solar radiation is being reflected into space, as white clouds would do, or if it is being absorbed and turned into heat, which has different consequences.

    If someone wants to search, there is a lot of data on clouds, aerosols, particulates, and solar brightness.

    •  2003 was one of the top 10 (none / 0)

      warmest years in the past 1,000 - as I recall.

      Climate.

    •  It's Climate Change, not Global Warming (none / 0)

      The coldest winter on record actually adds to the evidence that something is happening, rather than refutes it.  This is the boneheaded mistake that Redumblicans make all the time.  Just because it's cold doesn't mean there's no global climate change occurring.  

      Don't like XOM and OPEC? What have YOU done to reduce your oil consumption? Hot air does NOT constitute a renewable resource!

      by Asak on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 04:19:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Actually (none / 0)

        it's climate change and global warming. The warming, on average of the planet is accurately called global warming even though the net increase in energy creates dynamic fluctuations that result in both warming and cooling extremes.

        Regardless, the best case I can make for continuing to call it global warming is that Frank Luntz sent out a memo to republicans telling them to call it climate change. As though this was somehow more pallatable to the sheeples.

  •  Maybe we'll eventually scortch the sky (none / 0)

    like in the Matrix, to prevent global warming.

    sigh...we're so fucked (in every hole, too.) Pardon the vulgarity.

    Victim of the *other* war America is waging.

    by nephalim on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 08:30:36 PM PDT

    •  Look, (none / 1)

      Everyone eventually dies, so we should go ahead and can the poor "I have to suffer and die" act.

      It's going to be a hell of a ride, so buckle your ass in and get prepared. The faint-of-heart are not going to do so well over the next fifty years.

      Some ansers are: hybrid-electric biodiesel sustained by reduced meat consumption. We need to have as many types of renewable energy as we can in the mix. We need to start seriously looking at what Buckminster Fuller figured out in his lifetime, which is to "Do more with less."

      HTH

      Say No to Spineless Democrats!

      by roboton on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 09:04:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  would those be (none / 0)

        Methane driven "fart" cars ?  Beans work well in place of meat.

        "Hybrid-electric biodiesel sustained by reduced meat consumption."

        •  Good Idea (none / 0)

          I have been thinking about that.  All of the bodily methane that people release should be used to generate energy.  People can walk around all day with a suction hose coming out of your ass, feeding a tank strapped onto your back.  Then, at the end of the day, you can use that fuel to heat your house or run your stove, or whatever.  The only problem is that people don't fart enough to generate that much energy.  Maybe if we would put those things on cows, we could power the country.

          "I'm going to be on you like a numerator on a denominator." -Principal Skinner

          by dufffbeer on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 10:14:22 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  No offense, (none / 0)

        but I fail to see the "I have to suffer and die" act in my post. We ARE getting fucked in every hole (as I said, pardon the vulgarity, I didn't want to mention it again.) That doesn't mean it has to be that way or everything will turn out bad in the end.

        Victim of the *other* war America is waging.

        by nephalim on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 08:08:31 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  re your conclusions (none / 0)

    if we go kyoto etc and speed up cleaning up polution, isn't the point that we speed up the devestating warming?

    Who controls the past, controls the future. Who controls the present, controls the past. George Orwell

    by moon in the house of moe on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 09:00:53 PM PDT

    •  Damned if you do damned if.... (none / 0)

      my personal feeling is that our long-term goal should be to try to return the atmosphere to how it was before industrialization, or as close as we can get it.  The sooner we start doing that the better.  If we keep increasing emissions we're guaranteed to get more global warming.  By cutting back emissions, we make the problem potentially more manageable and can hopefully work out some sort of technological solution.  

      Yuck, I can't believe I just said "technological solution."  I feel dirty.

      In times like these, you have to grow big enough to hold both the loss and the hope. - Ann Pancake

      by Scott in NAZ on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 09:41:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  So what can we do? n/t (none / 0)

    Find a local farmers market near you. http://www.localharvest.org/

    by bittergirl on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 09:43:35 PM PDT

    •  Hmmm (none / 0)

      Well, #1 is to use less energy and consume less.  American levels of consumption, transportation, and energy usage aren't sustainable in any way, and the rest of the world is trying to emulate us.  In this regard, we (as a nation) are going to have to lead by example.

