Slashdot Mirror


Global Air Pollution, From Above

neutron_p writes "Based on satellite observations, the high-resolution global atmospheric map of nitrogen dioxide pollution makes clear just how human activities impact air quality. I'm a bit surprised not to see that many red blobs above US and the strange one is on the east of Russia."

23 of 545 comments (clear)

  1. Take note by AKAImBatman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Take note everyone, the biggest red blob is over China (insert communist jokes here). For all the whining and complaining about how the US should have joined the Kyoto accord, it's very easy to see that China is the #1 offender, and that Europe is not doing so hot itself. What good would Kyoto have done if it exempted the country who needs it most?

    That being said, China is still developing. Pollution should be a big concern for them, but it's an unfortunate fact of life for now. As their technology improves, the pollution levels should drop. With one caveat, that is:

    Many modernized countries have sent their manufacturing to China. Thus placing restrictions on countries to reduce their emissions will do little good when we've already sent the real pollution over there. I'm not sure how we can respond to the situation, but it's important to pay attention to it.

    The blob over Canada is actually a bit surprising, but I'm guessing that's related to the earlier article on the odd increases in pollution levels. I do have a thought on why North America sees less pollution than Europe, however. Since the North America has a massive amount of farmland and forest land, a good deal of the pollution is sapped up by these massive carbon sinks. This doesn't actually impact NO2 levels, but it does explain some of the pollution reduction.

    FWIW, it seems that NO2 is primary produced by cars. Moving to the hydrogen vehicles of the future may help stop almost all NO2 production.

    (P.S. I know slashdotters have a penchant for insulting people, but please try to keep your replies civil. I don't know everything, so correct me in a polite manner. Thank you.)

    1. Re:Take note by JeffSh · · Score: 4, Informative

      you are exactly right

      but, not to take away from any of your statements at all, there is a gigantic underground coal fire in china that emits enough CO2 in one year to equal and surpass all exhaust from all cars in the US.

      and that's just the coal fire burning coal, not counting all of the industrial development in china. it's no wonder things must be insane over there.

      here's the first site i could find with info, there are better:
      http://www.itc.nl/personal/coalfire/problem/china_ coalfire.html

      i had to repost, my first post was to the wrong place.. woops.

    2. Re:Take note by plopez · · Score: 4, Informative

      I can't get to the link due to what appears to be the slashdot effect, but the synopsis says NO2 only.
      No CO2, sulpher dioxide, methane, ozone, light hydrocarbons or other pollutants.

      So to say the US is blameless is premature, you need to see all the pollutnats and how they interact.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    3. Re:Take note by krlynch · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This doesn't actually impact NO2 levels, but it does explain some of the pollution reduction.

      The primary reason that you don't see this type of pollution in the US is that the federal and local governments have taken a very agressive stance on NOx and SOx reduction from transportation (cars, trucks, and trains) and power plant (coal) sources. Some here have complained that the attack on these pollutants (along with particulate emission) has a lot to do with our lower fuel economy standards, as the rules make it pretty difficult, for instance, to introduce diesel powered cars, and they mandate the use of catalytic converters.

      It isn't hard to understand why this has happened, either. NOx and SOx are the primary drivers of acid rain and smog, both of which directly and visibly impact quality of life in densely populated areas, like cities. Fixing them isn't something we have fought against, since the vast majority of Americans work and live in or near major cities, even in the "sparsely populated" parts of the country.

      Western Europe on the other hand has chosen to go after consumption, and driven up fuel efficiency at the cost of reducing these types of pollutants. Given that Europeans tend to live in smaller, more distributed communities than Americans, smog, while a problem in Urban areas, directly impacts fewer people on a day to day basis than it does here.

    4. Re:Take note by Specter · · Score: 4, Informative

      National Geographic had an article recently about pollution in China and it was just down-right frightening.

      Excerpts from the March 2004 issue are available here: http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0403/featu re4/index.html

    5. Re:Take note by halftrack · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm a bit confused by the angle of your post. It seems to me that you would want China to reduce its emmissions too. However according to wikipedia China emits 2.3 tons per capita of CO2 while the U.S. 20.1 tons per capita (Europe at 8.5 tons per capita.) and isn't this the way to look at emissions? I believe that there is a base energy requirement to support one person and that for most of the world this - sadly - means burning fossil fuels. (At least at present time.) Thus shouldn't China really be allowed to release 5 times (gross product) as much as the U.S?

