It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Cleaner Air: Atmospheric Acidity Returned to Pre-Industrial Levels

page: 1
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 03:48 PM
link   
So we're one step closer to being able to breathe some relief. It has been found that the acidity of our atmosphere is back to the pre-1930s Industrial Complex. I guess this makes any acid rain we see "normal" and natural as if it had not been man made.


Researchers from the University of Copenhagen’s Niels Bohr Institute (NBI) have found that in recent years, atmospheric acidity is back down to the pre-industrial levels. Using a modified version of Continuous Flow Analysis, they were able to determine the fluctuations in air acidity from year to year.

What’s better, is that the new method is able to distinguish between the effects of man-made emissions from those caused by natural phenomena, say volcanic eruptions.


They took ice samples from Greenland to determined that we have, in fact, turned the hands of time back to what was once earth's natural way of things. Though, this only seems to apply to the acidity of our air. As far as the other man made carcinogens and toxicity.... yeah, not so much. At least it's one step closer. Though, so much for the 5 steps back.

Sources:
Futurism
New Atlas
Huffington Post




posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: StallionDuck

See thats what I am talking about. Regardless of all the hysteria over the destruction of our planet, it is clear that humans overall are not only making effort to fix our mistakes, but those efforts are also showing progress! Now if we can just pass a nickel per plastic bag tax (or, BYOB for no surcharge) at checkout we can actually get some serious progress going.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 04:02 PM
link   
a reply to: worldstarcountry

Isn't that what the want to ply CARBON taxes towards?



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 04:05 PM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7

The successful reduction of SO2 emissions has more to do with "cap and trade" than with taxes.
voxeu.org...


edit on 9/30/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 04:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Partly true. There have also been several regulatory mandates to lower sulfur levels in fuels as well.

A big difference between sulfur regulation and carbon regulation is that sulfur is an impurity in fuels. One can take a gallon of oil, remove all the sulfur from it, and still have (almost) a gallon of oil. Sulfur is not a molecular component of hydrocarbon fuel.

If one were to remove all the carbon from a gallon of oil, one would no longer have a gallon of oil. One would have quite a lot less than a gallon of hydrogen. Carbon is a molecular component of hydrocarbons (hence the name).

Regulations on sulfur content were expensive, but they worked. Technology progressed out of necessity to perform a task (removal of sulfur contaminants) that was once unfeasible only due to technological development. Similar restrictions on carbon would have a different effect because technology cannot perform an impossible task like making hydrocarbons without carbon.

In reference to the OP, this is wonderful news! Sulfur has long been a major issue with pollution, and it's great to hear we are making such progress.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 04:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: cavtrooper7

The successful reduction of SO2 emissions has more to do with "cap and trade" than with taxes.
voxeu.org...



It actually says this in the Huff post link,
"Stockwell said it would be “a stretch” to conclude that acid deposition over the United [Staes] has returned to preindustrial levels."
So it does look like the US has a way to go.

www.huffingtonpost.com...
edit on 30-9-2016 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 04:32 PM
link   
a reply to: smurfy
SO2 emissions:
disc.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov...



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 06:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: smurfy
SO2 emissions:
disc.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov...


That's a graph of emissions reductions, Stockwell was talking about acid deposition vis a ve the US, since he is American or American based. There doesn't seem to be anything in his statement for or against any natural inclusion of sulphate material as well, so I must presume he also means that in his conclusions, however you would need to ask him that.
More interesting for me is that is that that some scientists, or perhaps many, believe that sulphates in abundance in their cooling effects, actually mask the warming effect of CO2... well they most likely do, either in the past naturally, or now with prescribed human interference, but that's another bucket of worms to formulate on, since sulphates being a candidate for use in a declared need for use should CO2 actually be out of control and warming the planet as per AGW.
This would be chemistry at work. SO2 directly killed thousands of people in the UK in the 1950's, many more in just because of the smog.
edit on 30-9-2016 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 06:33 PM
link   
a reply to: smurfy

The proposals for SRM through aerosols do not involve the lower atmosphere.

edit on 9/30/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 08:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: smurfy

The proposals for SRM through aerosols do not involve the lower atmosphere.

