Future Smog Looks More Persistent
Computer models show that increased levels of greenhouse gases, along with their trapped heat, will make the atmosphere more stagnant, leading to many more days of unhealthy air. David Biello reports.
By David Biello
SUBSCRIBE TO 60-Second Earth
On supporting science journalism
If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
Polluted air causes more than 2.6 million people to die prematurely each year. And when the smog builds up in Los Angeles or Beijing it sits there until a cleansing rain or a clearing wind freshens the air.
So what does the future hold for the number of days in which the air is not fair? According to some new computer model simulations, nothing good. The atmosphere is going to get more stagnant thanks to increasing levels of greenhouse gases and the heat they trap, leading to as many as 40 more bad air days annually around much of the globe.
That's according to a study in the journal Nature Climate Change. [Daniel E. Horton et al, Occurrence and persistence of future atmospheric stagnation events]
India will be worst hit by such atmospheric stagnation, according to the computers. But nobody escapes, including the U.S.
Of course, there’s a way to ward off this predicted outcome. It already made sense to try to stop pollutants like soot and ozone from entering the air in the first place and to cut back on the emissions of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane. Now it seems we’d get the additional benefit of preventing the increase in the number of bad air days. Just trying to clear the air here.
—David Biello
[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]
[Scientific American is part of Nature Publishing Group.]
Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism
Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.
When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.
Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber
