U.N. study of pm and global warming.

Technical questions that one would like posed to experts
(scientists) in fields related to particulate pollution.

U.N. study of pm and global warming.

Postby Ernest Grolimund » Sun Nov 23, 2008 3:57 pm

I have read several news accounts of the U.N. study on pm in Asia here on CAR and see different accounts. CBS seems to say that they recognize pm causes warming as advocated by Ramanathan. Other articles seem to say that there is disagreement on the panel and that some believe pm causes global dimming or cooling and not warming. Some say that pm reflects sunlight and others say that pm absorbs sunlight. Both would block transmission to the surface and harm crops and drop local temperatures. But the absorbtion would lead to heating of the atmoshere and the pm causing cloud decreases in other locations perhaps would lead to warming. Can anyone tell me what has been concluded? Has anyone read the whole report? Called Ramanathan?

I personally give more credence to Ramanathan because NASA backs his work but the EPA is not saying anything. The Maine DEP is saying woodburning is good for warming because it is carbon nuetral and may not even know of this. If they could be convinced that pm is bad for warming then it would take away one of the arguments for wood burning. It might not be enough to overcome the real reason for promoting woodburning though which is cost. But the recent decline in oil prices is apparently slowing the fuels for schools program. Technically, it is on hold awaiting modelling for pm around the schools and neighborhoods. If I had another argument to use to take away interest, such as being able to say pm causes warming, it could help. With NASA and the U.N. agreeing that pm causes warming or may cause warming then I may have an argument.
Ernest Grolimund
 
Posts: 413
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 1:52 pm
Location: Maine

Return to For the Experts

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron