Via Roger Pielke Senior’s new and improved Climate Science Blog:
Kiminori Itoh of Yokohama National University has prepared a guest weblog for us. It is titled:
“Soot And The Arctic Ice – A Win-Win Policy Based On Chinese Coal Fired Power Plants”.
As you saw in a recent weblog in Climate Science, China appears to be modifying the global climate through aerosol emission from a large number of coal fired power plants: August 12, 2009, New Paper “Increase In Background Stratospheric Aerosol Observed With Lidar” By Hofmann Et Al 2009. This paper gave me an idea that soot from China may be responsible for the recent reduction of the Arctic ice, which finally leads me to a Win-Win policy on coal fired power plants in China, as you see below.
The target of the paper of Hofmann et al was sulfate aerosol transported into stratosphere. Thus, its main effect on the global climate is cooling of the troposphere and warming of the stratosphere similar to volcanic eruptions. In fact, this paper was introduced in Science (24 July 2009, p. 373) with the title of “China’s Human Volcano.”
The Chinese aerosol, however, can have another effect on the climate. That is, a possible influence of soot on the Arctic ice. It seems to me that Hofmann et al.’s paper, together with other recent findings, gives evidence for this possibility as follows:
1) Hofmann et al’s paper shows that stratospheric haze became densest in 2007 and declined a little after that. According to their claim, this is associated with the changes in sulfate emissions from China. This fact reminds me that the ice extent in the Arctic sea was significantly reduced in the 2007 summer and recovered after that. Since the amount soot should be proportional to that of sulfate, also the amount soot transported to the Arctic may have a peak in 2007, and may explain the dramatic reduction of the sea ice extent; the soot deposited onto the ice surfaces absorbs sun light of Arctic summer, gives heat to the ice, and lets it melt. This process should be particularly effective during summer of the Arctic when the sun does not set.
2) About half of the recent temperature increase in the Arctic region is reportedly due to aerosols (combination effects of sulfate and soot) (D. Shindell and G. Faluvegi, Nature Geosci. 2, 294-300 (2009)); this result convinces one that the influence of soot on the Arctic environment does exist.
3) There are other recent papers on soot: e. g., “Atmospheric brown clouds: Hemispherical and regional variations in long-range transport, absorption, and radiative forcing,” V. Ramanathan et al., J. Geophys. Res. vol. 112, D22S21, doi:10.1029/2006JD008124, 2007.
From these results, I suspect that the soot from China is responsible for the recent reduction of sea ice in the Arctic summer. To verify this, detailed chemical analyses, such as carbon allotropes, should be made if the soot can be sampled from the ice (this may be an interesting project).
Thus, I can claim that the influence of the soot is likely large. Then, according to the spirit of the precautionary principle, the soot from China should be reduced even if the scientific basis is not sufficient. The precautionary principle should be applied not just to CO2, but to other primary factors of climate changes. If this is not possible just because there is no statement on soot in the FCCC (Framework of Convention of Climate Change), we need another convention (or protocol) which enables us to treat soot properly. Otherwise, countermeasures on climate change will be useless.
Now, I want to point out that the reduction of the Chinese soot can become a Win-Win policy for China as well as for other countries. About 80% of the Chinese electricity comes from coal fired power plants. The CO2 emission from China in 2004 was about 2.27 billion metric tons, which was 8.6% of the world emissions (26.3 billion metric tons). But, their efficiency of energy production is still low (34.6% as an average), and emissions other than CO2 and aerosol (i. e., mainly SOx, NOx and mercury) bring heavy health problems as well. In fact, resultant atmospheric pollution causes 300 thousands to 400 thousands of deaths a year.
If countries like Japan, which has advanced technologies of coal fired power plants (e. g., energy production efficiency being 41.1% in Japan), can cooperate with China to increase the efficiency of energy production and to decrease all kinds of emissions, this will become a true Win-Win policy. China can save a lot of human lives and working hours, can reduce the influence of the aerosol on the global climate, and in addition, can reduce CO2 emission. The other countries also benefit from this policy, including economical ones and a reduction of transboundary pollution.
This Win-Win policy actually will reduce the emission of CO2. Just from this aspect, it is much better than the cap-and-trade policy which in fact will increase the CO2 emissions. Moreover, and importantly, when considering a large capacity of coal reserves, this is a reasonable tactics in near future.
