A new modeling study from NASA confirms that when tiny air pollution particles we commonly call soot – also known as black carbon – travel along wind currents from densely populated south Asian cities and accumulate over a climate hotspot called the Tibetan Plateau, the result may be anything but inconsequential.
In fact, the new research, by NASA’s William Lau and collaborators, reinforces with detailed numerical analysis what earlier studies suggest: that soot and dust contribute as much (or more) to atmospheric warming in the Himalayas as greenhouse gases. This warming fuels the melting of glaciers and could threaten fresh water resources in a region that is home to more than a billion people.
Lau explored the causes of rapid melting, which occurs primarily in the western Tibetan Plateau, beginning each year in April and extending through early fall. The brisk melting coincides with the time when concentrations of aerosols like soot and dust transported from places like India and Nepal are most dense in the atmosphere.
“Over areas of the Himalayas, the rate of warming is more than five times faster than warming globally,” said William Lau, head of atmospheric sciences at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. “Based on the differences it’s not difficult to conclude that greenhouse gases are not the sole agents of change in this region. There’s a localized phenomenon at play.”
He has produced new evidence suggesting that an “elevated heat pump” process is fueling the loss of ice, driven by airborne dust and soot particles absorbing the sun’s heat and warming the local atmosphere and land surface. A related modeling study by Lau and colleagues has been submitted to Environmental Research Letters for publication.
A unique landscape plays supporting actor in the melting drama. The Himalayas, which dominate the plateau region, are the source of meltwater for many of Asia’s most important rivers—the Ganges and Indus in India, the Brahmaputra in Bangladesh, the Salween through China, Thailand and Burma, the Mekong across Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam, and the Yellow and Yangtze rivers in China. When fossil fuels are burned without enough oxygen to complete combustion, one of the byproducts is black carbon, an aerosol that absorbs solar radiation (Most classes of aerosols typically reflect incoming sunlight, causing a cooling effect). Rising populations in Asia, industrial and agricultural burning, and vehicle exhaust have thickened concentrations of black carbon in the air.
Sooty black carbon travels east along wind currents latched to dust – its agent of transport – and become trapped in the air against Himalayan foothills. The particles’ dark color absorbs solar radiation, creating a layer of warm air from the surface that rises to higher altitudes above the mountain ranges to become a major catalyst of glacier and snow melt.
- CLICK TO VIEW ANIMATION – Tiny, dark-colored aerosols — specifically black carbon — travel along wind currents from Asian cities and accumulate over the Tibetan Plateau and Himalayan foothills. Seen here as a light brown mass, these brown clouds of soot absorb sunlight, creating a layer of warm air (seen in orange) that rises to higher altitudes, amplifying the melting of glaciers and snow. Credit: NASA/Sally Bensusen Nicknamed the “Third Pole”, the region in fact holds the third largest amount of stored water on the planet beyond the North and South Poles. But since the early 1960s, the acreage covered by Himalayan glaciers has declined by over 20 percent. Some Himalayan glaciers are melting so rapidly, some scientists postulate, that they may vanish by mid-century if trends persist. Climatologists have generally blamed the build-up of greenhouse gases for the retreat, but Lau’s work suggests that may not be the complete story.
Building on work by Veerabhardran Ramanathan of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, San Diego, Calif., Lau and colleagues conducted modeling experiments that simulated the movement of air masses in the region from 2000 to 2007. They also made detailed numerical analyses of how soot particles and other aerosols absorb heat from the sun.
“Field campaigns with ground observations are already underway with more planned to test Lau’s modeling results,” said Hal Maring who manages the Radiation Sciences program at NASA Headquarters in Washington. “But even at this stage we should be compelled to take notice.”
“Airborne particles have a much shorter atmospheric lifespan than greenhouse gases,” continued Maring. “So reducing particle emissions can have much more rapid impact on warming.”
“The science suggests that we’ve got to better monitor the flue on our ‘rooftop to the world,” said Lau. “We need to add another topic to the climate dialogue.”
h/t to Dr. Roger Pielke Sr.
Related Links:
> The Dark Side of Carbon: Will Black Carbon Siphon Asia’s Drinking Water Away?
> Soot is Key Player in Himalayan Warming, Looming Water Woes in Asia
> Asian Summer Monsoon Stirred by Dust in the Wind
> A Unique Geography — and Soot and Dust — Conspire Against Himalayan Glaciers
Gretchen Cook-Anderson
NASA Earth Science News Team
When is everyone going to realise that we just do not know what the climate will do in the next 5 years let alone the next 50 years. It’s all pure guess work. So, any move to reduce GHG, soot or any other man-made factor in isolation may in fact make matters worse not better. We need to tread very carefully. Besides, who’s to say the global cooling period we has last century (which sparked a panic about a coming ice-age) might have been reversed by man-made GHG emissions!? We just do not know. This doesn’t take into account the fact that countries like China and India will be increasing their GHG emissions for many years if not decades to come, much more and faster than what the developed countries can do to reduce them in the next 100+years. Do the maths.
