Pollution soars in Chinese capital amid winter smog

Pollution levels soared in Beijing on Thursday to readings more than 20 times WHO recommended limits, as an annual bout of intense smog returned to haunt the Chinese capital despite government vows to address the plague.

Levels of PM2.5 particulates—the smallest and most dangerous, with a diameter small enough to deeply penetrate the lungs—were recorded at 568 micrograms per cubic metre by the US embassy during the afternoon.

An even worse reading of 631 was recorded at a municipal monitoring station in the east of the city.

The World Health Organization's recommended maximum is 25 micrograms per cubic metre.

China has for years been hit by heavy air pollution, caused by enormous use of coal to generate electricity to power a booming economy—the world's second largest—and more vehicles on the roads.

Beijing is periodically hit by choking, acrid haze, with particulate levels jumping far beyond recommended limits.

The phenomenon tends to be at its worst in winter, when demand for electricity rises for heating.

Authorities warned earlier this week of smoggy weather blanketing northern China, blaming calm weather as windy conditions tend to disperse pollution.

Thursday's spike—levels were beginning to reduce in the late afternoon—came almost exactly two years after an extreme bout of bad air in January 2013, dubbed the "airpocalypse", when state media reported readings at nearly 1,000 micrograms per cubic metre, almost 40 times the WHO's limit.

Public discontent about the environment has grown, with pollution a popular discussion topic on social media.

The official news agency Xinhua reported Thursday that Rao Bing, a local environmental official in Dazhou, in the southwestern province of Sichuan, had been excoriated online after blaming smog in the area on residents smoking bacon.

"The people who discovered this should win a Nobel," sneered one poster on Sina Weibo, a Chinese equivalent of Twitter.

Preserved pork and sausages are traditional Sichuanese foods, with many households smoking their own ahead of the lunar new year.

The central government has declared a "war on pollution" and vowed to cut coal use in some areas, although it has only pledged a goal of greenhouse gas emissions peaking "around 2030", suggesting they will rise for more than a decade.

China last year passed the first amendment to its environment protection law in 25 years, imposing tougher penalties on polluters.

Air pollution in the capital dropped slightly last year, the Beijing Municipal Environmental Protection Bureau announced earlier this month, although they still averaged 85.9 micrograms per cubic metre, more than three times the internationally recommended limit.


Explore further

Beijing dangerous smog down four percent in 2014

© 2015 AFP

Citation: Pollution soars in Chinese capital amid winter smog (2015, January 15) retrieved 25 June 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2015-01-pollution-soars-chinese-capital-winter.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
26 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Jan 15, 2015
Is it colder or warmer than a clear sunny day? What does pollution do then?

Jan 15, 2015
Is it colder or warmer than a clear sunny day? What does pollution do then?

A. GHG / GHE idea is ridiculous fake science. Worst, disgusting, embarrassing fraud in the history of science.

1. Green house. It requires solid transparent materials to form a green house.
2. GASES are freely moving molecules.
3. Gases can't form green house.
4. They can't be fixed to make walls / roof of a structure like 'green house'.
5. All matter / gases in Nature can hold Heat, so they can absorb heat like any gas e.g. CO2.

Jan 15, 2015
1. Green house. It requires solid transparent materials to form a green house.
2. GASES are freely moving molecules.
3. Gases can't form green house.
4. They can't be fixed to make walls / roof of a structure like 'green house'.

Seriously? Your argument against the science is that scientists in the early 1800s gave a bad name to the gases, before they knew how greenhouse gases worked. Since you've indicated you have little knowledge of greenhouse gases, you might want to read up on them. https://www.ucar...._3_1.htm
5. All matter / gases in Nature can hold Heat, so they can absorb heat like any gas e.g. CO2.

While you're learning about greenhouse gases, you might want to brush up on your spectroscopy and quantum mechanics to understand how greenhouse gases work (this is pretty basic: http://www.elmhur...mA5.html ).

Jan 15, 2015
dev, you really embarrassed yourself.

But if you read up, it leads to very interesting stuff such as thermoclines in the seas, and how the changes do strange things to signals reflecting and refracting off the changes in density/index of refraction of media.

Jan 15, 2015
A. GHG / GHE idea is ridiculous fake science. Worst, disgusting, embarrassing fraud in the history of science.