And whatever, to the LCD.
You might be in the stratosphere, others may not, and nothing is written in stone.
extract, "In the past few years Izrael has carried out at least two small geoengineering experiments using trucks and military helicopters to release sulphate aerosols into the skies"
www.etcgroup.org...
David Keith was to do his own little experiment in Mexico too. No word on that yet...maybe I missed it..no matter.

Such a singular response.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 08:12 PM
link   
a reply to: smurfy


"In the past few years Izrael has carried out at least two small geoengineering experiments using trucks and military helicopters to release sulphate aerosols into the skies"
I know about that experiment. It did not involve sulphates. They found that smoke blocks sunlight.
www.metabunk.org...
edit on 9/30/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 08:17 PM
link   
So does this also mean that China is NOT dumping, spewing out of its industrial stacks?



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 10:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Logarock

Actually no it doesn't. The study was done in Greenland. Other countries may still have higher levels of acidity locally.

The good news is that at least these local pockets of pollution are not affecting the global atmosphere any more.

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 01:06 AM
link   
What a ploy.

"See? We did it with sulfur, so now we must triple tax you for CO2 output."

I ain't buying it. Phooey.



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 01:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueAmerican
What a ploy.

"See? We did it with sulfur, so now we must triple tax you for CO2 output."

I ain't buying it. Phooey.

SO2 reduction did not involve taxation. It was mostly "cap and trade". And it led to improved technology without really costing anyone a ton of money.


edit on 10/1/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 01:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: TrueAmerican
What a ploy.

"See? We did it with sulfur, so now we must triple tax you for CO2 output."

I ain't buying it. Phooey.

SO2 reduction did not involve taxation. It was mostly "cap and trade". And it led to improved technology without really costing anyone a ton of money.




Both a carbon tax and a cap-and-trade system raise the cost of products like electricity and gasoline. These price increases would disproportionately affect lower-income households inasmuch as they spend a larger percentage of their income on energy products than do higher-income households. The way in which the two regulatory systems handle any revenues they raise would determine the extent to which each is able to reduce this disparity.

A carbon tax directly raises substantial revenues. If the revenues were rebated equally to all citizens or used to reduce regressive taxes (e.g., the federal payroll tax), it would return more money (in rebates or tax savings) to lower-income households (and to people who take steps to reduce their energy consumption) than they would pay in carbon taxes. In contrast, wealthier households, which use more energy on average (flying, driving, living in big houses), would pay more in carbon taxes than they would receive in rebates or tax savings.


lwv.org...

Any way you slice it, call it tax or cap and trade, it means more money out of my pocket. And soon, I will have none left for me.



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 01:33 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueAmerican

So, you would rather have acid rain than pay a bit more for power?

edit on 10/1/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 01:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TrueAmerican

So, you would rather have acid rain than pay a bit more for power?


No. I would rather they rebated me money for my extremely conservative usage of electricity. So good, in fact, that I use way below, I mean like WAY below, national, regional, and local averages. I am doing all I can already. So NO, I do not want to pay one red cent more. Pay me for a change. I am sick of pay pay pay. And you want me to pay more.

NO. HELL NO.



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 01:49 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueAmerican

I use as little as possible as well. While I don't have to pay for heating, I bet I pay more for power than you do.

Pay you to do what? Invent something. How about that? Come up with an idea that works. You will then be paid. But as a consumer, paying is what you do and will do. Producers are paid, consumers pay.

I don't want to pay more. But I'm willing to. And the more people that do, the less I will need to.


edit on 10/1/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 08:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: smurfy


"In the past few years Izrael has carried out at least two small geoengineering experiments using trucks and military helicopters to release sulphate aerosols into the skies"

I know about that experiment. It did not involve sulphates. They found that smoke blocks sunlight.
www.metabunk.org...


"Aviation generators, meta- chloride pyrotechnic compounds. Ground generators, overheated vapour-gas mixture of individual fractions of petroleum products released at a high rate"
Both generators could well have contained sulphates. The ground based generator likely produced a really sooty cloud, while both of them may have had colourants, orange being popular.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join