Okay, So Now China Causes Climate Change

But American liberals are complaining about it!

Asian air pollution strengthens Pacific storms

By Rebecca Morelle, Global science correspondent, BBC News

How can people live in this? I remember how miserable I felt growing up in Smogville in the '50s.

Read the story @ http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27027876

 

India is just as bad.

last time I was in Rome back in the late 90's the moped exhaust smoke from those 2 cycle engines would damn near choke you it was so thick. Don't know if they are still allowing 2 strokes there or not

 

Odd comment. Why shouldn't American liberals complain about China's contribution to climate change?

 

and why not China openly admits and complains about it's own pollution...and China unlike denierworld knows anthropogenic emissions are the cause of CC...

 

We shut down industries in America with over zealous enviro laws and then the industry goes to China where they do it 100 times dirtier than we could of done it here with reasonable regulations.You enviro nuts do far more harm than good.

 

Yeah! It's "the over zealous enviro laws" that drove the industry to China. The move has nothing to do with the lower wages in China, right? And do you honestly think that without the environmental regulations the industries in the U.S. would not pollute?

 

Over zealous enviro laws are a key factor in industries leaving this country. I am for reasonable enviro laws but not laws that are meant to shut down an industry. Remember obama saying, " You can open a coal fired power plant here but if you do you will go broke". That is precisely the attitude by the left that makes industry go to China.

 

a factory worker making $30 per hour vs $3 per day or less in third world countries is why manufacturing left...

 

Mining is moving to third world countries and China due to EPA standards here that are impossible to meet. A silver mine where I live has been tied up in court for decades because enviromentalnuts say underground mining will effect grizzly bears. Another good example is our leather industry. Impossible to meet US enviro standards has driven chromium leather manufacturing over seas. If you want good work boots with black chrome leather you have to buy them from China because you just can't make good tough leather here anymore.

 

Sorry. I meant to type AREN'T.

 

Aerosols in atmosphere change weather in North America, says new study.​

By Brian Clark Howard
National Geographic
April 14, 2014

What happens in Asia doesn't stay in Asia, a new study warns. Pollution from booming economies in the Far East is causing stronger storms and changing weather patterns over the Pacific Ocean, which in turn is changing weather in North America, scientists report.

"Whether the weather [in North America] will change in a good direction or bad is hard to say at this time," says Renyi Zhang, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University in College Station. Zhang is a co-author, along with several scientists from the U.S. and China, of a study released in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on Monday.

The scientists say pollution from Asia is likely leading to stronger cyclones in the mid-latitudes of the Pacific, more precipitation, and a faster movement of heat from the tropics toward the North Pole. As a result of these changes, "it's almost certain that weather in the U.S. is changing," says Zhang.

Smaller Drops, Bigger Storms​

Zhang and his colleagues used computer modeling to study the effects on the weather of aerosols, which are fine particles suspended in the air. The main natural aerosols over the Pacific are sea salt tossed up by waves and dust blown off the land.

But those natural particles are now increasingly outnumbered by human-made ones. According to Zhang, the most significant aerosols the team considered are sulfates, which are emitted primarily by coal-fired power plants. Other aerosol pollutants are released by vehicle emissions and industrial activities.

In the atmosphere, such aerosols scatter and absorb sunlight, and thus have both cooling and warming effects on climate. But they also affect the formation of clouds and precipitation—and the magnitude of that indirect effect on clouds is one of the biggest uncertainties hampering scientists' ability to forecast climate change.

Clouds form when water vapor condenses around aerosol particles to form liquid droplets. Because pollution increases the number of particles, it leads to more water droplets—but smaller ones. Those smaller droplets in turn rise to greater heights in the atmosphere—and even form ice—before they precipitate back out.

In an earlier paper, Zhang and his colleagues used satellite data to show that the amount of "deep convective clouds," including thunderstorms, had increased over the North Pacific between 1984 and 2005. The most likely reason, they concluded, was an increase in aerosol pollution from Asia. "The intensified Pacific storm track likely has profound implications for climate," they wrote.

Global Effects​

In the recent study the scientists took a first stab at considering those global implications. Standard global climate models simulate the atmosphere at grid points that are too widely spaced to resolve the fine-scale processes involved in cloud formation—which is one reason clouds remain such a knotty problem for climate scientists. But the researchers found a way to embed a "cloud resolving model" into a conventional climate model.

They then used that "multiscale" model to compare the preindustrial atmosphere of 1850, when levels of aerosol pollution over the Pacific were low, with the present atmosphere.