Could someone please confirm/deny my reading of this article further up? Could this be contributory proof that one of the forcings in the Climate Models is overstated or potentially backwards?
They (RC and the IPCC models) state that a reduction in aerosols (some of which, like SO2, block solar gain and some of which, soot, increase it) will cause a net *increase* in heat… Their models assume future reductions in aerosols (due to countries “cleaning up their act”) would essentially counteract the (theoretical) temperature reductions from reduced CO2.
Seems to me that the positive/neutral/negative forcing relationship for aerosols is an interesting question… especially if RC and the IPCC plugged it in backwards
I hope Anthony has enough bandwidth.
I have long believed that aerosol particulate pollution is a real environmental problem, unlike CO2. However I feel that global dimming and cloud nucleation during a solar minimum are more of a concern than glacier melt.
I am not sure that particulate pollution can be a plug and play replacement for the CO2 scare. Firstly it is a real pollution problem that has already been addressed in developed nations, so there are real solutions. Those behind the CO2 hoax are not looking for solutions, only continuing problems that justify major social and economic changes. Secondly the nations most responsible for the current particulate problems are not western democracies and this will not suit an anti free market agenda. Thirdly the solution from western experience is increasing and improved technology. This would mean increasing westernization of the developing world, something not high on the watermelon policy list, because it would erode their “guilt base”
I’m sure the fellow travelers in the AGW hoax will move onto something more ephemeral and not science based, so it can’t be as easily debunked. I would suggest LCSD or Lifestyle Comparison Stress Disorder as the next big thing. We will need global governance, massive wealth redistribution, reduced freedom and reduced living standards if we are to reduce our “Stress footprint” on the developing world. So much better than CO2 as you can’t disprove it with science. Better than particulate pollution as you can’t solve it using proven technologies. Also great for the MSM as they can contribute to the problem while claiming to be concerned about it…
K. Bray (11:58:43)
“Those creeps are causing our drought in California and destroying my skiing”
Not if you ski in California they aren’t. Mammoth having another great season. All lifts going by Wednesday. 04/05 was record snow for mammoth. Almost FIFTY FEET of snowfall. Almost as much the previous year.
https://www.mammothmountain.com/_ecomm/past.years.snowfall.cfm
Last couple of years Utah fields closed with 10 feet of snow. They almost always do.
The effect of aerosols is situational. Soot over lush green areas or urban areas may have minor impact as well as be reflective if its floating over such regions of the world. Soot over snow and highly reflective regions of the world would have a strong warming effect. It’s not enough to say that black carbon will always be a net negative or net positive on warming.
It depends. Also all aerosols are not created equal. So it depends there, too.
Great debate on BBC TV (4) just now. Had Lindzen, Lomborg and Watson arguing it out for half an hour. Very intelligent interviewer too. Will post up the iPlayer link when it’s available.
OT: Bob Watson has just been made to look an absolute bafoon on BBC 4 climate debate! He stumbled and blustered about new technologies every time Bjorn lombergh ( forgive spelling! ) put it to him that a billion people are living in poverty right now never mind a hundred years time! The host interviewing him asked him how much global warming would be reduced if all of the developed world lived a carbon free life. He would not answer despite being pressed again and again for a response! He ended up looking like an idiot.
@ur momisugly Jack Edwards (12:31:42) : – Here’s a prime example of how Carbon Trading exports pollution, and 1000’s of jobs:
(Mods, sorry for posting the same link in 2 different threads, but I thought it was relevant to both)
JerryM (13:25:42) :
(And add “carbon monoxide” to the list of contributors of the historic temperature rise.)
Why add CO to the list? CO is utterly insignificant as a greenhouse gas.
I can see why the real scientists have just about stopped coming here.
OFF-TOPIC (Question)
First let me say that I know next to nothing about climate science, but am so appreciative of WUWT for all of the information. This is better than any Soap Opera out there 🙂
Every time I see an advertisement for a vitamin or non-pharmaceutical health supplement on TV, I notice that on the bottom of the screen (or the print add or on the product labeling, etc.) is fine print that reads something like…
“These statements have not been verified by the Food and Drug Administration etc…”
I’m assuming that this is done to protect consumers and that somewhere in Washington somebody lobbied to make this a requirement for health supplement manufacturers.
Now, I see endless ads for various products touting numerous “green” features and benefits.
My question is, is it “legal” for companies to do this? Isn’t extolling the “green” virtues of their product a misrepresentation if no proof exists that a “green” product is actually green? Shouldn’t these ads also be required to provide some sort of disclaimer that these claims of “greenness” have not been tested/reviewed by the DOE or some other qualified government agency? Just curious.
