3 ms·

"Europe's rapid warming is partly the result of [...] a drop in the number of tiny polluting particles in the air. This means that less of the Sun's energy is r

by k__ 3mo ago

"Europe's rapid warming is partly the result of [...] a drop in the number of tiny polluting particles in the air. This means that less of the Sun's energy is reflected back into space, leaving more energy to heat the Earth's surface." Hmmm...

rsynnott 3mo ago
This is a fairly well-known phenomenon, and sometimes comes up in geoengineering discussions. It’s dangerous ground; thing about fine particulate matter is you generally don’t want to breathe it.
- swiftcoder 3mo ago
  Ideally we would want a fine particulate that stays high in the atmosphere, and doesn't come down where we need to breathe
  - astral_drama 3mo ago
    Fine particulates aren't a problem if you wear a gas mask though.
    - illiac786 3mo ago
      Yay.
mike_hock 3mo ago
Revs the coal-rolling truck's engine. "Once and for all." "But ..." Revs the engine again. "ONCE AND FOR ALL!"
dofm 3mo ago
This is now quite well-studied because we have had two periods in our own lifetimes (OK I guess maybe not in the lifetimes of some HN readers!), where we have cut air pollution radically almost overnight. 9/11 and the COVID pandemic transport shutdown. In both cases, the pan evaporation rate went up; in the case of 9/11 it went up very noticeably in a short period of time. Essentially: clean air == less "global dimming". Whether any really recent changes like the increasingly successful rollout of electric cars is yet having an effect, I don't know.
- Wacari 3mo ago
  Yeah, another example is when the Internation Maritime Organization reduced the legal sulfur content limit in shipping fuel. This reduced SO2 emissions by about 80%, which improved human health, but also caused an increase in short-term atmospheric warming.
dwroberts 3mo ago
The full quote is > Europe's rapid warming is partly the result of the melting of bright snow and ice, and a drop in the number of tiny polluting particles in the air. That first one is kind of important and it seems intentionally misleading to omit it

by k__ 3mo ago

rsynnott 3mo ago

This is a fairly well-known phenomenon, and sometimes comes up in geoengineering discussions. It’s dangerous ground; thing about fine particulate matter is you generally don’t want to breathe it.

swiftcoder 3mo ago
Ideally we would want a fine particulate that stays high in the atmosphere, and doesn't come down where we need to breathe
- astral_drama 3mo ago
  Fine particulates aren't a problem if you wear a gas mask though.
  - illiac786 3mo ago
    Yay.

mike_hock 3mo ago

Revs the coal-rolling truck's engine. "Once and for all." "But ..." Revs the engine again. "ONCE AND FOR ALL!"

dofm 3mo ago

This is now quite well-studied because we have had two periods in our own lifetimes (OK I guess maybe not in the lifetimes of some HN readers!), where we have cut air pollution radically almost overnight. 9/11 and the COVID pandemic transport shutdown. In both cases, the pan evaporation rate went up; in the case of 9/11 it went up very noticeably in a short period of time. Essentially: clean air == less "global dimming". Whether any really recent changes like the increasingly successful rollout of electric cars is yet having an effect, I don't know.

Wacari 3mo ago
Yeah, another example is when the Internation Maritime Organization reduced the legal sulfur content limit in shipping fuel. This reduced SO2 emissions by about 80%, which improved human health, but also caused an increase in short-term atmospheric warming.

dwroberts 3mo ago

The full quote is > Europe's rapid warming is partly the result of the melting of bright snow and ice, and a drop in the number of tiny polluting particles in the air. That first one is kind of important and it seems intentionally misleading to omit it