      Now there aren't AFAIK any restrictions on China or other developing countries, but China has ratified the agreement and when they really step up as an industrialized country they will have restrictions imposed thus it is in their interest to stay within the future requirements.

      Had there been placed restrictions on China or other developing countries they probably never would have signed the agreement because it might have inhibited their growth. (Now what is the real reason the U.S. isn't signing?)

      Furthermore I don't think the true objective is reduced emissions, we're far to spoiled to let that happen. The point is getting a situation under control before it gets out of hand.

      (P.S. I know slashdotters have a penchant for insulting people, but please try to keep your replies civil. I don't know everything, so correct me in a polite manner. Thank you.)
      Ditto

      --
      Look a monkey!
    6. Re:Take note by jsebrech · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think the real purpose is to change American lifestyles and force them to take inefficient public transit and use less electricity. Either way, Kyoto is dead in the water. The only countries who agree to it are the ones that can use it as a weapon against competitors. Since the US Senate voted 98-0 in favor of scrapping it, this treaty will never be ratified, with or without Bush's support.

      Wow, a lot of myths there, let me just cover the major ones.

      Myth #1: public transportation is always inefficient.

      Take a look at the public transportation systems of most of europe. There's no reason public transportation needs to be expensive, low-comfort, or have lousy geographic availability.

      Myth #2: the american lifestyle must be changed to reduce energy use in america.

      In fact, america could cut its energy use in half without a measurable impact on consumer lifestyles, through tried and tested energy reduction policies which have been employed in europe for years (and europe is pretty bad itself when it comes to energy use), but because the US energy industry funds american politicians (democrats and republicans) heavily, nothing ever gets done about it.

      Myth #3: kyoto can't be realized without US cooperation

      All that is needed is russia ratifying it, and putin recently said he will. So within a year kyoto will become active, if putin keeps his word that is.

      Myth #4: kyoto is a tool for the rest of the world to "go after" america.

      Kyoto is simply a tool to stop greenhouse gas levels from rising further, because they're already at the highest they've been in a million years, and if they rise much further dramatic climate change is inevitable. The cost of not doing anything far outweighs the cost of preventing it. The last time there was this much carbondioxide in the atmosphere, there were no polar ice caps. The sad thing about kyoto is that it was watered down significantly to be palatable to the US, and still america broke its word and didn't ratify it.

      Myth #5: the only countries to join kyoto are those that have petty political reasons

      Right now, 126 nations have joined kyoto (and not just signed the treaty). This is the vast majority of the planet, if measured in population (but sadly, without the US and russia, not in pollution).

    7. Re:Take note by ColaMan · · Score: 4, Informative

      Breakfast Pants, Thank you for your completely incorrect post.
      Now go sit in the corner and get educated :-)

      In your car's engine, Nitrogen in the air combines with Oxygen in air to create oxides of nitrogen, commonly called NOx for brevity.

      How does it combine? The heat of combustion of the fuel in the engine is sufficient to do it. Lean-running engines that run hotter (well, have a longer burning flame front), while more fuel efficient, also have the unfortunate problem of creating more oxides of nitrogen.

      It doesn't matter what you burn in there, any combustion temperatures over a thousand degrees C or so has sufficient energy to drive the NOx chemical reaction. Petrol, Diesel, Hydrogen... all of those fuels indirectly produce NOx.

      The goal in modern cars is to lower the combustion chamber temperatures, which is why most cars have some form of exhaust gas recirculation to deliberately "posion" the incoming air/fuel mix to make it burn cooler. Fuel economy suffers as a result of reducing NOx emissons.

      --

      You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
      There is a lot of hype here.
    8. Re:Take note by amper · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Some things to think about, courtesy of the CIA World Factbook

      US population (2004/07 est.): 293,027,571
      China population (2004/07 est.): 1,298,847,624

      US population growth (2004 est.): 0.92%
      China population growth (2004 est.): 0.57%

      US industrial production growth (2003 est.): 0.3%
      China industrial production growth (2003 est.): 30.4%

      US GDP per-capita (2003 est.): 37,800 USD
      China GDP per-capita (2003 est.): 5,000 USD

      US GDP real growth rate (2003 est.): 3.1%
      China GDP real growth rate (2003 est. official data): 9.1%

      US electricity consumption (2001): 3.602 trillion kWh
      China electricity consumption (2001): 1.312 trillion kWh

      US oil consumption (2001 est.): 19.65 million bbl/day
      China oil consumption (2001 est.): 4.57 million bbl/day

      US natural gas consumption (2001 est.): 640.9 billion m^3
      China natural gas consumption (2001 est.): 27.4 billion m^3

      How long do you think it will take China to catch up with the US? How much energy will China be using then? How much pollution will China be creating then?