1. Green house. It requires solid transparent materials to form a green house.
2. GASES are freely moving molecules.
3. Gases can't form green house.
4. They can't be fixed to make walls / roof of a structure like 'green house'.
First be thankful that the green house effect does indeed exist. Even an idealized atmospheric composition ( 78% nitrogen, 21 oxygen, 1% argon, trace level of water and stratospheric ozone ), would have a substantial greenhouse effect. Otherwise temperature on earth would rise and fall quite dramatically: On the moon 107°C (225°F) under sunlight, -153°C (-243°F) on the night side and those are not peak temperatures http://www.divine...ce.shtml . Even the South Pole in winter season does not get that cold: Average low -63°C (-81°F).

Jan 15, 2015
5. All matter / gases in Nature can hold Heat, so they can absorb heat like any gas e.g. CO2.
True but, man do you have a long road ahead to understand thermodynamics!

Ask yourself and inquire how in a greenhouse day light becomes heat. Did you know that light and heat is the same thing?: electromagnetic radiation. Did you know that we do not really sense heat? https://www.youtu...012us9ng

Jan 15, 2015
To ALL,

zz5555,gkam, TechnoCreed

please go to my full list carefully, if needed talk to science teachers.
I. CC is man made but not due to gases.

Updated from time to time, the following list includes only the established known science and facts. No point is my opinion or assumption as GHG / GHE due to gases is imaginary. So if anybody could find any point wrong, I will be very much thankful. Hereby, I also request to state meaningful science instead of meaningless comments.
(Dev - Retired science teacher educator; earned Ph.D. from Nottingham University (1986), NG7 2RD England, UK, for developing a training program for science teacher –"Radicalization of science education in Nepal." – development of an innovation, a study in education technology.)

A. GHG / GHE idea is ridiculous fake science. Worst, disgusting, embarrassing fraud in the history of science.

contd.

Jan 15, 2015
contd
A. GHG / GHE idea is ridiculous fake science. Worst, disgusting, embarrassing fraud in the history of science.

1. Green house. It requires solid transparent materials to form a green house. It is a room (or structure) covered by plastics or glass so that light can pass through. (If you don't know what is a 'green house' please visit a botanical garden or consult science teachers especially biology teachers). we need a green house for green house effect.
2. GASES are freely moving molecules.
3. Gases can't form green house.
4. Gases can't be fixed to make walls / roof of a structure like 'green house'.
5. All matter / gases in Nature can hold Heat, so they can absorb heat like any gas e.g. CO2.
6. Convection method of heat transmission. Heat is always transmitted from higher to lower temperature.
7. O2 is 700 times more than CO2.
8. N2 is 2700 times more than CO2.
contd

Jan 15, 2015
contd
9. CO2 is not a pollutant. We carry the gas in our blood since birth and live throughout
the life with the gas.
10. Plants use the gas to prepare food. Then, HOW CAN THE GAS BE A POLLUTANT?
11. If GW were due to 'green house effect" (GHE), the upper layer of the Troposphere (our climatic atmosphere) should be warmer than the flat land areas because warm air goes up. So the top of the MT. Everest should be hot zone. The earth would have never been colder than the beginning 4 billion years ago.
12. Our atmosphere is not closed like a green house but open to space.
13. Our climatic atmosphere (Troposphere) should be always warm as the Sun always shines on the half of the Earth.
14. It wouldn't be cold during night (after the sun set and before the sun rise).
15. Minimum temperature is recorded about half an hour earlier than the sun rise.
16. We know it is always colder during night than during sunny days.
contd

Jan 15, 2015
contd
17. REFLECTION: gases don't reflect. They are transparent. Light pass through too small particles.
18. Materials become opaque when they reflect light.
19. Every molecule radiates absorbed heat when the surrounding is colder. It absorbs heat when the surrounding is hotter. All objects at a place try to equalize temperature.
20. Foggy, smoggy, and cloudy days are colder than bright sunny days.
21. Gases are not layered in the Troposphere; it is a homogenous mixture of gases. If it were layered the heaviest gas, CO2 would be at the bottom not on top. Then animals wouldn't survive. We need O2 to be alive.
22. Gases of atmosphere should be still (no breeze, no wind) to be layered. Breezes, winds, hurricane, tornadoes, convection current or any motion thoroughly mixes all the gases.
23. Molecules of fluids move upwards when heated and downwards when cooled – the convection current.
contd

