A bit of a bombshell from the AGU IGBR: Black carbon is a larger cause of climate change than previously assessed

From the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme via Eurekalert, some of the heat gets taken off CO2 as the ‘big kahuna’ of forcings, now there is another major player, one that we can easily do something about. I’ve often speculated that black carbon is a major forcing for Arctic sea ice, due to examples like this one.  – Anthony

Reducing diesel engine emissions would reduce warming

blackcarbonl[1]
This shows black carbon processes in the climate system. Credit: American Geophysical Union 2013. Credit D. W. Fahey

Black carbon is the second largest man-made contributor to global warming and its influence on climate has been greatly underestimated, according to the first quantitative and comprehensive analysis of this issue.

The landmark study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres today says the direct influence of black carbon, or soot, on warming the climate could be about twice previous estimates. Accounting for all of the ways it can affect climate, black carbon is believed to have a warming effect of about 1.1 Watts per square meter (W/m2), approximately two thirds of the effect of the largest man made contributor to global warming, carbon dioxide.

Co-lead author David Fahey from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said, “This study confirms and goes beyond other research that suggested black carbon has a strong warming effect on climate, just ahead of methane.” The study, a four-year, 232-page effort, led by the International Global Atmospheric Chemistry (IGAC) Project, is likely to guide research efforts, climate modeling, and policy for years to come.

The report’s best estimate of direct climate influence by black carbon is about a factor of two higher than most previous work, including the estimates in the last Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment released in 2007, which were based on the best available evidence and analysis at that time.

Scientists have spent the years since the last IPCC assessment improving estimates, but the new assessment notes that emissions in some regions are probably higher than estimated. This is consistent with other research that also hinted at significant under-estimates in some regions’ black carbon emissions.

The results indicate that there may be a greater potential to curb warming by reducing black carbon emissions than previously thought. “There are exciting opportunities to cool climate by reducing soot emissions but it is not straightforward. Reducing emissions from diesel engines and domestic wood and coal fires is a no brainer, as there are tandem health and climate benefits. If we did everything we could to reduce these emissions we could buy ourselves up to half a degree less warming–or a couple of decades of respite,” says co-author Professor Piers Forster from the University of Leeds’s Faculty of Earth and Environment.

1-blackcarbonl[1]
This shows global climate forcing of black carbon and co-emitted species in the industrial era (1750-2005). Credit: American Geophysical Union 2013. Credit D. W. Fahey
The international team urges caution because the role of black carbon in climate change is complex. “Black carbon influences climate in many ways, both directly and indirectly, and all of these effects must be considered jointly”, says co-lead author Sarah Doherty of the University of Washington, an expert in snow measurements. The dark particles absorb incoming and scattered heat from the sun (solar radiation); they can promote the formation of clouds that can have either cooling or warming impact; and black carbon can fall on the surface of snow and ice, promoting warming and increasing melting. In addition, many sources of black carbon also emit other particles whose effects counteract black carbon, providing a cooling effect.

The research team quantified all the complexities of black carbon and the impacts of co-emitted pollutants for different sources, taking into account uncertainties in measurements and calculations. The study suggests mitigation of black carbon emissions for climate benefits must consider all emissions from each source and their complex influences on climate. Based on the analysis, black carbon emission reductions targeting diesel engines followed by some types of wood and coal burning in small household burners would have an immediate cooling impact.

In addition, the report finds black carbon is a significant cause of the rapid warming in the Northern Hemisphere at mid to high latitudes, including the northern United States, Canada, northern Europe and northern Asia. Its impacts can also be felt farther south, inducing changes in rainfall patterns from the Asian Monsoon. This demonstrates that curbing black carbon emissions could have significant impact on reducing regional climate change while having a positive impact on human health.

“Policy makers, like the Climate and Clean Air Coalition, are talking about ways to slow global warming by reducing black carbon emissions. This study shows that this is a viable option for some black carbon sources and since black carbon is short lived, the impacts would be noticed immediately. Mitigating black carbon is good for curbing short-term climate change, but to really solve the long-term climate problem, carbon dioxide emissions must also be reduced,” says co-lead author Tami Bond from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

###

FULL REPORT: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgrd.50171/abstract

Images to use for reference in the report for this press release:

Figure 1.1 Schematic overview of the primary black carbon emission sources and the processes that control the distribution of black carbon in the atmosphere and determine its role in the climate system [Bond et al., 2013].

