Clean air will kill us all!

[80]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/09/arctic_aerosols_goddard_institute/

 

NASA: Clean-air regs, not CO2, are melting the ice cap

 

Acid-rain countermeasures could drown London

 

By Lewis Page • Get more from this author

 

Posted in Environment, 9th April 2009 12:10 GMT

 

Microsoft - commmited to open source

 

New research from NASA suggests that the Arctic warming trend seen in recent decades has indeed resulted from human activities: but not, as is widely assumed at present, those leading to carbon dioxide emissions. Rather, Arctic warming has been caused in large part by laws introduced to improve air quality and fight acid rain.

 

Dr Drew Shindell of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies has led a new study which indicates that much of the general upward trend in temperatures since the 1970s - particularly in the Arctic - may have resulted from changes in levels of solid "aerosol" particles in the atmosphere, rather than elevated CO2. Arctic temperatures are of particular concern to those worried about the effects of global warming, as a melting of the ice cap could lead to disastrous rises in sea level - of a sort which might burst the Thames Barrier and flood London, for instance.

NASA graphic showing temperature trends vis-a-vis clean air rules

 

Acid rain fixed, woo! Hey, what's that gurgling sound?

 

Shindell's research indicates that, ironically, much of the rise in polar temperature seen over the last few decades may have resulted from US and European restrictions on sulphur emissions. According to NASA:

 

    Sulfates, which come primarily from the burning of coal and oil, scatter incoming solar radiation and have a net cooling effect on climate. Over the past three decades, the United States and European countries have passed a series of laws that have reduced sulfate emissions by 50 percent. While improving air quality and aiding public health, the result has been less atmospheric cooling from sulfates.

 

Meanwhile, levels of black-carbon aerosols (soot, in other words) have been rising, largely driven by greater industrialisation in Asia. Soot, rather than reflecting heat as sulphates do, traps solar energy in the atmosphere and warms things up.

 

The Arctic is especially subject to aerosol effects, says Shindell, because the planet's main industrialised areas are all in the northern hemisphere and because there's not much precipitation to wash the air clean.

 

"Right now, in the mid-latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere and in the Arctic, the impact of aerosols is just as strong as that of the greenhouse gases," says Shindell.

 

 

 

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

 

 

 

Dirty Chinese coal to save us all?

 

Other scientists have recently suggested that it's not just the Arctic which is subject to aerosol effects. Boffins from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have said that aerosol levels from dust storms and volcanoes alone would account for as much as 70 per cent of the temperature rise seen in the Atlantic ocean during the past 26 years, leaving carbon simply nowhere.

 

Shindell's new NASA study is particularly topical, as President Obama's new science advisor has just suggested that the subject of "geoengineering" - artificially modifying the climate - must be considered as a countermeasure to global warming. One measure put forward by geoengineering advocates is the deliberate injection of sulphur particulates into the atmosphere.

 

There might not even be any need for action on the part of the West, with China building sulphur-belching coal power stations and diesel vehicles at a furious rate in recent times. Dr Shindell doesn't say so, but it's at least possible that this has something to do with the fact that global temperatures have actually dipped slightly over the last couple of years.

 

Meanwhile Dr Shindell's position at NASA's Goddard Institute in New York must now be a potentially stressful one. His boss, Dr James Hansen, is more or less the father of the carbon-driven global warming menace. He won't be pleased at the suggestion that carbon emissions may not be such an overriding concern after all. Dr Hansen has even gone so far as to travel to the UK, to add his weight to protests against the Kingsnorth coal plant.

 

There are of course many arguments against a deliberate policy of sulphate emissions. They cause acid rain, for one thing: the original anti-sulphur regs weren't introduced just for fun. But the appearance of aerosols at the front of the climate-science stage does indicate that the issue isn't simple, and that environmental policies can have unforeseen and unexpected effects.