      Beyond that, I think that things like writing your senators/reps and giving money to environmental groups can help.  But I feel like the problem is so big that these sorts of things are tilting at windmills.

      Let me think about this more.  Maybe I'll do another diary with more ideas.  Anyone else?

      In times like these, you have to grow big enough to hold both the loss and the hope. - Ann Pancake

      by Scott in NAZ on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 10:25:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The ideal system (none / 0)

    First we figure out how much we can pollute and remain environmentally sustainable. Then all the countries is given a certain amount of greenhouse gas emissions rights, on a per capita basis. Countries that don't use all their rights can sell them to countries that need more, helping out wealth distribution. Of course the US and Europe won't allow this to happen, but we can hope, right?

    When your dad dies, and hands you a country/ my dad dies and I'll get the Chevy- MK Ultra

    by Diego on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 10:11:26 PM PDT

  •  regional effects (none / 0)

    One point that is rarely discussed but (could be) important is the spatial scales of these competing terms. Global warming due to greenhouse gases is present on a hemispheric to global scale due to their long lifetimes. Thus, the positive forcing due to greenhouse gases is fairly uniform. Aerosols (pollutants) on the other hand are shorter lived. The forcing due to aerosols is more regional (east coast of US, Asia, India, Mexico City, etc). Sure, there is pollution everywhere, but there are "great" maps showing the climate forcing due to aerosols in plumes over the major polltions sources.

    I think that it will be very interesting to see what effect these regional differences will have.

    cheers,
    atmos

  •  A Couple Questions (none / 0)

    I don't follow environmental issues as thoroughly as I should.

    1. How are hybrid cars working out? My friends are buying them, and I will buy one when I have the funds, but how is the industry doing generally? Is this a good start?

    2. I believe I heard on the radio that scientists ran a test on one type of alternative fuel source car that actually put out less toxic air than it brought in. Maybe this was an anamoly, but my general question is: Has anyone put any thought into making automobiles mobile scrubbing units? What if cars actually purified the air?

    Am I just completely on drugs? If so, feel free to tell me, but please do so gently. My neck is brittle.
  •  I am not convinced of the premise of your post . . (none / 0)

    that soot is cooling the earth.  

    The aerosols (the very smallest of particles) that make up much of soot do reflect light from the sun causing cooling, but they also absorb infrared radiation from the earth causing warming.

    Sooty aerosols cause much more warming than cooling, according the World Meteorology Organization in about 2001 (sorry I don't have exact source).   Nothing personal, but I am going to trust the document from the WMO (written, edited, and reviewed by the world's best scientists) instead of a couple scientists in a documentary that was funded and edited by who knows who.  I am assuming the science has not changed since 2001.

    If anyone cares, I have a fairly solid background in environmental science--B.S. in Chemistry, M.S. in Environmental Science and Eng, and an A.B.D in Environmental Sociology.  

    Summary: I would suggest people check other sources (other than me and "Scott in NAZ") before jumping to conclusions.  

    •  Agreed (none / 0)

      the facile conclusion presented sounds just like the kind of results that 'industry scientists' (pronounceded whores) churn out to obscure issues and forestall any action. Anything that blocks light reaching the earth should also block it on the way back out, making any broad conclusions particularly sensitive to unmentioned details about the actual absorption spectra of the various screens, and the wavelengths at which the dimming was observed.
      •  hmmmm . . . (none / 0)

        Anything that blocks light reaching the earth should also block it on the way back out

        Yes, but it is usually not the same wave length on the way back out.  

        Take CO2.  It lets many different wavelenghts of sun light pass through the atmosphere.  These wavelengths then hit and are aborb by the earth and converted to heat.  The earth then radiates that heat into the atmosphere where it is either reflected back the earth by CO2 (or absorb by C02, I cannot remembers which) and the earths atmosphere heats up.  

