Re[2]: [at-l] another stove question - Going OT

[bullard@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Jim Bullard)]

At 01:21 AM 2/19/2003 +0000, Jim and/or Ginny Owen wrote:
>Jim Bullard wrote:
>>At 11:06 PM 2/17/2003 +0000, Jim and/or Ginny Owen wrote:
>>>One other point that someone mentioned back there - the particles in
>>>wood smoke are NOT so heavy that they drop to the ground.  In fact,
>>>they're fine enough that they become part of the atmospheric
>>>circulation. Where do you think the Brown Cloud over Southeast Asia originates?
>>
>>A little late in responding and it takes us OT but I wanted to check
>>before responding.  My wife works at Clarkson Univ. She used to be
>>secretary for Dr. Phillip Hopke whose specialty is air quality.  He is on
>>a an advisory committee/board or whatever to the US Congress and he has
>>people all over the world checking air pollution levels and the
>>pollutants that comprise the pollution.  According to Dr. Hopke's
>>research the primary cause of air pollution in Asia is the two cycle
>>engines on the scooters that are ubiquitous there.  FWIW...
>
>Jim -
>While it's admirable that you did the research, there ARE different
>stories on that.  See:
>http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/south/08/12/asia.haze/
>
>Somewhere at work I have a NASA Press Release that backs that up.
>
>Doesn't mean that your source is wrong - it may be a matter of
>interpretation of data.  Are two-cycles responsible for 48% of the Cloud -
>or 53%?  Is biomass combustion responsible for 52% or 47%?  The answer
>depends on a lot of factors - none of which I intend to get into here.
>
>Now - you still didn't answer the question. I asked about the "origin" of
>the Brown Cloud.  Somewhere in a box downstairs, I have HRIR photo strips
>of the area - from 1964 - in which the cloud is noticable.  And other
>satellite data from 1966.  Two cycle engines were decidedly not ubiquitous
>at that time.  They became so in Southeast Asia during and after the
>Vietnam era.
>Two cycle engines were not overly common anyplace until, if memory serves,
>the late 50's.  Or possibly even later.
>
>Walk softly,
>Jim

Perhaps I should explain what Dr. Hopke's air quality research does (as I
understand it).  He has created an air sampler (they are all made by the
same person here to insure uniformity) which are distributed to assistants
around the world.  The sampler draws the air through a filter.  After a
given volume of air has been drawn through it, the filter is removed and
tested to determine how much pollution there was and what the pollutants
were.  *As far as I know* the air samplers are run at the 'human' level,
i.e. no higher than tall buildings, and not on weather balloons or
aircraft.  I don't know what difference would be result from comparing high
altitude vs low altitude testing or even if his team has done any high
altitude testing.  Neither do I know if his test sites include both rural
and urban areas or if so what the balance is.  The testing is current (no
earlier than 1969 and continuing to the present), not  pre-Vietnam War
era.  My list response was based on his reply to my wife's simple question
"what was the major pollutant you found?".  If you want detailed
information on Dr. Hopke and his work, I suggest that you simply run a
Google search on "Philip Hopke" and you will find a substantial stock of
reading Material.  He is a recognized authority on the subject, again
FWIW...  YMMV.