 

The goal of simply cutting CO2 emissions by any means possible might have to be reconsidered somewhat: Shindell's research, backed by other recent studies, suggests that it might be a lot more cost-effective to tackle emissions of black-carbon aerosols. Filtering soot from exhausts would be hugely easier than capturing and sequestering CO2, building a fully wind/electric Blighty or other ambitious eco-schemes.

 

"There's still a lot more that we need to sort out," says Shindell, in understated style.

 

There's more for laymen from NASA here, or subscribers to Nature Geoscience can read the relevant journal article here, and expert commentary here. ®

[BlueStar]

Arctic temperatures are of particular concern to those worried about the effects of global warming, as a melting of the ice cap could lead to disastrous rises in sea level - of a sort which might burst the Thames Barrier and flood London, for instance.

 

I though the fact the Arctic ice caps float mean that their melting has no effect and it's actually the Antactic ice caps which people are worried about?

 

Meanwhile Dr Shindell's position at NASA's Goddard Institute in New York must now be a potentially stressful one. His boss, Dr James Hansen, is more or less the father of the carbon-driven global warming menace.

 

Why?  Shindell isn't saying carbon isn't driving global warming, just that the effects of CO2 on climate have previously been masked by other factors.

[Guest optimistic nit]

does that first sentance make sense on any level?

[BlueStar]

does that first sentance make sense on any level?

 

Mine or the article's?  If it's mine, then it's basically about displacement caused by a floating body in liquid.

 

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/1023esuice.html

It comes down to a simple principle proved thousands of years ago by the Greek philosopher and scientist Archimedes. He showed that a body, in this case the floating ice of the North Pole, immersed in a fluid, is buoyed up by a force equal to the weight of the displaced fluid. In other words, since the northern pack ice is already floating its melting would not independently cause ocean levels to rise. However, the attending planetary conditions necessary to facilitate polar melting would likely have other enormous effects on the environment. These include the likely melting of the ice sheets covering Greenland and the vast reaches blanketing southern polar cap. As the ice over Greenland and Antarctica is NOT floating, a corresponding rise in the world's sea level would almost certainly result if it melted.

[Adam]

The temperature in Europe was 4 degrees warmer on average in the medieval warm period yet they didn't drown under the melting ice. Load of cobblers tbh.

[Guest LucaAltieri]

The temperature in Europe was 4 degrees warmer on average in the medieval warm period yet they didn't drown under the melting ice. Load of cobblers tbh.

 

In fairness, the European ice caps are a lot smaller.

[Adam]

The temperature in Europe was 4 degrees warmer on average in the medieval warm period yet they didn't drown under the melting ice. Load of cobblers tbh.

 

In fairness, the European ice caps are a lot smaller.

 

They are of a similar size as to what they were then, CO2 has a forcing affect but its mainly down to this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

 

We should aim to cut emissions etc, and i'm all for nuclear power elctric cars etc etc etc, but the influence we have on the climate is really tiny.

[BlueStar]

The temperature in Europe was 4 degrees warmer on average in the medieval warm period yet they didn't drown under the melting ice. Load of cobblers tbh.

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11644

[Adam]

The temperature in Europe was 4 degrees warmer on average in the medieval warm period yet they didn't drown under the melting ice. Load of cobblers tbh.

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11644

 

They talk about using growth rings, after the cock up in the IPCC 2001 report where they used Michael Manns tree ring chronology that was total bullshit, I have no faith in it. Also they don't reference any work in the article so I have no way of following up their findings.

 

The earth has been hotter and colder, in the past and people survived. Like I said, we need to work towards cutting greenhouse gas emissions, but talk about the ice caps melting is scaremongering. All of the reports I have read have no real idea how likely it is for ice caps to melt etc.

 

[BlueStar]

The temperature in Europe was 4 degrees warmer on average in the medieval warm period yet they didn't drown under the melting ice. Load of cobblers tbh.

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11644

 

They talk about using growth rings, after the cock up in the IPCC 2001 report where they used Michael Manns tree ring chronology that was total bullshit, I have no faith in it.

