Fossil Fuels curbs may speed up Global Warming

[Invisible Insanity]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=570&ncid=753&e=3&u=/nm/20050113/sc_nm/environment_britain_warming_dc

can this be right???? This makes little sense to me :huh:

[travc]

The author of the article is a tool IMO. Just the sheer density of "code phrases" makes it extremely unlikely that he does not realize he is spreading FUD.

There is probably some truth the the idea that some chemicals and certainly particulates increase the earth's albedo (reflectiveness). But postulating that the effect is stronger than the infrared trapping effect of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses is a big stretch. Furthermore, simple data (such that could easily find it's way into a popular article) like the wavelenths reflected, the efficeny of reflection, and the atmospheric density of the gasses in question are conspicuously missing. A simple back-of-the-envelope calcluation could be made with just approximations of those figures and grant major credibilty to the claim.

BTW: Sulfur dioxide is one (basically the) primary culprit behind acid-rain. Great, lets remove those expensive scrubbers and catalytic converters and kill all the fish and trees in certain regions (like the US midwest and the Black Forest) so we can pump more SO2 into the atmosphere to offset the CO2 being pumped out by the same sources. Wonderful logic... assuming that the hypothesis isn't just complete BS, which I suspect it is.

[Invisible Insanity]

Thank you for replying. I thought I had stepped into the twilight zone or something. It smacked of retardation, but I usually don't attribute the BBC or Reuters with this type of garbage. Guess no one's perfect.

Al

[post tenebras lux]

Thank you for replying. I thought I had stepped into the twilight zone or something. It smacked of retardation, but I usually don't attribute the BBC or Reuters with this type of garbage. Guess no one's perfect.

Al
Um, did you actually check the BBC's version (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4171591.stm)?

It seems slightly less bizarre/toolish when you take out crap like Scientists differ as to whether global warming is caused by man-made emissions of carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse" gases, by natural climate cycles or if it exists at all.

Luxie

[theyeti]

There's nothing new about the idea that sulphates and other aerosols block sunlight and can have a cooling effect. It was precisely this fact that led some to speculate that we could cause global cooling if aerosol emissions kept growing unchecked. (However, contrary to the propaganda of GW denialists, this idea never went beyond speculation and is thus not comparable to the current consensus on warming.) However, if this research is sound, then it shows that the amount of "dimming" is much greater than previously appreciated. Since we've been doing a good job of reducing aerosols and particulates, this will reduce one of the factors that partially offsets global warming. D'oh!

Yeah, the Yahoo.com article is absolute shit. The BBC article is not bad.

This one sentence jumped out at me:

Even the most pessimistic forecasts of global warming may now have to be drastically revised upwards.

I don't know if this is true or not, but it underscores how dumb it is to argue that uncertainty is a sound reason for maintaining the status quo. There is just a good a chance that things will be far worse than we think as there is that things will be far better, which is what denialists are putting all of their (and our) chips on.

theyeti

[Seb]

I've just finished watching the BBC's Horizon programme which was about the phenomenon of 'global dimming'. Here's the programme transcript.

Global Dimming (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_prog_summary.shtml)

It was frightening stuff, with new models suggesting that the effect of pollution on global warming has actually been underestimated.

[epepke]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=570&ncid=753&e=3&u=/nm/20050113/sc_nm/environment_britain_warming_dc

can this be right???? This makes little sense to me :huh:

The BBC article is much better than the Yahoo article.

It could be right. It could be wrong. It's heartening, because it means that people are still investigating the scientific issues despite all the pressure to treat it as a religious issue.

[Corey Hammer]

My thing is...

Aren't fossil fuels also a source of greenhouse gases too? The two effects should still balance as they both reduce due to a drop in fossil fuel use.

[theyeti]

My thing is...

Aren't fossil fuels also a source of greenhouse gases too? The two effects should still balance as they both reduce due to a drop in fossil fuel use.

Yes, fossil fuels are the primary source of CO2. But there have been great strides since the Clean Air Act in reducing aerosols and particulates that are emitted from fossil fuel combustion. SOx, NOx, and particulates cause lots of "normal" pollution -- specifically, SOx and NOx cause acid rain, and particulates are very damaging to your health. So scrubbers have been placed in smokestacks to remove most of these byproducts. Unfortunately, no one knows how to remove CO2, since it's a largely inert gas. And until relatively recently, no one thought it mattered. There has been talk about pumping CO2 underground, but that's mostly speculation at this point. So unlike the other byproducts, which are increasingly being reduced, all of the CO2 still goes into the atmosphere.

If we reduce fossil fuel consumption, then of course we'll reduce CO2 emissions along with the other byproducts as well. However, fossil fuel use is projected to rapidly increase for at least the next 2-3 decades, which means that CO2 emissions will not go down, they'll go up. Meanwhile, improved anti-pollution technology should either level off or decrease the amount of aerosols and particulates being emitted. If the "dimming" effect of these byproducts is greater than previously believed, then the net effect will be even more warming.

theyeti

[g-21-lto]

My thing is...

Aren't fossil fuels also a source of greenhouse gases too? The two effects should still balance as they both reduce due to a drop in fossil fuel use.
But if you read the BBC article, it points out that there are added dangers to the "global dimming" -- less sunlight reaches the oceans and so it is thought that less precipitation is produced, leading to dangers of drought and famine.

[theyeti]

Here's a post on the subject by RealClimate (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=105). They think the Beeb programe is a bit overhyped.

theyeti