Jan 15, 2015
contd
24. CO2 is transparent, colorless, odorless, and heaviest gas of the atmosphere. It does not make shadow as clouds do.
25. If something does not allow going out means does not allow getting in as well. GHE applies only with the solid transparent materials like glasses and plastics not for the fluids (gases and liquids).
26. Methane is negligible, only traces.
27. Insulation traps heat partly. Gases alone can't trap heat. Gases can't work as an insulator in the open space. Our atmosphere is not insulating the earth. it should be air tight for effective insulation. The clothes we put on, the four walls and roofs etc. work as insulator, lesser the passage for air to pass through in and out the more effective is the insulation.

# Physical properties of fluids (gases and liquids) and atmosphere don't support them on GHG idea at all scientifically. GHG / GHE idea is fake.

contd

Jan 15, 2015
Heat is always transmitted from higher to lower temperature.

No it doesn't. Heat is transmitted in all directions. What you should have said is that "net heat goes from higher to lower temperature" which is something different entirely. That you don't even understand basic thermodynamics should be a clue to you that you're in way over your head.
7. O2 is 700 times more than CO2.
8. N2 is 2700 times more than CO2.

Now think about why these are irrelevant when discussing greenhouse gases. (Hint: remember your spectroscopy and how different molecules absorb different frequencies.)

Jan 15, 2015
B.1 Causes of CC
Just because you NASA and IPCC did not know or could not explain the cause of CC you are creating fake, imaginary, false, spurious and so on science to mislead the world.
GW is not the problem but water.
Here is the explanation for the cause of the CC. I challenge all the scientific institutions / organizations especially NASA and IPCC that support GHG / GHE idea to prove my scientific analysis is wrong. CC due to gases is impossible instead they are helping the earth to cool down by convection method of heat transmission.)

So they don't have proofs. My Scientific analysis is 100% proof

So gases are not responsible for global warming but cooling the earth.

contd

Jan 15, 2015
Only purpose of the Quito protocol (only a propaganda or misinformation, jargon, cant, hoax and so on.) is for monopolizing the industry by the developed rich countries – saying indirectly to the poorer countries to stop industrialization; and, instead they would support the developing world by donations.

B2. Mistaken Reason for CC -
The main reason for global warming is due to the mistake done by human being for explaining the rain cycle wrong way that it occurs by the evaporation of the sea water. If it were so, now-a-days we should have rains more often than in the old days – global warming and expansion of the sea surface, both are favorable for evaporation needed for rain cycle. Sea surface temperature (average 15C) is not hot enough to lift water vapour to form cloud needed for the rain cycle. If that is possible we will have rains all the time,
contd

Jan 15, 2015
If something does not allow going out means does not allow getting in as well.

Again, you should think about your spectroscopy and how different molecules absorb different frequencies. Then think about how the spectrum of light coming from the sun is very different from the spectrum emitted by the earth.

By the way, you shouldn't take my not commenting on your other points as an indication that those points are correct. The rest of your points illustrate a fundamental inability to reason and, frankly, are fairly boring to refute.

Jan 15, 2015
(even during winter we have that temperature in Nepal on the average). water vapur evaporated from the sea surface must come over land to get lifted as the land surface gets heated by the sun and air moves upward as air current.

We are making more and more land areas drier and drier by urbanization - covering land by concretes, black top roads, deforestation, and expanding deserts. So evaporation from the land areas is decreasing, as a result cooling of the land areas is decreasing significantly. Land areas are hotter than sea surface temperature.

B3. We can control climate or present climate change is reversible
- just by determining how much land surface area of the earth to keep moist. More the land surface moist, the more rain cycle and cooler earth surface.

