The analysis has yet to be peer-reviewed.
I hate journalists
This is a comm for news, information, and discussion on anything China and Chinese related.
Rules:
Imperialism will result in a ban.
Sinophobic content will be removed.
The analysis has yet to be peer-reviewed.
I hate journalists
News journalists are 99% bourgeois propagandists, and pop science journalists are by their very nature 100% middlemen that leave you miseducated.
Second best is "we talked to a professional, then disregarded everything they said and just used their credentials to talk about UFO's or scary bugs."
it's a preprint, the full analysis is here for anyone to review:
anybody got a degree in atmospheric science?
nice try, fed
;)
foiled again
Yeah about three degrees too hot
Yeah wtf
“There really isn’t that much air pollution left to remove from China,” says Samset. That should mean the rate of warming should fall back to near the 0.18°C per decade rate recorded before 2010, he says.
Hopefully
In the early 2000s, China had extremely poor air quality as a result of rapid industrialisation, leading to a public outcry in the run-up to the 2008 Beijing Olympics. In response, Chinese authorities fitted scrubbers to coal power plants to curb the dirtiest emissions and tightened rules governing vehicle exhausts, leading to a 75 per cent drop in sulphate emissions.
But there is a sting in the tail of this environmental success story. According to a new analysis, China’s dirty air had inadvertently been cooling the planet, and now that it is gone we are starting to see a greater warming effect.
[...]
Sulphate aerosols, released by burning fossil fuels, cool the planet in two ways. The particles themselves reflect sunlight back into space, shielding Earth from solar radiation. They also influence the way clouds are formed, increasing the occurrence of whiter, longer-lived clouds that also reflect radiation. Removing these aerosols from the atmosphere therefore eliminates a cooling effect.
To tease out this effect, Bjørn Samset at the CICERO Center for International Climate Research in Norway and his colleagues used newly published emissions data that gives a more accurate picture of Chinese action on aerosol pollution since 2005. They used state-of-the-art models to simulate how the climate system would respond to rapid drops in aerosol levels, specifically in China. They then compared these results with real-world data, such as satellite observations and estimates of sulphate pollution drawn from emissions reports, and found the modelled scenario was consistent with the real-world data signals.
I assume they mean Bjorn Samset's 2022 Nature article: Aerosol absorption has an underappreciated role in historical precipitation change. https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-022-00576-6
The Abstract reads: "Here I show that the spread in simulated aerosol absorption in the most recent generation of climate models (CMIP6) can be a dominating cause of uncertainty in simulated precipitation change, globally and regionally. Consequently, until improvements are made in scientific understanding of the key absorbing aerosol types, projections of precipitation change under future anthropogenic emission will have major, irreducible uncertainties."
Or more likely they're talking about this Cicero study that was coauthored by Samset in 2024 "Increased Asian Sulfate Aerosol Emissions Remarkably Enhance Sahel Summer Precipitation"
"Multi‐model simulations in the Precipitation Driver and Response Model Intercomparison Project (PDRMIP) show, compared to decreased European aerosols, that increased Asian aerosols similarly enhance the Sahel summer precipitation but with different large‐scale atmospheric circulation changes. Further analysis of the Sixth Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6) simulations under historical attribution and various emission scenarios reinforces the results about the climate impacts of anthropogenic aerosols and suggests that in future scenarios with strong international cooperation and rapid climate mitigations (SSP2‐45), the Sahel drought will be intensified likely due to the decline in Asian aerosol emissions. Our results suggest that Asian anthropogenic aerosols are likely a non‐negligible driver of the recent recovery in Sahel precipitation amounts"
Sahel apparently being an interesting place whose climate is sensitive to global climate patterns.
Back to the article at hand:
It is important to note that China’s action hasn’t caused additional warming, Samset stresses. Rather, it has “unmasked” what was already there. “The warming was always there, we just had some artificial cooling from pollution, and in removing the pollution we are now seeing the full effect of the greenhouse-gas driven warming,” he says.
The pace of air quality clean-up in China has slowed in recent years. “There really isn’t that much air pollution left to remove from China,” says Samset. That should mean the rate of warming should fall back to near the 0.18°C per decade rate recorded before 2010, he says.
I say there's certainly that "at what cost" slant from the author, but I wouldn't just call the article China bashing. Certainly some of the nuance and uncertainty was left out.
While the article has some nuance, the title is completely inappropriate. A better title would've been: Dramatic cuts in China’s air pollution unmask surge in global warming.
