<p>From a comment in another question here,</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Oh, and a third factor: the added atmospheric CO2 does not magically
  go away once all the fossil fuels are burned. <strong>It will stay in the
  atmosphere for thousands of years, if not more, and will keep on
  heating things up</strong>. Currently the ocean absorbs a lot of the increased
  heat, and since the circulation time to the deep ocean is 100 years or
  more, heating will keep on for quite a while.</p>
</blockquote>

<p><a href="https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/16163/how-much-could-earths-temperature-increase-by-the-time-we-run-out-of-oil-reserv">How much could Earth's temperature increase by the time we run out of oil reserves?</a></p>

<p>But recent reports from ESA satellite and others says,</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Air pollution over Italy is seeing a drop after the country introduced
  a nationwide lockdown in response to the novel coronavirus outbreak</p>
  
  <p>New data from the European Space Agency’s (ESA) Copernicus Sentinel-5p
  satellite, which can measure <strong>concentrations of greenhouse gases and
  pollutants in the atmosphere</strong>, shows that between Jan. 1 and March 11,
  concentrations of nitrogen dioxide over Italy fell dramatically</p>
  
  <p>China has also shown a sharp <strong>reduction in pollution</strong> and greenhouse gas
  emissions after travel bans and quarantines</p>
</blockquote>

<p><a href="https://thehill.com/changing-america/sustainability/environment/487808-italy-sees-drop-in-pollution-amid-coronavirus?fbclid=IwAR0iTa7VYP4kgA4rWIc5Mux6bR69dItGncBWSO4UZpQ3q793jDBwlb03Bok" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Italy sees drop in pollution</a></p>

<p>Now with this, you still could interpret that by reduction of pollution they only meant Nitrogen dioxide and excluded CO2, but from here,</p>

<p><a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2020/03/13/italy-emissions-coronavirus/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Italy emissions Coronavirus</a></p>

<blockquote>
  <p>This will have just a minor effect of global concentrations of CO2,
  <strong>unless it leads to a really long depression of the world economy</strong></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Would pollution / greenhouse houses really take a lot of years to disappear from the atmosphere once people stop producing them?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-03-17T16:29:17.190Z
It depends on the substances you are talking about. That makes your question awfully broad - can you [edit] it and ask about one specific (group of) substance(s) - especially in the title?
Jan Doggen
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-03-17T18:53:38.380Z
Pollution is really the wrong word to use here.  What you want to look at is the residence times (equivalent to radioactive half-life) for different chemicals.  Some are unstable and decompose quickly, others (like CO2) have much longer residence times.  What you're seeing in those measurements is a drop in the emissions.  If particular chemicals decompose or react quickly, you also see a drop in atmospheric concentration.  With CO2, since it's long-lived, the most you would see is a halt to the increase.
jamesqf
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-03-17T20:58:15.103Z
Faintly I recall that an atmospheric researcher assembled his colleagues to monitor the decrease of air pollution in the days just past 9/11 where basically all air traffic with and within the U.S.A. shutdown for once and for all. (Which may differ from the current situation of banning flights across the oceans on one, but gradual thinning e.g., liasons within Europe / domestic liasions in the U.S.A, on the other side).  Maybe some of you may indicate a citeable reference to this study.
Buttonwood
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-03-17T22:02:53.017Z
Note the use of the word "emissions". In means that the output to the atmosphere decreased, but it doesn't mean that the stuff we put there a year ago is gone.
Gimelist
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-03-18T00:23:06.067Z
This post lacks clarity.  Specify the pollutant you are interested in and make your question clear.  Every pollutant has a different atmospheric process.  Voting to close.
f.thorpe
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-03-18T00:26:58.723Z
@farrenthorpe after reading the question through (rather than just the title) I think that it asks about reports on pollution lumping them together, rather than does the lumping itself, so a good answer would point out what you point out in your comment and what others have pointed out in theirs. So I think *there's a good SE answer to this question* and closing it would be counterproductive.
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-03-18T00:55:20.473Z
A question should be clear and concise.  This is neither of those.
f.thorpe
<climate-change>
Would pollution really take a lot of years to disappear from the atmosphere once people stop producing them?
Pablo
# Would pollution really take a lot of years to disappear from the atmosphere once people stop producing them?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2020-03-17)