I shall be grateful to you if you could go through my blog for details and share with your friends.

contd

Jan 15, 2015
C. Ozone depletion is not possible

Ozone as such can't exist as a layer. It is extremely unstable and heavier than O2. It breaks into oxygen atoms as soon as it forms (if not kept pressurized in a closed container).It is formed when oxygen molecules breaks into atoms with heat of high temperature (UV). Stratosphere is tremendously cold zone and extremely low pressure. Ozone formed breaks down into oxygen atoms as soon as it forms and releases heat. Even at sea level at NTP ozone is unstable. So ozone layer exists only in theory. Intermittently forming of ozone will continue until the oxygen is in the atmosphere and we receive UV from the sun. So ozone depletion is not possible. Ozone formation is a step to return heat back to space.
It is not ozone that blocks heat but O2 and in the process O3 is formed to release the heat absorbed by O2
contd

Jan 15, 2015
D. Don't blame CFC (too scarce and too heavy to reach the stratosphere) for thinning stratosphere. In reality, Millions of jet flights everyday are consuming too much of oxygen of the layer.

Copy my list, go to NASA / IPCC and tell them about my challenge. Or, at least talk to your elementary sc. teacher to find out true sc. I will reward you for your efforts.

Present CC is reversible and we can control climate

You may need lots of power for developing water supply networks. Here is the method to harness Hydropower as much as you want, theoretically unlimited.
contd

Jan 15, 2015
contd
II. BLUNDER IN HYDROPOWER ENGINEERING: CORRECTION MEANS END OF
POWER CRISIS.

If we make correction of the mistake there has been on hydropower engineering we wouldn't need any other sources of power at all. The cleanliest power will be available by cheapest possible way we can think of. Please avoid the most dangerous power source

At present we are tapping only minimum hydropower by applying the principle of still water column that it exerts highest pressure at the bottom, so we run only one turbine at the bottom of the running water column The property applies in standing still water column only . It is a blunder in hydropower engineering

In hydropower we have the running water condition The pressure effect in a running water column is uniform through out, from intake to discharge points Considering the properties of uniformly running water column, it is possible to run many turbines in series along a single uniform penstock pipe
contd

Jan 15, 2015
We have to keep water running consistently to maintain constant revolution of the turbines. Uniformly running water column has uniform velocity and pressure throughout, from intake to the discharge points (Bernoulli Theory). So we can install turbines at any position of the running water column. And, by maintaining uniformity of the water column before, through and after the installed turbine, the velocity of the water column can be maintained constant.

Turbines rotate with the same velocity as running water column. So there is no change in the velocity and discharge rate of water after running a turbine(s). Therefore the turbines don't decrease the power of running water. So we can install as many turbines in series along a single uniform penstock pipe as space allows. In other words, uniformly flowing water can uniformly run turbines in series. (series is a technical term science, engineers are mistaken for cascading system

contd


Jan 15, 2015
They think both are same. At present hydropower installation is also by cascading method not in series principle).

Application of the properties of uniformly running water column can open the door for unlimited hydropower. Only limitation is the space required for placing turbines. This method not only can end the power crisis but will also help to reverse the present climate change as the power will be available to pump water from rivers as much as we need to keep the land surface always moist, recharge ground water, boost rain cycle and eventually reduce sea level rise.

So we must consider the principle of running water column for installing turbines.

Applying the property of standing still water column to a running water condition has been a blunder in hydropower engineering.

contd

Jan 15, 2015
Don't blame CFC (too scarce and too heavy to reach the stratosphere) for thinning stratosphere.

Oh what the heck, I'll just make one more comment since this is especially silly. The claim that CFCs don't reach the atmosphere is nonsense since empirical measurements have detected CFCs in the stratosphere (http://www.esrl.n...aq1.html ).

Seriously, the sheer volume of silliness coming from dev_dangol makes me wonder if he/she is just making fun of the anti-science group here. It's hard to believe that anyone has the inability to grasp reality demonstrated by dev_dangol's posts.

Jan 15, 2015
Considering the fluid properties of water (pressure is exerted equally in all direction) and the nature of gravitational force (at a given point never reduced nor blocked nor shifted) multiple turbines can be installed in series along only one water running pipe. The turbines don't decrease the power of running water, because the turbine rotates with the same velocity as the running water.
DEMONSTRATION
Water meter is a good example of miniature turbine. Many water meters can be connected along the same UNIFORM water supplying pipe in series and run all of them uniformly.

