SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
http://theconversation.com/air-pollution-from-europe-and-america-is-making-the-tropics-drier-37395
Air pollution pumped out by factories and power plants in Europe and North America has led to drier spells in the tropics, thousands of miles to the south. Scientists had long suspected this was the case and even had modelled the change in computer simulations, but now for the first time we have direct evidence – straight from a cave in Belize.
Precipitation in the tropics, including Belize, is governed by the Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ) – a belt of monsoon rainfall encircling the Earth near the equator that migrates seasonally between the hemispheres. The relative temperature difference between the hemispheres plays a crucial role in controlling the position of the ITCZ and hence, rainfall distribution in the tropics.
What we found was a distinct drying trend in Belize since 1850 that coincides with a steady rise in industrial aerosol emissions in North America and Europe. This presents strong evidence that industrial sulfate emissions have shifted the position of the ITCZ through reflecting the Sun’s incoming radiation and therefore moderating warming in the northern hemisphere.
Our claims are backed up by the volcano record. Emissions from volcanoes are similar to those produced by burning fossils fuels – basically lots of sulphur – and we identified short-lived drier spells in the northern tropics following very large volcanic eruptions in the northern hemisphere, such as the Icelandic Laki eruption in 1783.
I'm not sure why they single out North America and Europe as sources of sulfates, but probably because of proximity to their tropical study site, Belize. Asia, dominated by India and China, is the largest source region of sulfates. It's been known for some time that they affect downstream weather in the Pacific, the North American West coast, and probably further downstream in the continent. They act in a number of ways, by reflecting sunlight directly, and also by seeding clouds, which gives more energy to storms allowing their convective currents to reach higher. Much as volcanoes lead to short term cooling by sulfates and long term warming by carbon dioxide, so do fossil fuels. When Asia cleans up their sulfate emissions, we're in for a big surprise downstream. For more on this, check out this January 26, 2015 release from NASA.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by davester666 on Sunday February 15 2015, @06:44PM
India and China won't change what they do or pay any money for problems they MAY have caused somewhere else.
(Score: 3, Informative) by FatPhil on Sunday February 15 2015, @07:35PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday February 15 2015, @07:43PM
To "demonstrate": is it somehow [projectcensored.org] United [scmp.com] States [wikipedia.org] any [thirdworldtraveler.com] different [wikipedia.org]?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 5, Informative) by richtopia on Sunday February 15 2015, @09:58PM
No, they mention NA and Europe because the cave in the article provides evidence for dryspell starting in the 1850s. This corresponds to increase of industrial activity in Western countries, not so much for the rest of the world.
It was probably exaggerated at that time due to reliance on coal and lack of pollution controls. Coal is the largest source of sulfates (except perhaps volcanoes on occasion), so the heavy reliance on coal really drove this trend.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15 2015, @11:50PM
oh, you had to go and bring facts into the discussion. you're not very good at this internet discussion thing, are you?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15 2015, @08:19PM
if humans could fly they wouldn't be so fixated on land borders.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15 2015, @08:41PM
Birds were born flying and yet are territorial. Land borders are where fly-zones meet the ground.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday February 15 2015, @11:13PM
if humans could fly they wouldn't be so fixated on land borders.
They would be more so.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Sunday February 15 2015, @10:16PM
Time and time again, I see these "climate scientists" come at a question with their preconceived notions. So, here we see them with the idea that sulfate emissions might change temperatures, and thereby move the monsoons. They find a cave in Belize, which has shown a drying trend since 1850. HA!! WE GOT OUR PROOF!!
Each and every time they can correlate some datum or another, they jump up and down like triumphant monkeys, proclaiming their "proof".
Sorry - I remain unconvinced.
One more time - we ARE in an interglacial period. The glaciers receded before recorded history began, and the earth has continued to warm ever since. No one knows how warm the earth will get before the cycle turns again. It's really that simple.
Okay - so MAYBE mankind's activities have contributed to global warming. Maybe it has. Does that mean we'll reach peak global temperatures a year early, or ten years, or a hundred years earlier than we would have anyway?
Yes, I realize that the new priesthood doesn't want to hear these questions, much less answer them. But, I am not a convert to this Global Warming religion.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 16 2015, @12:05AM
Thank you for that post. The quotes around climate scientists are perfect. Indeed, too few understand that in order to "do science" you need a control along with an experiment. Here we just have a climate and not at least two climates. Aside from having no idea of the initial conditions of this system, these data-gathers have no meaningful way to compare their measurements. Somehow statistics has metastasized from being math into "science".
Why are there so many posts here at SN regarding climate change? The climate is always changing. There is no science to be had here, only data points. If the analysis of these data points COULD be made or morphed into science, such a thing would have happened to the stock market already.
Perhaps climate should come with the same caveat that stocks do: Past performance is not indicative of future results.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by gnuman on Monday February 16 2015, @05:54AM
Indeed, too few understand that in order to "do science" you need a control along with an experiment.
Since we have only 1 earth, how do you propose we proceed? Throw in the tower and say "well, fuck you, can't do science because no control"? Well, better tell that to Newton because he sure wasn't able to turn on and off that gravity thing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 18 2015, @01:18AM
False. Natural experiments and Field experiments are just as valid as Controlled experiments.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by LancePodstrong on Monday February 16 2015, @02:18AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15 2015, @10:39PM
At first reading, I took this to mean direct emissions from actual human, as in flatulence. And I thought, wow, humans are gassier than anyone could have imagined!
But some people:
Sorry - I remain unconvinced.
Just be careful who you light a match around. Just saying.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by anubi on Monday February 16 2015, @04:13AM
I routinely deliberately apply sulphur ( elemental form ) to my lawn. I have alkali soil. The buggies oxidize it into sulphate, and it becomes calcium sulphate ( aka gypsum ) upon reacting with the alkali metals in my soil ( calcium/magnesium - which I seem to have in great abundance ). Once slightly acidic, the other minerals in the soil become bio-available, no longer locked up in the hydroxide form. Then everyone is happy, plants, bugs, and all.
Everything gets real green and I have to spend a lot of time pruning...
Sulphur is an essential element for building proteins. The amino acid cysteine comes to mind. The sulphur forms the bonding sites that allow proteins to fold and snap together properly.
Unless the sulphur is in great excess ( literally anything in excess is not a good thing ), what is the problem with the sulphur? Its not like we can can create or destroy the stuff, as being an element, we mostly move it from place to place unless we involve it in some sort of nuclear reaction.
And yes, I am due to go buy another 50 pound bag of the stuff for the same reason: it drops my soil pH - I am trying to hold it at 6 or so... as the fruit trees I have like it that way.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 2) by LancePodstrong on Monday February 16 2015, @02:38PM
Did you read TFA? Apparently it dries the tropics and enhances mid-latitude storms.
In the atmosphere after coming out of a power plant or a volcano, it's in the form of sulfur dioxide, a highly toxic gas that affects the health of those in the immediate vicinity. It's a primary component of smog, the stuff impeding visibility and causing asthma in industrialized cities all across the world. It also causes acid rain [wikipedia.org] further downstream once it's absorbed into clouds. This stuff leeches nutrients out of the plants it falls on, dissolves rocks and metals including things we like such as buildings and statues, and harms aquatic ecosystems both directly and by leeching aluminum out of the soil.