Reductions in Aerosol Emissions During Lockdown had Warming Impact

[NickB79]

https://www.azocleantech.com/news.aspx?newsID=28785

A new study by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) reports that the lockdowns and decrease in societal activity associated with the COVID-19 pandemic influenced emissions of pollutants such that the planet was slightly warmed for several months last year.

The results of the study emphasize the impact of airborne particles, or aerosols, that block incoming sunlight. With the drop in aerosol emissions last spring, the planet received more of the Sun’s warmth, specifically in heavily industrialized countries, like the United States and Russia, which normally release higher amounts of aerosols into the atmosphere.

Last spring, temperatures over several regions of Earth’s land surface were around 0.2 °F to 0.5 °F (0.1°C to 0.3 °C) warmer compared to what would have been anticipated with prevalent weather conditions, the research discovered.

The effect was most evident in regions often associated with considerable amounts of aerosol emissions, where the warming reached nearly 0.7 °F (0.37 °C) over most parts of the United States and Russia.

So much for any hope that the 2020 economic slump would have bought us some breathing room from future warming.

[mr_lebowski]

1. That was temporary ... the reduction in CO2 is still a good thing

And will help, albeit slightly, in the longer term.

[NickB79]

2. Why do you think it's temporary?

This was a taste of what our future holds as we transition to a renewable energy infrastructure that doesn't emit aerosols. There is a significant amount of warming currently being camouflaged, and when they're permanently reduced, the warming will become permanent as well.

It's not an argument against renewables, but clearly something we need to be aware of, because it will push us well past the 2C warming limit we've targeted when factored into the current warming baked in by 420 ppm of CO2 already in the atmosphere.

[mr_lebowski]

3. A fair point ...

I just think due to the persistence of CO2 vs. the more temporary and localized nature of particulates, the value of the CO2 reduction is more important, even if we see relative warming in particular industrialized areas of the planet due to less particulates as a side effect of lowering CO2.

How much of the temperature in the Polar Regions is being mitigated by particulates in the atmosphere, I wonder?