From a comment in another question here,

> Oh, and a third factor: the added atmospheric CO2 does not magically
> go away once all the fossil fuels are burned. **It will stay in the
> atmosphere for thousands of years, if not more, and will keep on
> heating things up**. Currently the ocean absorbs a lot of the increased
> heat, and since the circulation time to the deep ocean is 100 years or
> more, heating will keep on for quite a while.

[How much could Earth's temperature increase by the time we run out of oil reserves?](https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/16163/how-much-could-earths-temperature-increase-by-the-time-we-run-out-of-oil-reserv)

But recent reports from ESA satellite and others says,

> Air pollution over Italy is seeing a drop after the country introduced
> a nationwide lockdown in response to the novel coronavirus outbreak
>
> New data from the European Space Agency’s (ESA) Copernicus Sentinel-5p
> satellite, which can measure **concentrations of greenhouse gases and
> pollutants in the atmosphere**, shows that between Jan. 1 and March 11,
> concentrations of nitrogen dioxide over Italy fell dramatically
>
> China has also shown a sharp **reduction in pollution** and greenhouse gas
> emissions after travel bans and quarantines

[Italy sees drop in pollution](https://thehill.com/changing-america/sustainability/environment/487808-italy-sees-drop-in-pollution-amid-coronavirus?fbclid=IwAR0iTa7VYP4kgA4rWIc5Mux6bR69dItGncBWSO4UZpQ3q793jDBwlb03Bok)

Now with this, you still could interpret that by reduction of pollution they only meant Nitrogen dioxide and excluded CO2, but from here,

[Italy emissions Coronavirus](https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2020/03/13/italy-emissions-coronavirus/)

> This will have just a minor effect of global concentrations of CO2,
> **unless it leads to a really long depression of the world economy**

Would pollution / greenhouse houses really take a lot of years to disappear from the atmosphere once people stop producing them?

**Tags:** climate-change

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: It depends on the substances you are talking about. That makes your question awfully broad - can you [edit] it and ask about one specific (group of) substance(s) - especially in the title?  
> **username_2**: Pollution is really the wrong word to use here.  What you want to look at is the residence times (equivalent to radioactive half-life) for different chemicals.  Some are unstable and decompose quickly, others (like CO2) have much longer residence times.  What you're seeing in those measurements is a drop in the emissions.  If particular chemicals decompose or react quickly, you also see a drop in atmospheric concentration.  With CO2, since it's long-lived, the most you would see is a halt to the increase.  
> **username_3**: Faintly I recall that an atmospheric researcher assembled his colleagues to monitor the decrease of air pollution in the days just past 9/11 where basically all air traffic with and within the U.S.A. shutdown for once and for all. (Which may differ from the current situation of banning flights across the oceans on one, but gradual thinning e.g., liasons within Europe / domestic liasions in the U.S.A, on the other side).  Maybe some of you may indicate a citeable reference to this study.  
> **username_4**: Note the use of the word "emissions". In means that the output to the atmosphere decreased, but it doesn't mean that the stuff we put there a year ago is gone.  
> **username_5**: This post lacks clarity.  Specify the pollutant you are interested in and make your question clear.  Every pollutant has a different atmospheric process.  Voting to close.  
> **username_6**: @farrenthorpe after reading the question through (rather than just the title) I think that it asks about reports on pollution lumping them together, rather than does the lumping itself, so a good answer would point out what you point out in your comment and what others have pointed out in theirs. So I think *there's a good SE answer to this question* and closing it would be counterproductive.  
> **username_5**: A question should be clear and concise.  This is neither of those.  

---

## 0 answers