The simulations confirmed that human-made aerosols are now spreading across the Pacific and having large effects on the storms that sweep east during winter. The storms are more vigorous than they would be without pollution, with more ice and a broader "anvil" shape to the cloud tops. And those more vigorous storms are having a significant effect on the global atmosphere: They're increasing the flow of heat from the equatorial region toward the Arctic, says Zhang.

What about North America? The Pacific storm track has a big effect on American weather, and large-scale natural changes like El Niño and La Niña are known to disrupt its usual pattern, leading to floods and droughts.

"What we have shown is that aerosols from Asia can get transported over the Pacific and change weather in North America," Zhang says—but nailing down the nature of the change will require more research.

"We've been getting some weird weather, such as a very cold winter [in the eastern U.S.], so the next question is, does that have something to do with Asian pollution?"

Source:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...-aerosols-atmosphere-weather-climate-science/

Meanwhile the wild eyed Progressive Marxist Liberals and Obama egg on the EPA to close down the few coal plants and mines that still operate in America. In the process they've increase costs invested vicariously in Solar & Wind power that either doesn't work, or kills millions of birds and endangered species.

 

Fair enough! Now can you give some examples of reasonable "enviro laws" and "overzealous enviro laws".

 

A reasonable enviro law is leaving a buffer zone along creeks when logging in order to minimize runoff and provide shade so water temp isn't effected. An overzealous enviro law is to ban cutting of trees over a certain size as the forest service has done. You need to be able to cull out certain old growth if it is diseased in order to maintain a healthy forest, reduce catastrophic fire risk and keep the disease or bug infestation from spreading.

 

When you are driven by ideology you imagine a lot of things.

 

so who was culling forrests keeping them healthy before the logging industry arrived on the scene?....amazing as it may seem fires are good for forrests keeping them healthy and disease and insects under control...fires are an essential requirement for forrests...

 

You

 

Before Europeans got here and started fighting fires it was a natural ecosystem that burned on a regular basis as we are letting happen now in wilderness areas. The problem is two fold though in other areas. First we have so much urban interface with forest that you can't let them burn without the risk of burning entire communities and towns too. With proper logging techniques we can mimic what regularly occurring fires would do by harvesting the smaller ladder fuel and old growth that is weakened by disease or insects. The other problem with letting things burn all of a sudden is that we have been fighting fires so long we now have over stocked forest with a high density of fire prone fir trees that should have burned up long ago. Instead they are now big enough and dense enough so that if a fire comes through it will be a catastrophic event that will also kill the old growth and fire resistant species like Ponderosa Pine that should be the only trees of size in a given stand. Much of the west now has an average 200 trees per acre where there should be only 20 or so.

 

Could it be the left isn't really interested in climate? They know there isn't any CO2 neutral source of energy capable of replacing fossil fuels. By pretending it is only a matter of money, they can tax energy, and the prosperity is brings................................to death.

 

Southern CA and Yellowstone are examples of fire / forest "management" that has resulted in huge firestorms.

The natural order of thing was fires would come through regularly enough that the underbrush would burn without generating enough heat to ignite the trees. Now the brush is thick enough that it burns hot enough to melt the top layers of dirt to glass, and burn the trees. Not to long ago, the fires in San Diego county were stopped by the lack of fuel when they hit the Pacific ocean.

 

yup, I first experienced a forrest fire when I was 12, what originally started as grass fire raced into the forrest at amazing speed then went out when it hit a road...the dead fall and undergrowth in the forrest was cleared out but the mature trees were undamaged...

There are trees that will not germinate until there has been a fire...nature has it all worked out and doesnt require our help...

 

Before Europeans arrived with their livestock, California Indians routinely set fires when the grasses and underbrush got too thick. The ashes replenished the earth and the animals who live in the area had been feeding.

As to animals killed by the fires - they were the lame and ill who needed to be culled anyway.

 

Funny how all you denialists talk like Rush Limbaugh. All ideology, facts don't count. It's almost like you folks are all programmed from the same computer.

 

Which makes what point? I hope you understand the difference between burning grass and burning coal. One induces long term temperature change upward and long term acidification of the ocean. Guess which one.

 

Please explain to me how burning plant life is different from burning coal?

A fossil fuel, coal forms when dead plant matter is converted into peat, which in turn is converted into lignite, then sub-bituminous coal, after that bituminous coal, and lastly anthracite.
Wiki

 

For the most part grass lands and forests simply utilize CO2 that is recycled from the surface of our biosphere. The effect of the burning is returned to the plant world through the process of photosynthesis. That results in no net increase in CO2. When fossil fuel is dug or sucked from the bowels of the earth and then utilized that increases the level of CO2 resulting in human caused global warming, ocean acidification and other cumulatively bad effects. Ocean rise, increased drought and greater downpours goes with the process.