Shouldn't the air pollution improvements from the 70's-90's help Global Warming?

Question

Shouldn't we give those improvements time to work before spending billions on new laws and requirements?

So 10-30 years is a large enough sample to determine those improvements aren't working? That little time period compared to the warming/cooling trends is long enough to determine the final value?

Answer 1

some theorise that the reduction of particulate polution has helped cause global warming by reducing the reflectivity of our atmosphere.

Essentially... obeying the environmental cooling scaremongers of the 1970's has caused global warming...

Its all the environmentalist's fault!

Answer 2

since some pollutants act as both greenhouse gases and UV-vis absorbers (ie O3) the net effect of these chemicals is solar dimming. Other pollutants block the sun as well (aerosols). Air pollution improvements focused on these smog causing chemicals and not other chemicals like CO2, CH4, alkyl halides (except cfc's), ect. Because CO2 and other greenhouse gases do not deplete the ozone layer or cause disease ,they were not part of the improvements. Therefore, with reduced smog forming chemicals in the air, global warming would actually increase, because more sunlight hits the earths surface and is re-irradiated as IR light which GHG's absorb, heating the planet.

Remember, a catalytic converter only removes smog forming chemicals, not CO2. The full impact of increased greenhouse gas concentration has been, and continues to be masked by the presence of other pollutants in the atmosphere.

Answer 3

I was in high school in 1970. I saw the first Earth day. At the time we were making progress cleaning up the smog. Reducing unburned hydrocarbons, ozone, nitrous oxide, particulates, and all kinds of things. But it was well known and stated explicitly at the time that even totally clean burning of coal and oil would still inevitably result in releasing carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is the pure chemical result of combustion of carbon with oxygen. You can never clean the carbon dioxide out of the exhaust stream, because it IS the exhaust stream, not just a pollutant in the exhaust. It is also a natural part of the air, and in fact necessary for life on Earth. Without carbon dioxide, all plants would die and all animals would soon starve. It was recognized back then that the Earth's natural carbon cycle might not keep up with all the extra carbon dioxide we were adding to the air, and it would probably start to build up. But it was just considered a small problem since the amount we are adding is still very small and it IS a natural and necessary gas in the air. I still hold that view. I think the world will run out of oil before the levels of CO2 get too high. But coal will not run out so soon. And coal has more carbon content than oil. So I say, do not worry about saving oil. We will just run out soon enough. I say worry about coal. Let us hope we learn how to make power with nuclear fusion before we start relying mostly on coal, because no other energy source will be enough to feed our gigantic and growing appetite for energy. Solar and wind and such much too weak to replace coal. Don't spend money planting trees. You will never keep up with the CO2 no matter how many trees you plant. Give your time and money to fusion research.

Answer 4

There is very little overlap between the species of chemicals that were addressed by laws passed in the 1970s through the 1990s to improve air quality and those chemicals that cause global warming.

Answer 5

The improvements you speak of are about toxic (poisonous) pollutants. The don't reduce global warming. In fact reductions in smoke ("aerosols") are speeding global warming up. Proof:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

Do you think thousands of scientists don't know these facts? And that your judgment is more informed than theirs?

Answer 6

We did that in the US. But look at the rest of the world. China is growing like crazy, and their population is many times that of the US. They are not as concerned with the "green" movement because they are trying to develop (I can't really blame them either since we did it ourselves last century). But basically look at the big picture.

Answer 7

Sure they help, but latest research indicates that it is not enough. If the measures are already falling short, giving these measure a longer time to fail will not help at all.

Answer 8

They've helped as much as they are going to. They were compromises at the time, and not directed at Global Warming, although no doubt they've helped.

Answer 9

Not according to Al and Oprah. I saw it myself on TV. The ice is melting and it never has before. CO2 is killing everything. The sea is going to raise 20 feet. Katrina is just an example of what is to come. It is all our fault. Now millions of us are going to die living in our little houses and they can say they told us so. The only possible chance we have is to buy Al's book and CD.

Answer 10

The Global warming thing is a hoax. It is used political and is costing you and I nothing but $. We as earth are going through a cycle which has occurred in the past and will again. Nature is the culprit here not man.