[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Watts Up had something on this also...

One more thing that is “better than we thought” – NOAA: “the atmosphere’s self-cleaning capacity is rather stable”

********************************EXCERPT********************************************

Posted on January 7, 2011 by Anthony Watts

Yesterday we learned that the great Pacific Garbage Patch really isn’t as big as hyped by media, today we learn that the “atmosphere’s ability to rid itself of many pollutants is generally well buffered or stable”. Huh. Imagine that, the planet isn’t broken as easily as some imagine.

From a NOAA press release:

NOAA-led Research Team Takes Measure of the Variability of the Atmosphere’s Self-Cleaning Capacity

[NormsRevenge]

blame it on hydroxyl radicals

amazing we’ve survived this long.. 8-o

-excerpt-

The radical is central to the chemistry of the atmosphere. It is involved in the formation and breakdown of surface-level ozone, a lung- and crop-damaging pollutant. It also reacts with and destroys the powerful greenhouse gas methane and air pollutants including hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and sulfur dioxide. However, hydroxyl radicals do not remove carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide or chlorofluorocarbons.

—

I think I had a radical moment once. Who do I sue?

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

WUWT has a followup article:

Climate Craziness of the week: a basic science question for NYT reporter Justin Gillis

************************************EXCERPT******************

Posted on January 7, 2011 by Anthony Watts

Readers please note the story I ran earlier: NOAA: “the atmosphere’s self-cleaning capacity is rather stable”

This story talks about the ability of hydroxyl radicals in the free atmosphere to break down pollutants, and how there seems to be a stability in the levels globally, something understood for the first time. All good news.

Now read what this New York Times reporter, Assistant Business Editor Justin Gillis, bemoans in his story here:

A Steady Dose of Atmospheric Detergent

He writes:

Unfortunately, the most important greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, is not one of those broken down by the hydroxyl radical.

Zounds!

Mr. Gillis, let’s say such a thing magically did occur naturally, or someone creates a synthetic catalyst that performs the job and releases enough of it into the atmosphere in some geoengineering scheme to start dissipating CO2 in the atmosphere.

1. What would happen if we rid the Earth of CO2 ?
2. Or more technically, what would happen if this process scavenged CO2 down to 150 parts per million (or lower) globally?

If you can answer these questions, you might then understand why I am giving your statement the high praise of this regular feature.

This WUWT post on CO2 has a clue for you. I offer it as a path to enlightenment.

While you are at it, you might also like to address this story you did on sea level rise:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/science/earth/14ice.html