Another interesting point is in relation to the agricultural revolution and temperature fluctuations . land use for agriculture from 1850 to 1940 went up from 1.19 to 3.15 billion HA which may account for the rising temperatures overweighing the rise in so2 and cooling effects of temperate deforestation with limited rise in co2. From 1940 to 1980 an extra billion HA was added while co2 and so2 were rising and tropical forests clearing was also rising but the temperature was held relatively constant as fertilizer use went from a few million tons to over 150m tons. so the acceleration in temperature after 1980 may have more to do with the lag effect of land dehydration and bioprecipitation producing high albedo clouds. coupled with the loss in the shock absorber effect of water as it has an energy density of 5000 times air. This may help prove a healthy hydrated biome could be on par or greater than co2 for temperature control so a lot could be done with the reorganization of our agricultural systems and healthy forest restoration. In regards to a healthy biome the biotic pump has a focal inflection point at the oceans edge so this is certainly a point of concern for agriculture and deforestation. In regards to precipitation nuclei the replacement of so2 for salt may be an appropriate substitution using the wasted heat from the exhaust systems along these same shipping routes. They have trialed misting salt water for reef cooling and cloud creation but why not use the wasted heat from combustion?
I completely don’t understand the inference re the benefits of air pollution as a retardant of air pollution. Where I get lost is if air pollution mitigated global warming, why wasn’t the latter this bad during the peak pollution years? Is the only reason it wasn’t was because of a smaller global population and less industrialization?
It's about global shipping. There's a ton of it, and in 2020 (ish) the shipping industry put into place restrictions on particle emissions (sulphurous products, etc.) from the massive amount of ship traffic — containers, oil and gas tankers, etc. This helps us have cleaner air (by a lot), but it also took away a major source of clouds. Particle emissions (i.e., "aerosols") cause cloud formation and clouds reflect some of the sun's energy back into space.
Less emissions, less clouds, more sunlight (solar energy) reaches the earth and gets retained. You'll see statements to that effect in the Hansen paper.
Bottom line: Cleaning up our planets air reduces pollution, but adds to global warming.
Another interesting point is in relation to the agricultural revolution and temperature fluctuations . land use for agriculture from 1850 to 1940 went up from 1.19 to 3.15 billion HA which may account for the rising temperatures overweighing the rise in so2 and cooling effects of temperate deforestation with limited rise in co2. From 1940 to 1980 an extra billion HA was added while co2 and so2 were rising and tropical forests clearing was also rising but the temperature was held relatively constant as fertilizer use went from a few million tons to over 150m tons. so the acceleration in temperature after 1980 may have more to do with the lag effect of land dehydration and bioprecipitation producing high albedo clouds. coupled with the loss in the shock absorber effect of water as it has an energy density of 5000 times air. This may help prove a healthy hydrated biome could be on par or greater than co2 for temperature control so a lot could be done with the reorganization of our agricultural systems and healthy forest restoration. In regards to a healthy biome the biotic pump has a focal inflection point at the oceans edge so this is certainly a point of concern for agriculture and deforestation. In regards to precipitation nuclei the replacement of so2 for salt may be an appropriate substitution using the wasted heat from the exhaust systems along these same shipping routes. They have trialed misting salt water for reef cooling and cloud creation but why not use the wasted heat from combustion?
I completely don’t understand the inference re the benefits of air pollution as a retardant of air pollution. Where I get lost is if air pollution mitigated global warming, why wasn’t the latter this bad during the peak pollution years? Is the only reason it wasn’t was because of a smaller global population and less industrialization?
Manqueman,
It's about global shipping. There's a ton of it, and in 2020 (ish) the shipping industry put into place restrictions on particle emissions (sulphurous products, etc.) from the massive amount of ship traffic — containers, oil and gas tankers, etc. This helps us have cleaner air (by a lot), but it also took away a major source of clouds. Particle emissions (i.e., "aerosols") cause cloud formation and clouds reflect some of the sun's energy back into space.
Less emissions, less clouds, more sunlight (solar energy) reaches the earth and gets retained. You'll see statements to that effect in the Hansen paper.
Bottom line: Cleaning up our planets air reduces pollution, but adds to global warming.
Does this help?
Thomas
Yeah. Damned if we do, damned if we don’t.
OTOH, what’s unrestrained capitalism if not something with built-in global destruction…
Thanks, Thomas!
The power of human ingenuity: the creation of a positive feedback loop that melts both poles.
Doing nothing about this should not be an option. But I'd almost be my house that inaction will be the order of the day.
Change "will be" to "is." But yes, you're right.
How about this for an edit?
I'd almost be[t] my house that inaction will remain the order of the day.