Figure 9.1 Quantitative estimates of black carbon climate forcing. This study indicates the direct effects due to black carbon are nearly twice the number reported in the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment [Bond et al., 2013].

###

The International Global Atmospheric Chemistry (IGAC) Project was formed in 1990 to address growing international concern over rapid changes observed in the Earth’s atmosphere. IGAC operates under the umbrella of the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP) and is jointly sponsored by the international Commission on Atmospheric Chemistry and Global Pollution (iCACGP). IGAC’s mission is to coordinate and foster atmospheric chemistry research towards a sustainable world (www.igacproject.org). The IGAC International Project Office is hosted by the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) at the University of Colorado, USA.

The new assessment, “Bounding the role of black carbon in the climate system: A scientific assessment,” is published online at the Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres, a journal of the American Geophysical Union, and can be accessed free of charge. The four coordinating lead authors are: Tami Bond (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign), Sarah Doherty (Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean, University of Washington, USA), David Fahey (NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory and Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder, USA) and Piers Forster (University of Leeds, UK).

Other co-authors are: T. Berntsen (Center for International Climate and Environmental Research-Oslo and Department of Geosciences, University of Oslo, Norway), B. J. DeAngelo (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), M. G. Flanner (University of Michigan, USA), S. Ghan (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, USA), B.Kärcher (Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt Oberpfaffenhofen, Germany), D. Koch (Department of Energy, USA), S. Kinne (Max Planck Institute, Germany), Y. Kondo (University of Tokyo, Japan), P. K. Quinn (NOAA Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, USA), M. C. Sarofim (Environmental Protection Agency, USA), M. G. Schultz (Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH, Germany), M. Schulz (Norwegian Meteorological Institute, Norway), C. Venkataraman (Indian Institute of Technology, India), H. Zhang (China Meteorological Administration, China.), S. Zhang (Peking University, China), N. Bellouin (Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter, UK), S. K. Guttikunda (Desert Research Institute, USA), P. K. Hopke (Clarkson University, USA), M. Z. Jacobson (Stanford University, USA), J. W. Kaiser (European Centre for Medium-range Weather Forecasts, UK; King’s College London, UK; and Max Planck Institute for Chemistry, Germany), Z. Klimont (International Institute for Applied System Analysis, Austria), U. Lohmann (Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich,, Switzerland), J. P. Schwarz (NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory and Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado, USA), D. Shindell (NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, USA), T. Storelvmo (Yale University, USA), S. G. Warren (University of Washington, USA), C. S. Zender (University of California, Irvine, USA).

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
169 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Chris4692
January 15, 2013 10:49 am

Its a good thing they didn’t find it to be more influential than CO2 or their study wouldn’t be taken seriously.

Theo Goodwin
January 15, 2013 10:51 am

Someone please tell me if I am wrong. With black carbon, no one is going to claim that it is randomly distributed throughout the atmosphere. There are identifiable sources, identifiable paths from sources to threatened areas of the environment, and distinct kinds of impacts on those areas of the environment, right?

DCA
January 15, 2013 10:51 am

I was just going to email this to you Anthony but you are on the ball, as usual.
How does this affect CO2 sensitivity? If I’m thinking right it would make it 0.8C.

Brian
January 15, 2013 10:54 am

Drat – more juice for the fireplace gestapo in California.

AleaJactaEst
January 15, 2013 10:54 am

and what a specious comment ….”The dark particles absorb incoming and scattered heat from the sun (solar radiation); they can promote the formation of clouds that can have either cooling or warming impact; and black carbon can fall on the surface of snow and ice, promoting warming and increasing melting. In addition, many sources of black carbon also emit other particles whose effects counteract black carbon, providing a cooling effect.”
Hot-cold, wet-dry, they don’t realise what utter idiots they appear after making such claims.

January 15, 2013 10:56 am

Black carbon kills children. One would’ve thought climate worriers would’ve jumped at the opportunity years ago and pushed something practical at the various COPs.
Alas children aren’t on top of.their agendas.