      And, as an aside:

      US GDP (2003 est.): 10.99 trillion USD
      China GDP (2003 est.): 6.449 trillion USD

      US current trade account balance (2003): -541.8 billion USD
      China current trade account balance (2003): 31.17 billion USD

      How long will it take the US to go totally bankrupt?

  2. I'm not suprised, because I have a clue by jmorris42 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The submitter is suprised, but I'm not. Wealthy nations can AFFORD the luxury of enviromentalism, unlike poor ones like the former Soviet block and the third world. The solution is obvious, encourage more nations to become wealthy by helping them become free.

    No serious student of current events can escape the reality that political freedom and economic prosperity are linked. The old soviet empire attempted to foster economic openness to gain it's productivity benefits while keeping political freedom in the hands of the Party. They failed. China is making the same attempt and the signs are they are also going to fail. Freedom is the natural state of affairs and you can't supress it in one sphere while keeping it in the others.

    Rising standards of living solve most of the pressing problems facing the world today. Birth rates are lowest in the free/wealthy nations and highest in the poor/oppressed ones. Wealthy/Free nations don't tend to make war on each other. Wealthy nations don't tend to produce terrorists either.

    --
    Democrat delenda est
  3. Red blob by Hatta · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm a bit surprised not to see that many red blobs above US and the strange one is on the east of Russia.

    That's the "Red menace", we've known about that since the '50s

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  4. That blob... by drivers · · Score: 5, Funny

    on the east side of Russian is called "China."

  5. night map by Coneasfast · · Score: 5, Interesting

    note how the red areas are somewhat similar to the light areas on the nasa night map

    --
    Marge, get me your address book, 4 beers, and my conversation hat.
  6. Re:A quick mirror - I'm an idiot by Exocet · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's here. Sorry for the bad link, should have checked it in the preview.

    --
    Exocet Industries - Taking over the world, one computer at a
  7. Russia? by Zocalo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Um, no, that's largely China and maybe the Korean peninsula, although it does extend far enough to the North to encompass Vladivostok I think. Still, I suppose they have a better excuse than we do here Europe... That big red blob is mainly over the lowlands of Holland and surrounding areas, so it's either tulips or the output from the "coffee" shops of Amsterdam. I'm thinking it's probably not the tulips. ;)

    --
    UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
  8. Coral cache of mirror by FooAtWFU · · Score: 4, Informative

    I have a Coral cache of the pollution image map.

    --
    The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
  9. One step China has taken - by Tristan7 · · Score: 5, Informative

    China has prohibitted the burning of wood by anybody, and has undertaken a massive reforestation project across the nation. Wood fires produce incredible amounts of pollutants, especially open cooking fires. By reforesting wherever they can, various types of pollution will be reduced. Of course, all this takes time, but it is a good step.

  10. good start by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 4, Insightful

    With or without Kyoto, China would be pumping pollution into the air. But with Kyoto, the rest of us would be pumping less, so that alone is reason enough to comply. The other, more subtle, reason is diplomatic. It's impossible for the US to pressure China into even minimal Kyoto compliance when the US hasn't signed it. Signing it would help us pressure them. Kyoto is a good start, which is better than nothing. The perfect is the enemy of the merely good. Even humans have to take baby steps towards big changes, walking before we run. Giant polluting countries are even more disposed towards incremental progress.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  11. That's where the Arctic haze comes from by RealAlaskan · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I'm not surprised about the concentrations of pollution in Northern China and Siberia. The Soviets put quite a lot of industry in Siberia (why?) and it pollutes a lot. After all, the folks in Moscow were never going to smell it.

    In Alaska, we often see a hazy sky, caused by pollution from Siberia and points east.

