From Lawrence Berkeley National Labs, and announcement that comes at a very inconvenient time for IPCC and Pachauri while their “Glaciergate” issue rages. Aerosols and black carbon are tagged as the major drivers. And no mention of disappearance by 2035.
Black Carbon a Significant Factor in Melting of Himalayan Glaciers
The fact that glaciers in the Himalayan mountains are thinning is not disputed. However, few researchers have attempted to rigorously examine and quantify the causes. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory scientist Surabi Menon set out to isolate the impacts of the most commonly blamed culprit—greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide—from other particles in the air that may be causing the melting. Menon and her collaborators found that airborne black carbon aerosols, or soot, from India is a major contributor to the decline in snow and ice cover on the glaciers.
“Our simulations showed greenhouse gases alone are not nearly enough to be responsible for the snow melt,” says Menon, a physicist and staff scientist in Berkeley Lab’s Environmental Energy Technologies Division. “Most of the change in snow and ice cover—about 90 percent—is from aerosols. Black carbon alone contributes at least 30 percent of this sum.”
Menon and her collaborators used two sets of aerosol inventories by Indian researchers to run their simulations; their results were published online in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.
The actual contribution of black carbon, emitted largely as a result of burning fossil fuels and biomass, may be even higher than 30 percent because the inventories report less black carbon than what has been measured by observations at several stations in India. (However, these observations are too incomplete to be used in climate models.) “We may be underestimating the amount of black carbon by as much as a factor of four,” she says.
The findings are significant because they point to a simple way to make a swift impact on the snow melt. “Carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for 100 years, but black carbon doesn’t stay in the atmosphere for more than a few weeks, so the effects of controlling black carbon are much faster,” Menon says. “If you control black carbon now, you’re going to see an immediate effect.”
The Himalayan glaciers are often referred to as the third polar ice cap because of the large amount of ice mass they hold. The glacial melt feeds rivers in China and throughout the Indian subcontinent and provide fresh water to more than one billion people.
Atmospheric aerosols are tiny particles containing nitrates, sulfates, carbon and other matter, and can influence the climate. Unlike other aerosols, black carbon absorbs sunlight, similar to greenhouse gases. But unlike greenhouse gases, black carbon does not heat up the surface; it warms only the atmosphere.
This warming is one of two ways in which black carbon melts snow and ice. The second effect results from the deposition of the black carbon on a white surface, which produces an albedo effect that accelerates melting. Put another way, dirty snow absorbs far more sunlight—and gets warmer faster—than pure white snow.
Previous studies have shown that black carbon can have a powerful effect on local atmospheric temperature. “Black carbon can be very strong,” Menon says. “A small amount of black carbon tends to be more potent than the same mass of sulfate or other aerosols.”
Black carbon, which is caused by incomplete combustion, is especially prevalent in India and China; satellite images clearly show that its levels there have climbed dramatically in the last few decades. The main reason for the increase is the accelerated economic activity in India and China over the last 20 years; top sources of black carbon include shipping, vehicle emissions, coal burning and inefficient stoves. According to Menon’s data, black carbon emitted in India increased by 46 percent from 1990 to 2000 and by another 51 percent from 2000 to 2010.
This map of the change in annual linear snow cover from 1990 to 2001 shows a thick band (blue) across the Himalayas with decreases of at least 16 percent while a few smaller patches (red) saw increases. The data was collected by the National Snow and Ice Data Center.
However, black carbon’s effect on snow is not linear. Menon’s simulations show that snow and ice cover over the Himalayas declined an average of about one percent from 1990 to 2000 due to aerosols that originated from India. Her study did not include particles that may have originated from China, also known to be a large source of black carbon. (See “Black soot and the survival of the Tibetan glaciers,” by James Hansen, et al., published last year in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.) Also the figure is an average for the entire region, which saw increases and decreases in snow cover. As seen in the figure, while a large swath of the Himalayas saw snow cover decrease by at least 16 percent over this period, as reported by the National Snow and Ice Data Center, a few smaller patches saw increases.
Menon’s study also found that black carbon affects precipitation and is a major factor in triggering extreme weather in eastern India and Bangladesh, where cyclones, hurricanes and flooding are common. It also contributes to the decrease in rainfall over central India. Because black carbon heats the atmosphere, it changes the local heating profile, which increases convection, one of the primary causes of precipitation. While this results in more intense rainfall in some regions, it leads to less in other regions. The pattern is very similar to a study Menon led in 2002, which found that black carbon led to droughts in northern China and extreme floods in southern China.
“The black carbon from India is contributing to the melting of the glaciers, it’s contributing to extreme precipitation, and if black carbon can be controlled more easily than greenhouse gases like CO2, then it makes sense for India to regulate black carbon emissions,” says Menon.