LPM (15:00:16) :
As I understand it, there is an effort underway to score a product’s “greeness” – and I believe Wal Mart of all companies was leading the way on it.
That said, for now there is no standard (legal or otherwise) for labeling a product as “green”. The definition for the term means vastly different things to different people
lowercasefred (14:00:28),
I agree that global climate cycles are beyond human control, if that’s what you meant. Sorry if I didn’t make it clear enough, but I was referring specifically to the emission of particulate pollution, such as fly ash/soot from coal fired power plants.
Particulate emissions are easily controlled. The technology is mature. But filters, precipitators and centrifugal traps are not cheap.
In China, money matters more than anything else. In the West, and in enlightened countries like Japan, Taiwan and Singapore, a clean environment trumps cost. That’s why we have a clean environment and China doesn’t.
The problem occurs when developing countries expect Western taxpayers to pay to clean up the pollution they emit.
We did not cause their pollution. They did. And they have the means and the resources to drastically reduce particulate emissions. The arguments they make, such as basing a country’s emissions on their per-capita, show that they are not sincere about cleaning the atmosphere.
So I ahve walked on quite a few mountain glaciers; in several parts of the globe; well North america, and NZ; surely that is a good enough sample for accurate climate studies.
Yes the snow and ice was riddled with dust; can’t swear that it is soot, but it looked black to me. And quite typically when the sun is out each of those black dust particles sits in its own micro crater on the snow surface; a melting gift from the particle no doubt.
Well the snow of course is merely an indicator that the dust particles do get warmer than their surroundings. I’m sure they do exactly the same, when they fall on the ground out in a parking lot, or airport runway.
Some of those dust (soot) particles are so small, you wonder why they even fall to earth at all, rather than being carried aloft by thermals, including their own local self made thermals.
If I didn’t know better, I would swear, that each of those little dusticles actually became the nucleus for a water droplet, that subsequently became rain or snow, or even hailstones; and that could certainly be a mechanism for dumping them out on the ground, including all those glaciers.
So here’s the question; is the cooling effect from the clouds formed around these sooticles more potent than the warming effect due to the BB absorption of the particle. And of course those little sooticles would also scatter a lot of light which generally leads to cooling.
So what does the peer reviewed experimental evidence say; is soot an atmospheric warming agent; or is it perhaps a cooling agent.
Once on the ground, those little dudes actually bore their way down in the snow, and eventually are removed from further heating effect.
acementhead (14:32:00) :
K. Bray (11:58:43)
“Those creeps(in India and China) are causing our drought in California and destroying my skiing”
acementhead (14:32:00) :
Not if you ski in California they aren’t. Mammoth having another great season. All lifts going by Wednesday. 04/05 was record snow for mammoth. Almost FIFTY FEET of snowfall. Almost as much the previous year.
acementhead,
Northern California TV keeps telling me we are in a drought. I really believe them, don’t you? Forget the real snowfall. It’s probably all soot colored anyway, and doesn’t count as real snow. Surely, don’t eat any of it !
Is there really snow up there? Really? You’re not going to believe just your own visual cues are you? We really need climate change to look good. Spin it. oops…. isn’t it snowing in Denmark too? . Nevermind…
“”” Smokey (15:13:25) :
lowercasefred (14:00:28),
I agree that global climate cycles are beyond human control, if that’s what you meant. Sorry if I didn’t make it clear enough, but I was referring specifically to the emission of particulate pollution, such as fly ash/soot from coal fired power plants.
Particulate emissions are easily controlled. The technology is mature. But filters, precipitators and centrifugal traps are not cheap. “””
Well many years ago, Monsanto Chemical in St Louis MO decided to clean up their act, and put chimney scrubbers (of their own design) on all their chimneys in East St Louis to remove the rainbow colored smokes that their plants there used to emit. (they made Sacharin there somewhere)
The management hollered a bit at first at the cost; but once they had done the design and built the scrubbers, they suddenly discovered that every Tom, Dick and Harry, wanted to buy a Monsanto Scrubber to put on his chimney/still/hookah etc, and lo and behold out of the blue Monsanto had itself a very nice profitable new business in selling chimney scrubbers worldwide.
Sometimes one’s best decisions are made by other people.
PS Sacharin was Monsanto’s very first product. They also make about 85% of the world’s Aspirin, and sell it by the railcar load; not to mention the detergents you find at your local supermarket, which mostly contain Monsanto raw ingrediants. They even make Nylon, which was a Dupont invention; but Monsanto makes it from a different precursor, which gives them better nylons at lower costs; they sell a lot of nylon. And then there is the ubiquitous Astro-Turf, which I can testify, does not make a very good Cricket Pitch, although I once did play cricket on one; just for PR.