With this kind of Win-Win policies, developing countries like China can agree with developed countries on their energy policies. There will be no progress in the negotiation between them if the developing countries can participate in the climate policies only through the reduction of CO2. We need flexible approaches for complicated issues like the climate changes.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The aerosols (due to the diffused light that origínate) increase photosynthesis, most current clean global atmosphere can be one of the reasons for the CO2 increase
Gary Hladik (17:00:41) :
The first point is moot as there is no troposphere hot spot and thus no signature to explain.
A cooling stratosphere signifies global cooling, whatever the processes involved. Obviously this also indicates the GHG are not warming the planet.
Block of salt?
As for Asian industries, for every unit of production transferred to Asia from the West, CO2 emissions increase by an average of 40 percent (for now…). Paradoxically, if carbon taxes in the West lend to increased offshored production to Asia, those carbon taxes have functionally led to a net INCREASE of carbon emissions worldwide.
If the new super-clean coal-fired plants also scrub sulfates along with soot, the sun-reflecting benefits of aerosol emissions will be diminished relative to any warming effect from CO2. The curiosity here is that under UNEP rules, carbon credit selling countries (like India & China) which generate more than half their electricity from coal are to get financial assistance from the West to build super-clean coal plants. But according the IPCC’s own published research, this would speed global warming, not slow it.
Actually sulfates are partial culprits with soot, as the sulfates reflect near-IR into heating soot particulate even more than direct solar heating. If the soot were mitigated but the sulfates were not, the idea is that any serious climate change challenge posed by AGW could be forestalled by two decades.
see my old blog …
http://www.scientificblogging.com/the_soot_files/fixing_soot_gains_20_years_against_global_warming
http://www.scientificamerican.com/media/inline/0BB80100-E7F2-99DF-3243FADB64A2D768_1.gif
The (very few) Catlin ice bores made were to get a “solid hole” (not a smoothly-sided, concisely-oriented ice bore sample) through the ice so they could estimate the ice thickness.
Takes a different kind of drill, borer, sample retrieval (vice simply dumping ice chips on the surface) and a way to get the samples labeled, stored, and shipped back home.
The Catlin team was unable to do any of that – they were simply duped spectators and zealots out to make publicity. And leave oil drums on the ice.
I am a little lost on the entire story.
The best operational coal plant in the world is found in China.
It seems to me that the soot problem is solving it’s self and the Chinese will provide us with clean tech in the near future, not the other way around.
They have their own strong incentives (like public health) to clean up their environment.
We don’t need any Kyoto or Copenhagen Treaties that block our development and keep people poor.
Besides that I think the entire subject of industrial soot covering the Arctic, just like the hoax problem of CO2, has ballooned compared to the natural soot from forest wild fires, dust storms and volcanic activity.
Have a look at the NASA EART OBSERVATORY website to watch the incredible amount (and scale) of wild fires, the gigantic dust storms and the recent volcanic eruptions in the NH to bring the industrial soot emissions into perspective.
Human kind is doing fine.
Only our politicians suck.
P.s., in regard to the proposed win win policies!
China, besides cars, planes and containers full of cheap rubbish, currently is flooding the Western markets with solar panels, 30% under price.
It won’t take much time before they become the biggest producer of wind energy.
Say bye bye to the proposed win win policies and say bye bye Obama’s hoax of “Green Jobs”.
If we don’t wake up soon and turn the economy back on track, the next export product from China will be a new US President and a mandatory course to learn the Chinese Language.
Mike Lorrey (21:05:04) :
“The big problem in China isnt so much the coal plants, as the unscrubbed soot and sulfates coming from underground coal fires that have been raging for years. If the nations of the world made a concentrated effort to put out these coal seam fires, CO2 emissions, soot emissions, and sulfate emissions would be seriously decreased and we could reach kyoto goals without impacting the economy negatively”.
Right Mike,
The open coal fires, raging for thousands of years now are not only limited to China.
They are happening almost everywhere.
The soot measurement (fine dust) in the European Cities (obligatory under European Rule) taking place for several years now showed that 65% of the fine dust originates from the Sahara, which is a natural source.
Mother Earth can cope with it and we don’t need any Kyoto Treaty.
All we need is prosperity.
Despite the alarming numbers of casualties 300.000 to 400.000 Chinese that are killed by pollution (or smoking), the average age of the Chinese has been rising sharply since the industrialization.