When I look at the title I wholeheartedly agree with you. The implications of "driving" global warming are ridiculous and contradicted in the article itself when they quote Samset saying that China hasn't "caused" additional warming. Leaving it up to the reader to parse the difference between driving and causing with no input from the author is poor reporting.
Sahel apparently being an interesting place whose climate is sensitive to global climate patterns.
Yes it goes through a cyclical motion of growing Savannah and then drought leading to desert - one of major reasons of human's becoming bipedal was the decrease of tree coverage in africa. In fact in the future with rising temperatures the Sahel is likely to expand again due to more precipitation due to warmer oceans.
Clearly the solution to global warming is to go back to 1890s industrial production so the smog blocks out the sun.
Yes black is famously know for reflecting sunlight!
Dirty air was keeping the planet cool? Is it time for everyone to start eating a lot of beans?
Aerosols from China's industrialization were blocking sunlight. When they reduced aerosol emissions, the blocking effect diminished and caused apparent warming, but this warming was already 'baked in', if you will, because the GHG's keeping the heat in were already present. Something similar on a more localized level happened a few years ago when some international(?) regulation passed that reduced the aerosol emissions of cargo ships. These emissions had kept a large band of North America cooler than it would be naturally and the introduction of the regulations caused a "termination shock" that resulted in warmer weather across the affected area. This is also the premise to a number of geo-engineering proposals, with the idea being that you could seed the upper atmosphere with aerosols that would hang up there for a considerable length of time but would spread across the planet, reducing the amount of sunlight that reaches the surface. This would certainly cool down the earth, but you also have the problem like with the shipping example, except on a planetary scale. As soon as you stop reapplying the aerosols, the planet will jump from its "engineered" temperature to its "actual" temperature extremely quickly.
Good post, thanks. Do you think it's likely that states will decide to YOLO on geo-engineering solutions such as that at some point? I kinda feel like it's gonna be necessary for China to do something like that in the medium term to save billions of lives. Not sure what possibilities exist in the long term.
The idea of a future American administration unilaterally deciding to tinker with geoengineering and somehow making things 100 times worse, is one of my nightmare scenarios.
Back of the napkin, thinking out loud, pumping a bunch of sulfur into the stratosphere might mitigate for a short-term the worst effects of climate change. Same with a few other compounds. Like OP replied, it would also mean that for the next several centuries we're going to have to continue to pump those compounds into the stratosphere, and it also assumes there won't be knock-on effects that we are simply ignorant of at this time.
The problem with geoengineering is we only have one biosphere. You can't really do experiments, you can't know for sure what affects whatever action you take will have around the globe. This, in addition to it being relatively cheap and easy, being the kind of short-term solution that American politics loves, leaves me certain that it will be an American president who finally darkens the skies.
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
Yes very likely.
I don't really know where people's thinking is at, as I don't follow this stuff very closely to be honest. I've just listened to a few talks about this kind of stuff. The double edged sword of the geo-engineering stuff is that it's relatively cheap. A couple billion at most, maybe if that? That covers basically every state and an uncomfortable amount of individuals, so basically any state feeling the pressure and not willing to wait around for richer countries to do something could pull the trigger on something like this. The biggest problem, imho, is that once someone has started it you can't really stop it because of the aforementioned termination shock. You'd have to keep pumping the upper atmosphere with aerosols until you bring GHG levels down, otherwise you go from your nicely engineered temperature to whatever the temperature would be without aerosols within a matter of months(I believe, don't quote me, but it's relatively fast) giving basically no adapation time for humanity, let alone the natural world. The other major problem is that if you engineer a lower temperature, the feeling of urgency may subside and lead to states becoming complacent in reducing GHG emissions. I think geo-engineering shouldn't be seen as a solution, but rather as a very last resort emergency brake kind of measure. However, given that the only state on the planet to seemingly give any fuck about any of this is China, I imagine we'll see that trigger pulled at some point in our lifetimes. Whether the global community will agree with doing it at the time will be a different matter, but it would be exceedingly difficult to stop or prevent anyone with the resources from going through with it.
The other major problem is that if you engineer a lower temperature, the feeling of urgency may subside and lead to states becoming complacent in reducing GHG emissions.
Yeah that's why we need China to be the one in the lead, everyone else has goldfish brain.
Methane is a short-lived, but more potent GHG than carbon dioxide, so unfortunately this time farts aren't the solution
Nevertheless, I persist.
Yes, you should eat a lot of beans actually...
First it was "China is more polluting than the west, they're evil!"
Now it's "China slowed pollution, that's bad!"