Good article in the sense that it is highlighting a real pollutant, but it’s twenty years too late.
After the acid rain scare and the smog over our cities in the West, we did something about it by putting scrubbers in our chimneys and introducing controls on our car and truck emissions.
Bolstered by that success we then thought we’d tackle CO2, and the Kyoto protocol was born. In the negotiations for that treaty, China and India were not only given a pass on their CO2 emissions, no controls were discussed regarding their other emissions.
Putting in scrubbers is much easier and cheaper when a plant is being built, than retrofitting afterwards. We in the West could have actually made money out of it through consulting/technology transfers.
But with no requirement to do so, nothing was done, and here we are now reaping what we have sown. This is yet another casualty of our fixation with demonising CO2. It will take years to undo this.
20,000 evacuated as Philippine volcano oozes lava
Guess the UN IPCC will now have to start trying to get international particulate regulations as well. When are they expecting to be able to force volcanoes into compliance? With such a grave threat demanding immediate action to avert global catastrophe, will they have to send in the blue helmets?
Anybody here from Washington? Near the Palouse country? Then you know about wind blown dust. The rich soil there didn’t grow there. It was blown there. And it can be carbon dated. It includes thick layers of carbon, layers of ash, and layers of just plain ol’ silt. Layers that are much thicker than the thin measly layer of dust we are getting our knickers in a twist over. Ask any geologist about carbon dust. Let’s not attribute smarts to the same people who gave us CO2-global warming. K?
As for lung disease in China and India? Instead of sending them money to clean up their air, send them the patch. They smoke like there is no tomorrow!
“”” AdderW (13:11:06) :
“The science suggests that we’ve got to better monitor the flue on our ‘rooftop to the world,” said Lau. “We need to add another topic to the climate dialogue.”
Is this another weird scientific term? flue??!!
soot is soot, don’t make it into a disease “””
Well influenza is “flu” and not “flue” which is another name for part of a chimney.
So the speaker Lau was speaking quite correctly.
Anybody who didn’t get their education from a California Public School would know that one.
George E. Smith (15:50:11) :
“Anybody who didn’t get their education from a California Public School would know that one.”
Hey! I got mine in Red Bluff, and dares nowthing rong with MY knows.
As a field engineer in the Petro/Chemical industry for 30 years, I’ve traveled the world installing my company’s equipment. In the United States since the EPA laws of the 70’s the vast majority of the projects were EPA related, Scrubbers, Bag Houses, Precipitators, SOx, NOx, COx reduction programs, CO boilers, Waste Heat Boilers, Power recovery trains just to name a few and all of them costing millions of dollars. There was very little production increase expenditures until recently. As a result, most plants in the USA are very clean now.
However, if you go outside of the USA, there is little to NO EPA equipment, none of the above and this includes Europe. They simply exhaust to the atmosphere. I questioned this at a plant in India and was told that the people just know to not live down wind. They could reduce their emissions by 50% by installing a simple 100$K knock out pot. So, soot and dust in India does not really surprise me.
The biggest problem is 1.3 billion people in China using COAL as their primary cooking and heating fuel. You’ll see carts of 6” diameter disks with holes drilled in them everywhere in the country side, well, that’s good ole coal and it’s used in the vast majority of rural homes. In Beijing the smog is so bad you can’t see more than a mile. It is the worst I’ve ever seen and I was born in Los Angeles in the 50’s (OK so I am dating myself). I was stuck on a ship on the Yangzi river for two days because the smog was so bad you couldn’t see more than a ¼ mile. The US EPA estimates that ¼ of the smog in Los Angeles is actually from China. So, soot in China also comes as no surprise.
Copenhagen should be concentrating on cleaning up the real pollutants, sulfur, heavy metals, cyanide, fluorocarbons … etc instead of wasting it’s time on an inert trace gas like CO2.
Pamela Gray said :
“As for lung disease in China and India? Instead of sending them money to clean up their air, send them the patch. They smoke like there is no tomorrow!”
I wonder why no AGW believers have gone after methane from tobacco?
George E. Smith (15:50:11) :
Yes my bad, I should have looked it up. Since english isn’t my first language I should have double checked. How many languages do you speak? I speak 4, but I obviously do not master english yet 🙂
A few notes on clean burning coal power. First is the type of coal being burned. The soot is taken care of by a precipitator, electrically charged plates that attract partials to them to remove them from the smoke stack. The carbon in the soot is 1 to 9 % the rest of it is mostly fly ash. Then work on the burners to adjust the NOx level being released. I believe some plants use ammonia injection to handle this also. Then the scrubbing done is the to handle the sulfur being released they handle this by injecting lime into the system. This is in the US.