As We Clean The Air, It Becomes Hotter?

[GSP]

As we clean the air, the earth’s temperature continues to increase. Is this supposed to happen?

[chrisbell-nottheweatherman]

What makes you think we're cleaning the air?

[GSP]

6 reasons the air you're breathing today is much cleaner than it was 50 years ago

WWW.FOXWEATHER.COM

---

Despite population growth, urban sprawl and more vehicles on the roads, getting a breath of fresh air is much easier today than it was five decades ago.

 

[GSP]

Significant UK air quality improvements over past 40 years cut death rates

WWW.CEH.AC.UK

---

Policies to improve air quality in the UK over the past 40 years have led to significant reductions in pollution and associated mortality rates, a new study...

 

[chrisbell-nottheweatherman]

18 minutes ago, GSP said:

6 reasons the air you're breathing today is much cleaner than it was 50 years ago

WWW.FOXWEATHER.COM

---

Despite population growth, urban sprawl and more vehicles on the roads, getting a breath of fresh air is much easier today than it was five decades ago.

 

Not the same as CO2, though.

[SnowBear]

This is something I have wondered about for a while now. 

The Clean Air Act was passed in 1956, mostly due to the heavy smogs experienced in the years before. 

Additionally since that time we ha e also seen a huge increase in air traffic. I once counted 17 aircraft in the air at the same time visible from my back garden (flights from and to Stanstead, Heathrow, Southend and Gatwick, high level non stopping intercontinental flights and a couple of helicopters.)

At times I have seen a clear sky first thing gradually turning to a hazy milky mess by lunch time as contrails drift and merge. 

Has anyone studied, or can point to a study which has looked into the effects overall of the Clean Air Act and also the explosion of international air traffic? How have these effected the ability of sunlight to increasingly reach the ground, the trapping of heat under the haze caused by contrails etc of aircraft? 

[GSP]

10 minutes ago, SnowBear said:

This is something I have wondered about for a while now. 

The Clean Air Act was passed in 1956, mostly due to the heavy smogs experienced in the years before. 

Additionally since that time we ha e also seen a huge increase in air traffic. I once counted 17 aircraft in the air at the same time visible from my back garden (flights from and to Stanstead, Heathrow, Southend and Gatwick, high level non stopping intercontinental flights and a couple of helicopters.)

At times I have seen a clear sky first thing gradually turning to a hazy milky mess by lunch time as contrails drift and merge. 

Has anyone studied, or can point to a study which has looked into the effects overall of the Clean Air Act and also the explosion of international air traffic? How have these effected the ability of sunlight to increasingly reach the ground, the trapping of heat under the haze caused by contrails etc of aircraft? 

During the days following 9/11, in the States scientists were able to conduct tests of the clear skies while jets were grounded and came up with some remarkable results, and against expectations.

Especially in built up areas the cleaner air caused a significant temperature rise of 2c.

Empty skies after 9/11 set the stage for an unlikely climate change experiment - National | Globalnews.ca

GLOBALNEWS.CA

---

Thousands of jets leave contrails over North America every day. They affect climate, but figuring out how was one of the more unlikely legacies of 9/11.

 

 

[SnowBear]

7 minutes ago, GSP said:

During the days following 9/11, in the States scientists were able to conduct tests of the clear skies while jets were grounded and came up with some remarkable results, and against expectations.

Especially in built up areas the cleaner air caused a significant temperature rise of 2c.

Empty skies after 9/11 set the stage for an unlikely climate change experiment - National | Globalnews.ca

GLOBALNEWS.CA

---

Thousands of jets leave contrails over North America every day. They affect climate, but figuring out how was one of the more unlikely legacies of 9/11.

 

 

This should now be backed up by studies done during the pandemic and when few air craft was in the air. Anyone seen any studies during that time? 

[GSP]

Just now, SnowBear said:

This should now be backed up by studies done during the pandemic and when few air craft was in the air. Anyone seen any studies during that time? 

Perhaps the papers and studies take a while to come out, and you’d like to think those out conducting studies are neutral, but my sceptical mind says with global trillions involved it might depend what the results are!

 

[Gray-Wolf]

In the mid noughties (?) NASA put out a report claiming 'Global Dimming' was reducing our potential warming by up to 50%

With the ongoing 'cleanup' that 50% of potential warming will make itself known no?