Berkeley Lab is a U.S. Department of Energy national laboratory located in Berkeley, California. It conducts unclassified scientific research for DOE’s Office of Science and is managed by the University of California. Visit our Website at www.lbl.gov/
Additional information:
- Read the paper, “Black carbon aerosols and the third polar ice cap”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.


Andrew
You are right. This is a local pollution and poverty problem. The great Dr Lomborg would agree with you.
Besides which we learned last week that Himalayan glaciers only contribute 5% of the water used in the Indian subcontinent. The rest comes from snow melt and good old fashioned rain – the latter of which probably washes soot out of the atmosphere.
They need decent jobs, proper housing and a Clean Air Act.
solrey (07:27:29) said:
Well, the most respectable scientific papers appear in climbing magazines, so I think we can discount these “peer reviewed” papers that you refer to.
But manufacturers needed higher margin products in order to compete with cheap Chinese imports. Surely, protecting our economy is worth a few sacrifices.
Martinlejudge. Oh you can betcha whatcha like it would. The Met Office and the BBC would be wetting themselves if it had been the warmest. You know it, I know it, even little kids on the street know it. See my earlier post, the Met Office is drunk on its own enthusiasm for warming – so drunk that it can’t see.
I think the article omitted a minor, but relevant, detail:
“Suspecting AGW apostasy, and email having proved to be an unwise method of threat delivery, Ben Santer in Livermore hopped into his Smart Car to deliver a tongue-lashing in person to LBNL researchers.”
UPDATE to my
yonason (07:14:25) : Your comment is awaiting moderation
TerryS (03:28:42) :
According to this paper, the IPCC modelers were actually using 400 years as the residence time of CO2.
http://www.princeton.edu/~lam/TauL1b.pdf
That paper, in turn, references an IPCC document, but it’s oddly only available in internate archive.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/IPCCTP.III(E).pdf (“Not Found”=> try wayback)
http://web.archive.org/web/20070712200732/http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/IPCCTP.III%28E%29.pdf
But others have said, “The IPCC claim 50 to 200 years based on “the time required for the atmosphere to adjust to a future equilibrium state if emissions change abruptly,” (IPCC 1990)“
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&ved=0CAcQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Festbali.files.wordpress.com%2F2007%2F12%2Fmonckton_cop13.ppt&ei=HfBqS4SeK8ydtweW3p2EBw&usg=AFQjCNGhZMO6HbvN4kAUQOEQsNJ1juNwDQ&sig2=Uu3c3GMcbGRsTYNjPq5OkA
Note to mods: For some reason I had trouble on this thread seeing my comments awaiting moderation. Ignore/delete duplicate posts. Apologies and thanks!
As always this article should be treated with skepticism. However, the main point to take out of articles like this one is … uncertainty. The more these types of articles appear in the literature casts doubt on the certainty (90%) given by the IPCC (and repeated over and over again) in CO2 induced warming.
We don’t have to accept the conclusions of this article to point out that the uncertainty in climate predictions (projections) is growing exponentially.
“Our simulations showed greenhouse gases alone are not nearly enough to be responsible for the snow melt,” says Menon
And when are they going to go to the Glaciers and sprinkle them with ash and take ACTUAL PHYSICAL MEASUREMENTS? Or, take samples to see if what is there is consistent with their models? They can tell me what a fossil dinosaur had for breakfast a million years ago last Tuesday, but they can’t tell me how much black carbon is actually on a glacier today?
Don’t “scientists” do actual experiments any more? Do they want to avoid getting their nice shiny lab coats soiled? What gives?
Prior to entering the tomb of AGW, our hero asks, “Modelers! Why did it have to be Modelers?!”
“Would the warmest Scottish winter on record have meritted a mention?”
Is this a trick question? 😉
Of course the MET puts out press releases.
vibenna (22:54:32) :
So let’s be clear – the Himalayan glaciers are thinning, with potentially dangerous consequences. Yes we must be clear about the causes, and the science, but let’s not lose sight of the fact that they are thinning.
REPLY: And let’s not lose sight of the fact that:
1) Something can be done about black soot and aersols from India, with positive benefits all around
2) CO2 is not the main driver
3) The threat of melt has been wildly and irresponsibly exaggerated by the IPCC for the purposes of getting grants
4) The projection for melt that is realistic is the year 2350…or beyond, Plenty of time to do something about #1
And yet the data you present above shows a large swathe of the Himalayas had a loss of 16% snow cover in a decade, if the last decade had the same loss that’s about a third gone since 1990. That doesn’t seem consistent with a date of 2350, if anything it makes the 2035 date look reasonable!