Kon Dealer
January 15, 2013 10:57 am

Well what a surprise!
First we have a far greater role for Solar than previously thought- now black carbon.
Not much of a role left for CO2!!

milodonharlani
January 15, 2013 10:57 am

All the more reason for the US to sell China its higher BTU density, low sulfur coal!
Also, did you see this:
http://news.yahoo.com/big-chill-vs-global-warming-whats-going-165639216.html
Mikey as expected claims that bitterly cold & snowy winters are a sign of “climate change”. I have to agree that the climate changes from summer to winter. But of course climate changes all the time, in cycles long & short, from years to billions of years.

Sam the First
January 15, 2013 10:58 am

“Based on the analysis, black carbon emission reductions targeting diesel engines followed by some types of wood and coal burning in small household burners would have an immediate cooling impact”
So once more it’s the ‘little person’ who gets targeted, right after trucks and lorries and other diesel vehicles, never mind that petrochemical and other industrial plants, and forest /industrial /domestic building fires must each of them pump out a huge amount more carbon than individual homes with a fireplace!
It’s time fire-setting was made a very serious offence esp in developed countries, for all kinds of reasons; and that forest maintenance was made a priority. So many of the raging forest fires are avoidable with more vigilance and foresight.

Editor
January 15, 2013 11:00 am

Sounds like good news, since black carbon is something we can control in either direction. We should be dotting the great white north with coal-electric generation plants that are designed to maximize soot production at any sure sign that always-dangerous global cooling is on the move. It would probably not be efficient to try to move the electricity over any large distance so the generation would be for local use only and the plants should have a clean-burning option built in so that this service can still be provided when global warming is not needed, but the primary function would be soot production.

temp
January 15, 2013 11:00 am

Hey look CO2 not working out as the proper devil lets shift blame, goalposts, etc, etc, etc in order to save face.
Stuff like this is scary because it will become the “next global warming” with the same goals, same laws, same everything. Just another propaganda shift because the last bit of propaganda was so fake that it even the billions spent to prop it up has failed.

January 15, 2013 11:00 am

Pretty soon there is not going to be any warming left for CO2 to be blamed for. Solar, Black Carbon, UHI…and given the scarcity of any warming at all for the last sixteen years the CO2 bogeyman is looking a lot less scary.

Bruce Cobb
January 15, 2013 11:01 am

They keep recycling black carbon, which is a red herring, along with Methane. The only reason to clean up actual air pollutants, including soot, is for health reasons, nothing more. One only needs to look at what is happening in China now to know that.

Jack
January 15, 2013 11:05 am

So turns out the greens blocking slow burns actually create soot from massive bushfires. Irony as thick as their hypocrisy. But still a lot of work to be done before ny politician seizes the excuse for another tax and another round of alrmist grants.

January 15, 2013 11:09 am

“…reduce these emissions we could buy ourselves up to half a degree less warming–or a couple of decades of respite,”
Now folks, you very diligently found an underestimation of the effect of soot on temp. Don’t now underestimate how much respite this will buy. 0.5 C reduction in warming estimates will buy maybe 10 decades of respite, not a couple of decades.

gator69
January 15, 2013 11:10 am

Black carbon is nothing new under the Sun. About half is emitted naturally, much from forest fires which we now suppress. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Phil
January 15, 2013 11:12 am

“Black carbon” or soot is a product of incomplete combustion. If the combustion were more complete, then CO2 emissions would be higher. Elimination of diesel engines would cause a tremendous increase in poverty, because there are no good substitutes. Substitutes are generally (a) more expensive, (b) less efficient and/or (c) less reliable.

Jimbo
January 15, 2013 11:15 am

I’ve often speculated that black carbon is a major forcing for Arctic sea ice, due to examples like this one. – Anthony

No need to speculate. I know you’ve seen this before.

Dr. James Hansen and Larissa Nazarenko – November 4, 2003
Soot climate forcing via snow and ice albedos
Plausible estimates for the effect of soot on snow and ice albedos (1.5% in the Arctic and 3% in Northern Hemisphere land areas) yield a climate forcing of +0.3 W/m2 in the Northern Hemisphere. The “efficacy” of this forcing is ∼2, i.e., for a given forcing it is twice as effective as CO2 in altering global surface air temperature. This indirect soot forcing may have contributed to global warming of the past century, including the trend toward early springs in the Northern Hemisphere, thinning Arctic sea ice, and melting land ice and permafrost. If, as we suggest, melting ice and sea level rise define the level of dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system, then reducing soot emissions, thus restoring snow albedos to pristine high values, would have the double benefit of reducing global warming and raising the global temperature level at which dangerous anthropogenic interference occurs. However, soot contributions to climate change do not alter the conclusion that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been the main cause of recent global warming and will be the predominant climate forcing in the future.
http://www.pnas.org/content/101/2/423.short
————–
Full paper.
http://faculty.missouri.edu/~glaserr/current_news/Article_PNAS_Soot_423.pdf