In my opinion the facts simply don’t add up and the arguments are flawed.
Only if the Chinese develop a healthy and financially strong Middle Class, the pollution problems will be tackled.
Shutting down the economy because of CO2 is the equivalent of MASS MURDER.
I respect Dr. Pielke for his scientific knowledge and his views but I am convinced
that the current environmental policies of the West are simply devastating, that it is too late for the west to create a win win situation with the Chinese and the positive effects of their industrial policies outways the current negative effects which will be solve in time (quicker as we think).
If the West dos not focus on maintaining a healthy economy and a healthy middle class, we are doomed.
The rise of China, the downfall of the West:
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/advocacy_out_of_control_in_the_organizations_and_media/
Richard111 (00:40:24) :
“Did the Catlin expedition report any soot in the Arctic?”
Nah. They were in their tents most of the time. Too cold, dont’cha ya know, and besides, the ice was all melted anyway ;o)
Let’s not scrub out all the SO2. Corn and other cash crops need sulfer as much as they need CO2 and nitrogen, potash, and potassium. If it isn’t available from deposition ( out of the air) then it must be produced from oil shipped and plowed in with the other fertilizers, thereby raising the input costs of farming. Since we are using massive quantities of corn for ethanol; well draw your own conclusions.
Dave Wendt (22:16:27) :
“Years ago the US was out front on the technology of cleaning power plant emissions. If we had stayed on top of that technology instead of putting all our R&D funding into useless plans to bury CO2”
Dave, the US is still out front (along with Germany). Power plants in the US produce 30 million metric tons of synthetic gypsum (Calcium Sulphate hemihydrate – the stuff used to make plaster and wallboard – in fact they sell 8 million tons of it for this purpose). The wet limestone scrubbing process also removes particulates (carbon soot, ash etc, which along with the gypsum amounts to 130 million tons total a year). The US and EU have the most stringent power plant environmental regs in the world and they run clean. Those with access to western coal that is very low in sulphur don’t have to scrub with limestone but they do have to remove particulates. Synthetic gypsum is also used as a set retarder for cement and plants recover a fair proportion of costs with the sale of gypsum. Visit:
http://www.acaa-usa.org
Older ice would tend to be dirtier, having a longer time to gather soot. This would have the effects of both decreasing the overall age and thickness of the sea ice, while Arctic haze, when it occurs would affect all ice. The industrial ramp up, particularly of countries like China and India certainly could explain an increasing amount of soot in the arctic, and thus some of the increased melting of 2007. Additionally, the huge drop in industrial activity due to the worldwide economic slump last year could explain some of the recovery of arctic sea ice extent, in addition to the fact that, after the big melting of 2007 much of the ice was (and still is) younger, with less soot. More studies certainly need to be done to determine just how much of an effect soot has, though.
Ironically, the warmsters like to focus on “carbon” as evil, but by doing so, they actually increase the likelihood of increased levels of black carbon and other real pollutants being emitted, which have damaging effects on people’s health (especially poorer people), contributing to higher mortality rates, and having damaging effects on the environment. The warmsters and climate doom-mongers, in addition to being anti-human are actually anti-environmentalists, despite their claims to be attempting to “save the planet”.
Richard111
They couldn’t tell. The windex they used to clean their rose coloured sunglasses had frozen on day one. They attempted to use urine but that froze “in the tube”. Trying to look at the ice without the glasses was too disconcerting, so they were reduced to merely wandered blind.
Darn… That should have been … merely wandering blind.
Too early… no coffee…
Would a kindly moderator care to edit the error?
In a related story:
Newfoundland’s first helicopter plummeted to the ground today on it’s maiden voyage. The pilot, Weeb Mackinaw, was listed in a Gander hospital as “severely wrecked”. When asked how the crash occurred he said; “When I was on the ground it was really hot in there! But as soon as I got in the air it got really chilly, so I turned off the big overhead fan.”
I’ve flown at about 38,000 ft across Greenland and the North Atlantic arctic/subarctic about ten times this summer and a dark grey streak in the lower stratosphere has been very noticeable on each flight in the direction looking north (but not as noticeable looking south). I’d assumed it was from the Kuril Island volcano. It would be interesting to know where it is actually coming from.
Small point: China isn’t developing clean technology, they are buying it. From Germany. Siemens supplied the high-efficiency parts of the power plant.