 

[GSP]

On 10/07/2022 at 19:36, Gray-Wolf said:

In the mid noughties (?) NASA put out a report claiming 'Global Dimming' was reducing our potential warming by up to 50%

With the ongoing 'cleanup' that 50% of potential warming will make itself known no?

 

Not sure how accurate the 50% is, but that’s my take on the direction of travel. As we clean the air we are warming at a faster rate. Is this supposed to happen?

[Gray-Wolf]

I think there was an amount of head scratching through the 90's & into the noughties at the 'shortfall' in expected warming (feeding the denier trolls?) but, as we found in israel in the late 40's 'pan evaporation rates' helped highlight just how much energy arriving at the top of the atmosphere made it through to the ground?

Pan evap rates are again on the increase downwind of China/SW Asia as folk there try & clean up their emissions to spare their city dwelling populations

I'm sure if you search the web you can find the 'BBC Horizon' prog looking at our discovery/understanding of 'Global Dimming'?

[mushymanrob]

So we arent "cleaning" the air, we are just polluting it less...at alower rate.

 

[GSP]

4 hours ago, mushymanrob said:

So we arent "cleaning" the air, we are just polluting it less...at alower rate.

 

So you’d think then as we think we can control the temperature, it’s actually going up faster with less pollution? Is this supposed to happen? Do we we really understand all the variables and state of play in a very complex environment to be making such claims?

[mushymanrob]

12 hours ago, GSP said:

So you’d think then as we think we can control the temperature, it’s actually going up faster with less pollution? Is this supposed to happen? Do we we really understand all the variables and state of play in a very complex environment to be making such claims?

its not less pollution, its polluting at a lower rate... but from more sources... eg 100 places pumping out 80 units of pollution is a lower rate than 10 places pumping out 90. but overall there still more.

"cleaning the air" suggests we are actually cleaning the air by some form of pollution removal.

 

[Gray-Wolf]

1 hour ago, mushymanrob said:

"cleaning the air" suggests we are actually cleaning the air by some form of pollution removal.

 

With the particulates Mother N. already has a way of 'dropping' it out of the atmosphere?

As I see things China scrubs far more of its 'dirty' outputs than it has over its economic development?

I'm sure this must have impact on the regions directly downwind of that 'pall'? 

[Methuselah]

I still remember the time when air arriving from the Continent (at whatever time of year) used to 'smell like London', and our bright blue skies took on a horrible yellowish hue. Thankfully, those days are mostly gone.

If GW is being caused by the various Clean Air Acts, maybe airborne particulates caused the Little Ice Age?

Edited July 26, 2022 by Ed Stone

[SnowBear]

5 minutes ago, Ed Stone said:

I still remember the time when air arriving from the Continent (at whatever time of year) used to 'smell like London', and our bright blue skies took on a horrible yellowish hue. Thankfully, those days are mostly gone.

If GW is being caused by the various Clean Air Acts, maybe airborne particulates caused the Little Ice Age?

I think there is a point which should be raised as to what counts as "pollution".

Without doubt some of the gases from internal combustion engines are, and lead to that yellow hue that you speak of. 

But there are gases and particulates which are essentially part of our weather systems. 

Smoke from wildfires left to their own devises are part of that system, many plants and trees have evolved to live with fire, many won't germinate without it. 

We now actively suppress wildfires vigorously, where once large areas would burn every so often, releasing smoke particles and gases into the atmosphere, some cooling, some warming, but leaving behind a fertile tract of land which very very quickly begins to regrow and flourish. This was seen after the Australian Bush Fires a few years ago, the land absolutely exploded with life. 

Obviously we have encroached on those areas which are prone to burn once every 10, 20, 50 or 100 or so years, whatever its cycle is. 

How much does our suppressing of biological cycles have an effect on weather systems? 

Recently we have had extreme dryness in the UK, previously this would probably have been a time when wildfires renewed the land, cleared away the old and rotten, and allowed new growth to appear. The ash from those fires (potash.. which I had to laugh at an article the other day which said "x acres of stubble destroyed".. Like.. Eh? Best thing for that field fertiliser wise Lol) creates a rich land of nutrients which would feed the new growth. 