    For the long term, we should probably be more worried about the Soviet nuclear waste the Soviets and now the Russians have accumulated in the Arctic and Pacific Oceans. Then there's the nuclear plants, two of them in Siberia, that we're down wind of. They were built by the same government which brought us Chernobyl.

    If you're looking for things to worry about, you'll never run out.

  12. validity of the study by theMerovingian · · Score: 4, Interesting


    This looks like a relatively professional study: the maps on the website are a composite of 18 months worth of data. This is good methodology to ensure that anomalies are removed (unusual smog days, lightnings storms, etc).

    This map is a measure of the vertical density of NO2 in a given column (represented by the area of each pixel on the original image, which is dependant on the camera).

    One misleading thing: There is no mention of the climatological effects of the world's mountain ranges, and thus the prevailing winds. This is clearly illustrated along the Himilayas in India and the Andes mountains in South America. The topography is clearly causing bottlenecks in the distribution and dispersion of air. Thus, the map is not necessarily an indicator of where the actual pollution was produced. Naturally, in locations where airflow is reduced, the vertical profile of ANY gas concentration will be higher.

    I'd predict you'll even see some similar patterns in global precipitation maps if you were to overlay the two.

    (disclaimer: yes I am a prefessional geographer)

    --
    "If you think you have things under control, you're not going fast enough." --Mario Andretti
  13. It's easy, really... by jellisky · · Score: 4, Informative

    Notice that NO2 leads to the production of ozone in the TROPOSPHERE.

    The ozone layer is in the stratosphere.

    Ozone in the troposphere is not all that great, since it causes a lot of problems in respiration. Ozone in the stratosphere is good since it cannot be inhaled (too far away from us) and keeps that UV radiation from hurting us.

    With ozone, it's all about where it is.

    -Jellisky

  14. Re:And not only that... by Christopher+Thomas · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Not quite. Uranium is still a limited resource; the idea of "electricity too cheap to meter" is (like a lot of pro-fission thinking) is a product of Gernsbackian imagination.

    The idea of "electricity too cheap to meter" is a fantasy because you still need a bigarsed steam-powered generator no matter what the heat source, not because of fuel concerns. The quantity of fuel used is so vastly lower than the amount of coal and oil burned in fossil fuel plants that the cost of mining really isn't that much, even given the relative scarcity of the element itself.

    It won't run out any time soon either if you reprocess spent fuel and also breed fissile materials from thorium, but both of those have materials-handling and security problems (not unsolvable, but enough that the US doesn't use them).

    Electric heat, no; very inefficient. Ground source heat-pumps, yes.

    Electric heating is as efficient as gas heating; in both cases, you're turning virtually all of the available energy into heat. A heat pump is more efficient than either because it draws heat from the surrounding area (at such a relatively small temperature difference, it costs less to do this than to just dump heat into the house). The reason we use gas heating instead of electric is that electrical energy is more expensive to produce, joule for joule, than the equivalent amount of natural gas. This is a production issue, as opposed to a point-of-use issue.

    In short, while I agree with your positions, I disagree with the reasons :).

  15. See what you want to see? by Kell_pt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm always surprised at how people manage to interpret things the way they want, despite obvious proof on the contrary.

    First, I don't see how anyone can look at that map and claim Europe has more pollution than the US. C'mon, are you... visually deaf? Use a ruler if it needs be, but please take a close look. I understand that the 1st map being zoomed in can play a role in there, but please, just put it in perspective. The blob just above Italy is about 1/6 size of the one above the US, while the other large blob in Europe is about 1/5th that of the north american one. I mean... c'mon... :)

    Second, bear in mind that NO2 is by far not the only polluting agent that human activity sends into the atmosphere - and it's not the only one that is nocious. It does cause O3 to build up, which would be a good thing in the upper layers of the atmosphere but deadly and poisonous at human-reachable levels (ever noticed there are pool-cleaning systems that use O3 (ozone) instead of clorum? ;)

    I urge the 1st poster to really go and revisit that link and read the whole article, and actually examine the map in comparable zoom factors. And yes, that's China and not Russia, like another not-so-geographically-challenged reader pointed out. :)

    I did like that comment about industry from more advanced countries fleeing to China where regulations are not as harsh - food for thought. I suppose it's ok if we go and poison other countries to protect our way of life. :) Perfectly sound reasoning. *grin*

    --
    "I don't mind God, it's his fan club I can't stand!" E8