JaneHM (07:58:26) :
I’ve flown at about 38,000 ft across Greenland and the North Atlantic arctic/subarctic about ten times this summer and a dark grey streak in the lower stratosphere has been very noticeable on each flight in the direction looking north (but not as noticeable looking south). I’d assumed it was from the Kuril Island volcano. It would be interesting to know where it is actually coming from.
JaneHM,
The bulk of the emissions are caused by the June 12th eruption of Sarychev Peak:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=38985
Before that is was Mt. redoubt.
Soot was noticed in the Arctic as far back as 1850 and it was traced to the emerging American economy and that of Europe. It seems to have less of an effect now than it did back then and how much actual melting it caused in practice remains debatable.
http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:JtsYDPOX6w0J:www.ess.uci.edu/~esaltzma/pub_pdfs/AlleySciencecommentonMcConnelletal.pdf+arctic+soot+1850&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk
Abstract;
Changes in absorbed solar radiation are unimportant in the dark Arctic winter, and peak during early summer, beforeseasonal snow melts away to reveal darker surfaces less affected by soot. Focusing on that most sensitive season, McConnell et al. estimate an average Arctic warming effectfrom soot of more than 1 W/m2between 1850 and 1951, peaking in 1906 to 1910 at more than 3 W/m2—eight times the natural forcing. For comparison, the globally and annually averaged forcing from the total anthropogenic CO2increase in the year 2006 was 1.7 W/m
Tonyb
Gary Hladik (17:00:41) :
“3. . . . a cooling stratosphere signified GHG warming–and the stratosphere is cooling. ”
I do not believe that the stratospheric trend has a simple answer, and an accurate answer may need to include ozone. However, the stratosphere has NOT been cooling for the past 15 years. Stratospheric temperatures in 2009 are higher than what they were in 1995. Definitely the stratosphere cooled from 1979 to 1994. However, the trend is more characterized by plateaus rather than a downhill trend. After major volcanic activity, the stratospheric temperature temporarily spiked, and then sunk to a lower plateau. This process was repeated three times, and the stratosphere has been relatively flat since the last time. I believe this website has the raw data: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t4/uahncdc.ls
A natural experiment suggests itself.
1. China cut back significantly on emissions in the weeks leading up to and during the olympic games.
2. Chinese emissions fell abruptly and drastically following the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers, and remained depressed for several months before recovering in the spring of this year.
Both events have well-defined start and end points. Can any effect on arctic ice a few weeks later be correlated to them?
“The open coal fires, raging for thousands of years now are not only limited to China.
They are happening almost everywhere.”
Maybe we could spare some of our excess CO2 to put these fires out? Not so much because I think it will mitigate CO2 emission. We’ll want to burn that coal ourselves some day!
How much of the “brown cloud” from China passes over the USSR ?
Any mention of acid rain ?
Re: stratospheric cooling, what chance CO2 getting up there and no rain to wash it out ?
Ron de Haan (04:28:21) :
Mother Earth can cope with it and we don’t need any Kyoto Treaty.
All we need is prosperity.
You are right once more.
Trouble is that the whole world is bombarded with sophisms like:
“Be green”….but this equals =”Be poor”
just one example:
Recycle once=Lose twice, but why? will somebody ask, and we´ll answer:
Every turn of recycling decreases by the double commercial transactions and industrial production=less jobs.
Every time you recycle you poison the environment: This happened when in europe some “green sage” thought that recycling cattle bones and organs for feeding cattle was just great. What did it happen: The “Mad cows” decease.(because of prions reinforcement)
Recycle everything and you´ll really eat your excreta.
Nature processes are OPEN and should remain as such. Doing the contrary is like endogamy, like getting marriage among brothers through several generations.
Nature, to be healthy, needs heterogamy.
This is like the other fallacy: “Share richness”
Every time you share you make the other poorer. Got it?
This happens because every time will be less to share, as simple as that.
(Go visit Cuba or North Korea and you will see it directly)
The objective of these IDEOLOGIES, is to achieve the control of humanity by a few.
Let us free of these malign ideologies!
What a load of utter garbage! The article bulges with faulty reasoning, and the “spirit of the precautionary principle” is anti-science:
http://www.caerdroia.org/blog/archives/2007/02/the_problems_wi.html
Quem deus vult perdere, dementat prius.