Quote:
Originally Posted by mtdjed
Remember the days when LA was covered by a yellow smog, Pittsburgh a smoky haze as did numerous other US cities. Thanks to a massive program to reduce contaminants, these cities and others have helped clean up the air. So what has happened to temperatures? They have gone up according to the "stewards" . So if that happened here, and we encourage, help other countries do the same, what results might we expect? I am not a scientist, but my thoughts would suggest some more warming. Why? Perhaps clearer skies allow more heat absorption. Less reflection of the Sun's rays.
An example of global temperature impact by air pollution is the 1883 explosion of Krakatau volcano in what is now Indonesia. Not a huge Volcano in height but an extremely large emission of airborne pollutants. Reportedly impacted global temperature by about 1 degree F for 5 years.
The earth has undergone glacial and interglacial cycles forever. Some suggest every 100,000 years, Mostly glacial 90000 years vs 10000 years interglacial. We are interglacial now. Perhaps the cause is something out of our control. Like tilt of the earth? Higher tilt, higher temperatures. Something out of human control. Some say Milankovitch cycles. Beyond me.
So, some speculate that global warming is not caused by use of fossil fuels. You should not assume that we all understand and agree with your stewardship comment.
Lots of theories and unanswered questions.
Not saying clean air is bad for our health, but not a sure case to claim that we will solve global warning by improving carbon footprint.
|
As with so many posts on here, the last sentence implies that anyone is suggesting a silver bullet.
The people that have spent their lives studying climate have said (99.9% of peer-reviewed papers) that human actions are contributing to climate change. It is also commonly agreed by them that we have passed the "tipping point" meaning the climate will continue to change at ever-increasing rates (positive feedback).
What they do say, is that it is too late to "solve" the problem, at this point the best we can do is help reduce the rate of change - reduce the problem. And reducing the carbon footprint is just one of many recommendations. Saying reducing carbon won't solve the problem is an over simplification of the recommendations being made.