THUS IT IS POSSIBLE TO HARNESS many folds more hydropower than done by present practice.
Engineering works has to be developed differently so that the running water column is uniform before the turbine, inside the turbine and after the turbine.
contd


Jan 15, 2015
Hydro power can be installed without reservoir / by runoff type, but making lakes as much as possible will hold water in and on land - will be eco friendly, cool climate, aquatic life, lower sea level rise, water sports, transports, greenery, enhance rain cycle, make water easily available in the nooks and corners etc. From the reservoirs we can install turbines as run off type water supply.

NAMING 'HYDROPOWER' IS ITSELF WRONG. IT IS NOT POWERED BY HYDRO BUT 'G'. WATER IS USED AS A TOOL TO CAPTURE 'G' FORCE. SO IT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED G-POWERED ELECTRICITY. ANOTHER FLUID IF THERE WERE AVAILABLE ABUNDANTLY COULD ALSO BE USED INSTEAD OF WATER.

Retired science teacher educator; earned Ph.D. from Nottingham University (1986) England, UK, for developing a training program for science teacher –"Radicalization of science education in Nepal." – development of an innovation, a study in education technology.

contd

Jan 16, 2015
Details with video clips in my blog:
devbahadurdongol.blogspot.com

The END

Jan 16, 2015
By the way, you shouldn't take my not commenting on your other points as an indication that those points are correct. The rest of your points illustrate a fundamental inability to reason and, frankly, are fairly boring to refute.

Do not waste your time with him; I found his name in a group of nuts and bolts deniers (about the 25th down that list): http://www.princi...cic.html He is a Ph D alright, but his field is pedagogy not physics. He is going to learn that science is not a frendly place for humanities ha ha.

Jan 16, 2015
Pedagogy does not give you any credibility in physics Dev and the only ability you have demonstrated so far is how fast you can cut and paste from your blog. Not much of a scholar you are, you cannot even post comment on the related topic; the subject of this article is air pollution in Beijing not global warming. And frankly a PhD 1986 retired, not even a 30 year career; You are either a lazy bum or a total reject. But hey, there are a few other PhDs totally rejected by their peers who come down here to ventilate their frustrations. Welcome to the PhD trash bin! There are many posters here who will be delighted to have the opportunity of putting your stupid comments into pieces. But you can forget about me; you are going straight on my ignore list.

Jan 16, 2015
@ dev

"(Dev - Retired science teacher educator; earned Ph.D. from Nottingham University (1986), "

In your case I can only assume Ph.D means professional hair dresser.

Wow! Boy are you stupid!

Jan 16, 2015
Do not waste your time with him; I found his name in a group of nuts and bolts deniers (about the 25th down that list): http://www.princi...cic.html He is a Ph D alright, but his field is pedagogy not physics. He is going to learn that science is not a frendly place for humanities ha ha.

Wow. There certainly are a large number of well known very silly people in that organization. The ramblings of dev_dangol seem to fit in well with the rest of the silliness there.

Jan 16, 2015
Do not waste your time with him; I found his name in a group of nuts and bolts deniers (about the 25th down that list): http://www.princi...cic.html He is a Ph D alright, but his field is pedagogy not physics. He is going to learn that science is not a frendly place for humanities ha ha.

Wow. There certainly are a large number of well known very silly people in that organization. The ramblings of dev_dangol seem to fit in well with the rest of the silliness there.


Hey Joseph Postma is on that list! I wonder if that is Alchemist (Water Prophet aka crybaby quitter)

Jan 17, 2015
So, more on topic, China, South America, the Middle East, so many countries without clean air laws.

Soot/Smog being dark, if not black essentially abosorbs 100% of visible, high frequency thermal, UV, and transforms it into ambient thermal radiations/frequencies.

You folks are seriously worried about a 135ppm increase in a weak GHG? Water is a strong GHG, it has increased 435ppm. Effects although certainly there, are trivial.

I'd love to see the GWP of soot and smog. How will you get around that its persistence in the atmosphere is days, maybe, yet it is always present, because it is always released.

Don't worry, you can use the same arguments people use against Carbon Dating.

Jan 19, 2015
So deniers don't need to comment on the elephant in the room, and the CO2-ers run like scared kittens. If they don't comment, they didn't see it, right?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more