Craig from Belvidere
January 15, 2013 11:23 am

OK, so why believe this any more than anything else. I am sure we will now get lottsa models for billions of dollars that tell us whatever is in vogue with the political powers approving the grants. Climate “science” is corrupt and might be beyond redemption so we need to take a generational break from the topic.
I think that “researchers” should just post their raw data on-line and let everybody have at it (we paid for it anyway so it should be ours). Then in 20 years or so we can decide what data is actually representative of reality versus what was researcher biased and then begin to make some decisions.

Jimbo
January 15, 2013 11:23 am

Mitigating black carbon is good for curbing short-term climate change, but to really solve the long-term climate problem, carbon dioxide emissions must also be reduced,” says co-lead author Tami Bond from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Of course. :-p

oldfossil
January 15, 2013 11:31 am

Brian says:
January 15, 2013 at 10:54 am
Drat – more juice for the fireplace gestapo in California.
In your entire lifetime your barbecue and coal/wood stove will output about as much black carbon as a thermal power station in one minute. But we’ve got to keep those bureaucrats busy, right?
For the last decade at least we’ve had satellites in polar orbits that can measure earth’s albedo. Surely by now there must be enough data to start looking for trends and correlations?
Here’s another thought. Imagine the whole of earth’s land surface covered in photovoltaic solar energy cells. With all that extra energy being retained instead of bounced back into space, do you think the planet would get warmer or cooler?

richardscourtney
January 15, 2013 11:31 am

Anthony:
Your article says

The landmark study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres today says the direct influence of black carbon, or soot, on warming the climate could be about twice previous estimates. Accounting for all of the ways it can affect climate, black carbon is believed to have a warming effect of about 1.1 Watts per square meter (W/m2), approximately two thirds of the effect of the largest man made contributor to global warming, carbon dioxide.

and

The report’s best estimate of direct climate influence by black carbon is about a factor of two higher than most previous work, including the estimates in the last Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment released in 2007, which were based on the best available evidence and analysis at that time.

Yes, it is precisely “a factor of two higher” and the IPCC were pressed into mentioning the smaller value in its 2007 Report. For example, this was one of my review comments.

Page 2-4 Chapter 2 Line 2
Page 2-4 Chapter 2 Line 2 of the draft says nitrous oxide is the “fourth most important greenhouse gas” and Page 2-3 Chapter 2 Lines 50 and 51 (wrongly) say methane is “the second largest RF contributor” (assuming that the effect of water vapour is ignored as is the convention in this Chapter except for Section 3.2.8.). But the draft does not state the third largest contributor.
Before Page 2-4 Chapter 2 Line 2, the draft needs to be amended to include the RF of particles of sulphate aerosols combined with soot that is the second largest RF contributor.
1. CO2 has RF of 1.63 W/m^2,
2. particles of sulphate aerosols combined with soot have RF of 0.55 W/m^2 (ref. Jacobson MZ, Nature, vol. 409, 695-697 (2000))
3. methane has RF of 0.48 W/m^2.
4. and nitrous oxide has RF of 0.16 W/m^2.
The authors of this chapter seem to be ignorant of the warming effect of sulphate aerosols combined with soot particles. But their correct statement that nitrous oxide is the “fourth most important greenhouse gas” implies that they are choosing to deliberately ignore the warming effect of sulphate aerosols combined with soot particles.

Richard

Billy Liar
January 15, 2013 11:34 am

What about dust from deserts? The Sahara puts plenty of dust on the glaciers of the European Alps every year, you can see it every summer – it makes the snow look pinkish or yellowish. Plenty of other dry places have dust storms where the finest particles will probably travel long distances. Why single out carbon particles when sand/rock particles are more than likely equally prevalent?

Billy Liar
January 15, 2013 11:36 am

Oh, I forgot. Dust is blameless because it’s not man-made. Silly me!

January 15, 2013 11:36 am

Reblogged this on This Got My Attention and commented:
There are lots of sources of black carbon!

1 2 3 7