[at-l] pollution and Re: History Lesson

[Sloetoe]

--- Kurt Cedergren <kcedergren at gmail.com> wrote:
 
> Tonight I listened to a guy on the CBS Evening News
> who stated that the severe air pollution of the 60's
& 70's actually helped postpone global warming. How
does that agree with your opinion? Is that truth or
falsehood? 
> Onestep

### The answer to your question is "Yes." It is both.
While the processes were less efficient than now
(meaning more fuel was input per each measure of
output product), and therefore "cost" more in
polluting gases than now, the pollution particulate
matter was also much bigger in size. The result was
more localized pollution fallout (finer "modern"
particulates may circle the globe more than once
before precipitating out) and, while the stuff was
hanging around in the atmosphere, greater
crystalization and greater reflectivity of sunlight
back into space (global cooling effect).

If you will, the pre-80s pollution was the exact
opposite of the Greenhouse Gas effect -- the Icebox
Particulate. Since then, as Filter Boxes, Airbag
Houses, and Precipitators have gotten tighter and more
powerful, the finer pollution that escapes 
1) goes deeper into our lung tissues
2) goes farther around the globe before settling out
3) carries *much* less reflective ability into the
atmosphere, reflecting less sunlight, and *not*
"cooling" the Earth.

Lastly, and FWIW, roughly 10% of the power output from
a major coal-burning plant (easily 30MW-60MW of a
500MW plant) is used BY the plant, running the
machinery to reduce its output of S, N, particulates,
and now Hg. 50MW is sometimes expressed as "50,000
typical homes", but that typical home is using 2-3x
what I use. Sheeesh.

econogreenietoe
(No air conditioning, house sitting at a comfy 80*F, 
while outside it will hit 90-95*F for the fourth
straight day)

Spatior! Nitor! Nitor! Tempero!
   Pro Pondera Et Meliora.