So. Fire, which we suppress, creates particles, which become part of the weather systems. 

Thoughts? 

[RebsAbbo]

The two articles @GSP you quote are about pollutants and human health, not environmental/climate health. As @mushymanrobsays, some control of pollutants is not the same as ‘cleaning the air’.

Your question is not supported by the science you are quoting.

In regards to contrail effects, I don’t think the article is saying what you think it is either. The clean air didn’t particularly cause a temperature rise, it allowed for the normal process of daytime warming & nighttime cooling to occur (accounting for the range/temp differences). When we create ‘contrail cloud’ with the amount of air traffic we have we are clearly interfering with the natural processes of the atmosphere and contributing to an imbalance (global warming).

[Methuselah]

1 hour ago, RebsAbbo said:

The two articles @GSP you quote are about pollutants and human health, not environmental/climate health. As @mushymanrobsays, some control of pollutants is not the same as ‘cleaning the air’.

Your question is not supported by the science you are quoting.

In regards to contrail effects, I don’t think the article is saying what you think it is either. The clean air didn’t particularly cause a temperature rise, it allowed for the normal process of daytime warming & nighttime cooling to occur (accounting for the range/temp differences). When we create ‘contrail cloud’ with the amount of air traffic we have we are clearly interfering with the natural processes of the atmosphere and contributing to an imbalance (global warming).

Are not the biochemical processes we humans 'use' the very same ones used by almost all terrestrial animal life? Apart from cockroaches (which we all know to be indestructible!) won't pollutants that have negative impacts on us have similar effects on everything else? Do we not all descend from one of the first eukaryotic cells after all?

PS: I gave up any notions of photosynthesising many years ago!

Edited July 26, 2022 by Ed Stone

[RebsAbbo]

23 minutes ago, Ed Stone said:

Are not the biochemical processes we humans 'use' the very same ones used by almost all terrestrial animal life? Apart from cockroaches (which we all know to be indestructible!) won't pollutants that have negative impacts on us have similar effects on everything else? Do we not all descend from one of the first eukaryotic cells after all?

PS: I gave up any notions of photosynthesising many years ago!

Yes Ed, except viruses which came from another planet!

I should have used the term atmospheric  health, which is what we mean by the global warming. Yes that is what in turn is affecting our climate and the living organisms on it.

However, the articles about ‘clean air’ are referring to the reduction of people dying from the direct impact of pollutants in the air, ie respiratory diseases etc. not from the effects of warming .

The articles are also only looking at only some of the pollutants which are also considered greenhouse gases, but not all. From my understanding whilst we’ve made headway in reducing some of our pollutants, it’s the CO2 & water vapour which are of concern at the moment. This is not addressed in these articles.

We all keep trying to read these articles with broad stroke glasses on

[Methuselah]

32 minutes ago, RebsAbbo said:

Yes Ed, except viruses which came from another planet!

What about the Lizard People?  

[SnowBear]

Revisiting this considering the reports of various heat domes across the globe. 

I note this study by Oxford last year and after the last post on this thread. 

Makes interesting reading. 

Expert Comment: Air pollution cools climate more than expected –

WWW.OX.AC.UK

---

Air pollutants kill around seven million people every year. Much of this pollution is tiny particles suspended in the air which, when inhaled, can cause people to...

I can't find it now but I did read that a similar report came to the same conclusion on why heat and heatwaves were increasing in Southern Spain. 

To me it appears what we need to try and do is reduce CO2, but at the same time still allow certain particles to enter the atmosphere due to their cloud forming properties and increasing reflectivity. Additionally, much as many may decry, natural wildfires which have been part of the cycle of life and also part of the atmospheric system need to be left to burn out where possible, actively stopping them may have alternative results to what we currently assume? 

Edited July 17, 2023 by SnowBear
Spelling

[The PIT]

Stuffed either way we go. Pretty obivous though stronger sunlight more heating amplifide heat island effect as well.

[SnowBear]

11 minutes ago, The PIT said:

Stuffed either way we go. Pretty obivous though stronger sunlight more heating amplifide heat island effect as well.

Well, it would certainly account for the seas becoming warmer, more sunlight heating the top layer over a few decades.