Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Cleaning the air helps cool planet: Cutting smog and soot has an immediate impact on climate change

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-12-08 12:44 PM
Original message
Cleaning the air helps cool planet: Cutting smog and soot has an immediate impact on climate change
http://www.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/Short-term-mitigation/cleaning-the-air-helps-cool-planet

Cleaning the air helps cool planet

12 December 2008

Emissions cuts offer 'greatest potential for substantial, simultaneous improvements in local air quality and near-term mitigation.'

By Douglas Fischer
Daily Climate

Local and state regulators have new ammunition in the fight to justify expensive air pollution rules: Cutting smog and soot has an immediate impact on climate change.

A study published this week bolsters the link between air quality and climate, finding that across-the-board cuts in air pollution can spur "substantial, simultaneous" improvement in local air quality and near-term mitigation of climate change.

Trimming smog and soot also represents an alternate and far more immediate global warming solution for regulators stymied by the complexities of other greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, said Drew Shindell, a climate scientist at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Sciences and the lead author of the study.

Tackling air pollution can buy 20 to 30 years worth of mitigation, he said – time that will be needed, if ongoing debates in Poznan, Brussells and Washington D.C. offer any indication – to cut the political and economic knots associated with carbon dioxide.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
opihimoimoi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-12-08 12:51 PM
Response to Original message
1. The big picture hardly anyone cares about...they cannot/will not see the
vision of cleaner air...

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-12-08 12:54 PM
Response to Original message
2. Study Here
Edited on Fri Dec-12-08 12:58 PM by OKIsItJustMe
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Shindell_etal_3.pdf
ABSTRACT

Shindell et al. 2008

Shindell, D., J.-F. Lamarque, N. Unger, D. Koch, G. Faluvegi, S. Bauer, and H. Teich, 2008: Climate forcing and air quality change due to regional emissions reductions by economic sector. Atmos. Chem. Phys., 8, 7101-7113.

We examine the air quality (AQ) and radiative forcing (RF) response to emissions reductions by economic sector for North America and developing Asia in the CAM and GISS composition/climate models. Decreases in annual average surface particulate are relatively robust, with intermodel variations in magnitude typically <30% and very similar spatial structure. Surface ozone responses are small and highly model dependent. The largest net RF results from reductions in emissions from the North America industrial/power and developing Asia domestic fuel burning sectors. Sulfate reductions dominate the first case, for which intermodel variations in the sulfate (or total) aerosol optical depth (AOD) responses are ~30% and the modeled spatial patterns of the AOD reductions are highly correlated (R=0.9). Decreases in BC dominate the developing Asia domestic fuel burning case, and show substantially greater model-to-model differences. Intermodel variations in tropospheric ozone burdens are also large, though aerosol changes dominate those cases with substantial net climate forcing. The results indicate that across-the-board emissions reductions in domestic fuel burning in developing Asia and in surface transportation in North America are likely to offer the greatest potential for substantial, simultaneous improvement in local air quality and near-term mitigation of global climate change via short-lived species. Conversely, reductions in industrial/power emissions have the potential to accelerate near-term warming, though they would improve AQ and have a long-term cooling effect on climate. These broad conclusions appear robust to intermodel differences.

* http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Shindell_etal_3.pdf">Download PDF (Document is 716 kB)

Interesting: "…reductions in industrial/power emissions have the potential to accelerate near-term warming, though they would improve AQ and have a long-term cooling effect on climate…"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mojorabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-12-08 01:53 PM
Response to Original message
3. I read a while back
that the pollution was helping to mitigate warming. It is all so confusing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-12-08 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Simple
The particulate matters act as a sunshade, reducing sunlight and simply reducing the heat on an earthbound object.

But in the long run the particulates hold the heat in the air thereby increasing heat in the atmosphere and causing global warming as the air moves from pole to pole.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FedUpWithIt All Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-12-08 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. The issue was that the pollution helped reflect the suns rays back into space.
Edited on Fri Dec-12-08 02:50 PM by FedUpWithIt All
It created a cooling effect.

I think that the problem is that the greenhouse affect is MORE dangerous than the heat increase that we would see if we were to limit the particle reflection.

What i think is most concerning is that there will be a heat increase (lower reflection causing higher heating from the sun into an atmosphere that has increased heat retension) before any of our efforts bring about any sort of change. We are already in a feedback scenario.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mojorabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-13-08 12:13 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. Thanks for the explanation!
The environment needs to be the number one thing we tackle because if we are not successful nothing else matters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-12-08 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. The key is that there are different sorts of pollution being talked about here
For example: when you burn coal, you get CO2 and SO2. They have different effects.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenPartyVoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-13-08 12:57 AM
Response to Reply #3
8. Yeah, that's what I thought as well
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 12:51 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC