back to article Pollution-gobbling molecules in global warming SMACKDOWN

Elusive pollution-busting molecules are scrubbing our planet's atmosphere at a much faster rate than first imagined, according to gas-bothering boffins. Reactions by the cleaning agents, known as Criegee intermediates, are also emitting a by-product that forms solar radiation-reflecting clouds that could help cool Earth and …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Silver badge
Joke

New improved Criegee!

Gaia's own spring-cleaning solution!!

Seriously though, really interesting work. Anything that improves our understanding of the climate is great.

3
0

One Question...

Are we going to be living this year or killing ourselves off?

(sorry it just seems to change at a whim every year)

2
0
Anonymous Coward

Why oh why oh why...

What the true scientists of the Daily Mail need to know is on which page do the molecules cause cancer and which page they cure it.

0
0
Thumb Up

Gaia FTW

So forests have (yet another) mechanism for creating global homeostasis that they (and we) need to survive. Maybe we should stop cutting them down, then...

4
0

I don't know the latest stats, but I recall reading that from 1945 to 1992, the amount of forested land in the US east of the Mississippi quadrupled. This was in a time of population boom and massive suburban sprawl in the most densely populated part of the US. Keep in mind that the US Department of Agriculture created false economies to encourage more farming during that time, otherwise it might have been AN EVEN GREATER RATE of reforestation.

2
0

Forestry

That's cool. I heard on Radio4 the other day that Brazil is doing really well at stopping illegal logging too.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

"The reaction also spews

sulphate and nitrate into the atmosphere, creating aerosol droplets that seed planet-cooling clouds."

Acid rain?

0
0

@"The reaction also spews #

Not acid rain.

Snow....8 metres of it in some parts of Austria, so far this winter.

At 0700 this morning it was -20 C. Fact not fiction.

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Great Minds...

...Think alike...help out..get involved...You never know what we can achieve:

http://freeenergytruth.blogspot.com/

See you there :)

0
3
Anonymous Coward

I wonder if the BBC will finally report this over the gibberish they have come out with in the past.

For example, Now the Venusian hell hole fear mongering has be placed in the corner with a dunce cap on the BBC decided to drag out some twunt with a PHD to claim that global warming could cause the mutation of plant diseases that could wipe out vast quantities of our food supply.

Another whopper they kept spouting is that because there is an consensus on global warming then no reasonable person would doubt it as fact therefore they didn't need to broadcast evidence to the contrary, a standpoint they have been forced to retract lately. They have now finally accepted that the global temperature peaked in 1998 with a record high and has remained stable at a lower value for the last decade. as usual though they did manage to fine another twunt that claimed this didn't prove anything.

So 20 years of data from the late n 70's showing a rise is indisputable proof of AGW that only the insane would deny but no rise in the last 13 years proves nothing. Please don't tell me these 'scientists' give a crap about the data, all they care about is their continued gravy train and not being made to look like the worst gutter press journos with their lies and scare tactics.

7
2
Anonymous Coward

Zombee

Even for Zombee arguments, these are taking a fair bit of killing:

1998 warmist year: It was a massive El ninio, it should have been hotter. This year (well, last 12 months) is a la nina, it should be colder, but it's not, we've only dropped to 1998 temperatures. This is a serious problem and not evidence that climate isn't changing. As it happens, look either side of 1998 and plot a trend to now and you'll see warming.

No consensus on global warming. No, there isn't consensus, there are a lot of very shouty people saying the the high 90s % of scientists who are working in the area and are in consensus are wrong. The BBC was criticised in an official report last year for allowing a disproportionate amount of coverage of people who say there is no global warming / AGW.

0
0
Silver badge

By whom, exactly?

"The BBC was criticised in an official report last year for allowing a disproportionate amount of coverage of people who say there is no global warming / AGW"

Criticized in an official report written by whom exactly? The government bureaucrats who have been pushing their poverty-promoting, "we can save the planet on the backs of the poor" agenda for years? Or some of your scumbag Lords, like Oxburgh, heavily invested in "green" business ventures? If you think "official" mean "true" then you are quite a fool.

1
0
Anonymous Coward

but wait

'are also emitting a by-product that forms solar radiation-reflecting clouds that could help cool Earth and reduce the effects of global warming' - what if they go too far and we have another ice age - new headlines please, NEW AGE NOT CAUSED BY HUMANS!!!! - subtag Cameron in attempt to create new heat tax - the less heat you generate the more he taxes you (old 'green' taxes are dropped quietly).