        Definition: Greenhouse gases (and aresols) are those that reflected (anb/or absorb, I think) C02.

        •  My point exactly (none / 0)

          The overall impact is sensitive to intricate interactions and absorption spectra of the various actors, which aren't even really known.

          Sorry if I myself uttered an unsupportable generalization that opposed my central point.

        •  while I agree with your scepticism... (none / 0)

          there is one clarification I would make. Absorption due to aerosols is primarily in terms of solar radiation - that is, the shorter wavelengths are absorbed and re-emitted as heat to the surface. I'm sure there is some absorption of terrestrial radiation but the absorption at those longer wavelengths will be much less efficient for typical size distributions of aerosols.

          That said, the complete effect of dimming will depend on some complex feedback mechanisms. The extinction (scattering + absorption) of solar radiation due to aerosols reduces the amount of light reaching the surface with lowers the amount of terrestrial radiation emitted from the surface. But, the absorbing aerosol emits heat to the surface, thus raising the surface temperature. Now throw in the absorption of terrestrial radiation by aerosols. This doesn't even consider the effect of clouds or greenhouse gases! The net effect of the aerosols will depend on the relative amounts of scattering and absorption for the given aerosol loading.

  •  Some will shrug this off because (none / 0)

    they're talking 100 years into the future. But if you've got kids, grandkids, plan on having kids, then they'll be the ones truly suffering through the results.

    I can't understand how the repugs don't give a damn about their kids future.

  •  Why bother when the 2nd Coming is near? (none / 0)

    I mean, we'll all get raptured, except for these damned pinko commie liberal leftists.
    And if you don't think some nefarious and sick minds think like that, you're in for a bad shock.

    If indeed the global warming has been so far seriously limited by cooling side-effects of pollutants, we're truly fucked. If we have a 10 Celsius increase, this century will end with less than 1 bio humans, and it'll continue to decrease for some time during next century; a 10 degree increase in one century is something rarely seen on this planet in the last hundreds mio of years - and of course there'll be some further increase, though hopefully more limited, in the 22th century. I'm really thankful for the 60 mio Americans who committed a crime against mankind by rewarding Bush and the Evil GOP bastards, not to mention many other millions of irresponsible nutjobs abroad who gleefully drive SUVs and fly to the other side of the world in vacation every 3 months.

    Americans placed the stamp of approval on the least justifiable military action since Hitler invaded Poland. Paul C. Roberts

    by Clueless Joe on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 01:59:39 AM PDT

    •  Exactly! What would a born-again pres (none / 0)

      What would a silver-toungued born-again president who hears god talking to him do?

      All the policies they push are short-term and damn the future.  If the world really is going to end in the next 5 years, profits today make great sense.  Even if they think they aren't holy enough and will be left behind.

  •  In CNY (none / 0)

    The temperature has barely gone below 40 degrees so far this winter. It's been EXTREMELY warm. Hell, it was raining the other day!!! I can remember WAYYYYYYY back in the late 60's early 70's bitterly cold temperature's starting in early December.

    There is simply no doubt in my mind global warming is a fact.

  •  global heating and the climate crisis (none / 0)

    Warming is too nice a word.  I call it global heating.  Climate change is also too nice sounding.  I call it the climate crisis.

    It's real,it's here, it's going to get worse and the hardest thing for people in this non-nuanced time to get their heads around is the time lag---positive effects of positive change won't occur for years after the change. And of course we haven't even started.

    The National Geographic mentions the most important long term threat: the possibility of a million species dying out.  Given the relatively fast time frame,that probably means the planet earth as we have known it.

    As for this particular research, it seems to me to make too big a leap from too little data and too few questions addressed. I'm no expert but it doesn't sound like it's quite there quite yet.

    By the way, the average temperature rise doesn't begin to tell the story.  Some areas, like the far north, are already projected to rise by something like 15 degrees F.  

    Weather going nuts is a predicted feature.  We're seeing it on the news but the only thing our bozo mediamouths ever say is "Mother Nature." They must have had real interesting childhoods.

Permalink | 69 comments