 

If you actually read the article, one of their main points about growth rings is they're unreliable (Edit: And it's things like those growth rings that people have come up with the "Medieval warm spell" from)

 

The earth has been hotter and colder, in the past and people survived.

 

Yes, they've covered that one as well

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11647

 

Also they don't reference any work in the article so I have no way of following up their findings.

 

Try clicking some of the hyperlinks embedded in the article.

[Adam]

Well it has been colder, people were alive during the last ice age.

 

I wish new scientist would refer to the articles they use, rather than stating something as fact. There is plenty of proof for medieval warming, Wether it was local or global scale is hard to tell.

 

Articles like the OP that focus on one gas, being the key are absurd, its a massive complex system, with a huge amount of factors.

[BlueStar]

There is plenty of proof for medieval warming

 

But like I say, the proof comes only from what we can observe of stuff like tree rings, things you've called bullshit.  You can't have it both ways and say both that the science we use to estimate previous temperatures is flawed and then claim with authority (to the degree no less) how much warmer it was in Europe in Medieval times, even if a regional temperature variation in the past had relevance when we're talking about current, global temperature trends.

 

[indi]

The temperature in Europe was 4 degrees warmer on average in the medieval warm period yet they didn't drown under the melting ice. Load of cobblers tbh.

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11644

 

They talk about using growth rings, after the cock up in the IPCC 2001 report where they used Michael Manns tree ring chronology that was total bullshit, I have no faith in it. Also they don't reference any work in the article so I have no way of following up their findings.

 

The earth has been hotter and colder, in the past and people survived. Like I said, we need to work towards cutting greenhouse gas emissions, but talk about the ice caps melting is scaremongering. All of the reports I have read have no real idea how likely it is for ice caps to melt etc.

 

 

Are you trying to say that the icecaps aren't melting? They so obviously are, there's shedloads of evidence to show it, the glaciers are also retreating and the Earth is warming all of which can be shown to be true by the evidence. So what, if it's happened before, so have lots of things, it doesn't mean we should be unconcerned about them happening again. Yes, the human race has survived these things in the past and we probably would again, but that's no reason to suggest that we should sit back and do nothing about climate change. There are a lot more of us now and we are living in areas of the world that will be badly affected by either the rising sea levels (ie Bangladesh) or the expansion of deserts (ie Africa). Our society, for all it's technology and so-on, is probably less suited to the effects of climate change than we were in the past; we are less nomadic, we live in large cities which are often in low lying areas, we are dependent upon our infrastructure to supply us with food and so-on and are therefore less self-sufficient, we have imposed artificial restrictions upon movement (countries, borders, etc) and so-on. The fact is; climate change will affect the human race, things will have to change, people will die, and we do need to do something about it. To claim otherwise is delusion on a grand scale.

[Adam]

If you read my posts, I did say, we should cut emissions go nuclear electric cars hydrogen powered planes etc. Some glaciers are retreating some are growing. It isnt warming all over the world, there are large areas of the southern hemisphere that are actually cooler than 10 years ago. People are amazed that ice melts in the summer, and use it as an idea of a global melt down. One of the problems is that ice melts in the summer, but the winter snow fall is lower than pervious decades so it is reduced (Greenland here).

 

All I am arguing is that, we have no idea what the change will be, I do contradict myself as I think we should act, but the worst scenario reports like the IPCC are not the best way to do it. People die all the time due to temperature and climate variations, which are natural. Yet they aren't covered by the news any more as it is a norm. As a global society we could help out all the poor and starving people but we choose, to keep our comfortable western lives rather than give up our mass consumption to help others. Govts need to stop fannying on with half arsed measures, like the odd wind farm here and there and actually do something about it. Large scale projects that will make a huge difference to emissions not just small projects here and there.

 

As for the MWP, there is other evidence than tree rings, higher tree lines in the alps for example, archaeological evidence of food growth in Greenland and parts of Scandinavia. It doesn't mean it will be the same again, regional temperature trend are jsut as important, people live in regional areas, and knowing what past climate was like in that area allows for more accurate global models.