The earth is ~ 4.5 billion years old and for 4.5 billion of those years it has been undergoing some form of climate change. Now will everyone please find something new to prattle on about.

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Err...

"...forms solar radiation-reflecting clouds that could help cool Earth and reduce the effects of global warming"

Clouds are extremely complicated and their behavior cannot be summed up in simplistic statements like this. On the simplest level what the statement misses is that if a cloud reflects upwards (ie: reflects sunlight back towards the sun) it also reflects energy that would otherwise escape downwards, back to the planet. This would negate pretty much all, if not actually all, of any cooling trend caused by reflecting solar energy away.

2
1

Re "Err..."

I'm having trouble reconciling your statement with the second law of thermodynamics......

0
0
Anonymous Coward

@Rick 17

Err, why? All I said was that the clouds could negate loss of incoming energy by preventing escape of energy. I also specifically said that clouds are very complicated and can't easily be summed up in single sentences.

0
0
Alien

Alien?

Why does "a species of Creigee Intermediates" sound like a type of alien?

What are they doing in our atmosphere. Are they going to come and attack us when we stop polluting our atmosphere with CO2? Maybe the greenies, and not the green alieans, but the green humans, need to be told this.

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Take no chances..

I for one welcome our new Creigee Intermediate overlords..

0
0

Okay, so where does that leave the 'settled science' on AGW?

0
0
Gold badge
Boffin

A few points

The A in AGW is for "anthropogenic "

That's roughly "caused by humans."

The idea that humans are too insignificant to alter the global weather system *should* have died a death when it was realized that CFC's affected the Ozone layers.

*However* I have since learned that CFC's *can* have natural sources. The question is do those outweigh the *persistent* leaking of human made CFC's since 1933.

While not proofs of anything I'll also note that *all* Silicon semiconductors operate on the same order of impurities as the level of CO2 in the atmosphere to deliver resistance changes of *orders* of magnitude. While the difference between Testosterone and Estrogen levels in males and females is about 2ppm (At 5ppm T & 3ppm E you're male. Flip the numbers and it's the other way round).

Personally I believe humans *are* doing things that are making changes to the global weather system. However the slipshod work of the East Anglia CRU has done nothing to improve the credibility of the case for AGW.

I want the science to tell the *whole* story, not a slanted version that serves someones agenda. If the margins for error are 100% or more lets find out *why* they are so high and do something about them.

Then opinions become irrelevant because we will all *know*.

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Will never work. Not a denier, I want to know the truth.

A. Lay people don't have the ability to understand the the scientific evidence (I include myself)

B. We have politicians and media who have an agenda, no matter if it's 'scare the crap out of people to sell them stuff' or 'fleece them on the back of a spurious argument', the evidence will never be free of bias.

C. It's a gravy train and it seems anyone doing work to disprove the 'accepted' theories gets villified by those taking the party line before being stripped or denied funding.

0
0
Terminator

The effects of global warming don't matter as such

Whether global warming is happening or not and whether it's man made or not is besides the point. We shouldn't be wasting our resources and pollution still effects humans whether or not it heats up the earth.

Breathing in people's exhaust in a city is bad enough. If you don't mind pollution go live in China or one of those poor countries where we dump computer waste and the land is too toxic to walk on. The rest of us rather live in a clean environment

1
1
Bronze badge

I think I saw this in an anime once

or something else sci-fi.

They create some particle to save us all from evil pollutants. The particles, however, cause dangerous and fatal allergic reactions in most of the human population.

So it's dangerous to be outside whenever these savior clouds are around, and for a while after they've left. Creating a much more hazardous condition than the unspecified "pollution" they were released to clean up.

Of course the company that owns the patent on these magic particles becomes the most powerful corporation on earth, subverting all governments openly....

when it comes to government help, I look to HP Lovecraft: "I say to you againe, doe not call up Any that you can not put downe; by the Which I meane, Any that can in Turne call up Somewhat against you, whereby your Powerfullest Devices may not be of use. Ask of the Lesser, lest the Greater shal not wish to Answer, and shal commande more than you."

Because not only do you have to worry about what Big Government does to "help", you have to worry what that "help" can bring about.

0
0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Forums