OT but nice
http://www.spectator.co.uk/spectator/thisweek/5749853/part_5/the-global-warming-guerrillas.thtml
Part of the problem with such ardent focus on CO2 is that less is made about pollutants we should be dealing with. Whether or not we continue to use fossil fuels is one thing, but we should constantly strive to make all of our energy technology as efficient and clean as possible.
The billions going into CO2 is pure insanity. The cult of Gaia does earth no favors by keeping the focus there. I don’t know if this imagery has been posted here before, but I typically will show this to my AGW alarmist friends and simply ask them which they would spend money on cleaning up.
http://www.chinahush.com/2009/10/21/amazing-pictures-pollution-in-china/
See also the article in PNAS last Dec. by Xu, Hansen, et al, with press release at
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20091214/.
“Some glaciers are retreating so quickly that they could disappear by mid-century if current trends continue, the researchers suggest.” I wonder if they got this on the authority of IPCC4 WG2 ?? Or maybe they’re just talking about a few smaller glaciers.
The press release concludes with a quote from Hansen: “Reduced black soot emissions, in addition to reduced greenhouse gases, may be required to avoid demise of Himalayan glaciers and retain the benefits of glaciers for seasonal fresh water supplies.” So CO2 is largely to blame after all, even though the solution to black carbon is to completely burn it into harmless CO2.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7157590/India-to-pull-out-of-IPCC.html
lets hope they’re open with data and methodology.
The ghost of Big Jim Cooley (07:55:36) :
Thank you for your comment. I’ve just read the Met Office response to your e-mail. I think the expression as “clear as mud” springs to mind.
Keep up the good work.
WOO HOO
I’ve found another hockey stick!
See fig.3 here.
http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/32/85/71/PDF/acp-8-1343-2008.pdf
(and maybe fig.4?)
Can I has cookie?
__________________________________________
More interesting non-peer-reviewed papers;
http://climatequotes.com/2010/02/03/ipcc-cited-multiple-masters-students-in-ar4-some-unpublished/
“We may be underestimating….” and “Some glaciers are retreating…”…
Yes. And “Santa Claus may exist…”.
Who knows?
I’m sure a computer can model Santa Claus in 3-D.
But is he real?
Correct me if I am incorrect, but wouldn’t nearly all the Carbon Black come from China Industry? Or will we have to tax the US, the UK and Austrailia as well, just to be thorough?
Memo to climate “scientists” from CRU, NASA, NOAA, etc., etc.,
“You had better do everything you can to find some way to blame humans for natural climate variation, or you’ll be out of a job. And, because so much money is being directed toward this cause, there are no real jobs to be had anywhere else.”
vibenna (22:54:32) :
So let’s be clear – the Himalayan glaciers are thinning, with potentially dangerous consequences. Yes we must be clear about the causes, and the science, but let’s not lose sight of the fact that they are thinning.
REPLY: And let’s not lose sight of the fact that:
1) Something can be done about black soot and aersols from India, with positive benefits all around
2) CO2 is not the main driver
3) The threat of melt has been wildly and irresponsibly exaggerated by the IPCC for the purposes of getting grants
4) The projection for melt that is realistic is the year 2350…or beyond, Plenty of time to do something about #1″
So we can blame this on the Democrats, Clinton and the World Trade Organization “No tariff – open borders”. their transfer of industry from pollution regulating first world countries to non-regulation countries like India and China. Here in the USA we had less actual manufacturing jobs in 2000 (last US Census) than we did in 1970 despite our increase in population.
Sam Lau, this is not an attack on the people of China or India but on the greedy @ur momisugly#@ur momisugly$ who have use the “slave labor” practices we got rid of 100 or more years ago. It is also an attack on the “UN” who along with the WTO supports these practices promoting pollution and human suffering.
“Slave Labor in China Sparks Outrage”
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1635144,00.html
Thanks for the chuckle.
Excellent point. Inefficient combustion of those fuels is the main culprit, not only in India, but worldwide. It’s also a major health issue.
India Announces Improved Cook Stove Program
http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/010842.html
I’ve been to Aprovecho Research Center where they seem to be at the forefront of the emerging awareness of the benefits in improved cookstove efficiency. Even though they’re in the AGW camp, they have some sensible ideas for reducing pollution and improving sustainability.
Not trying to promote ARC specifically, just thought these were some good ideas to share related to some profoundly simple things that can be done to address black carbon, among other related issues, plus I’ve occassionally used stoves like these.
Here’s a 4mb PDF about rocket stoves.
New Rocket Stove Designs for Central and Southern Africa
http://www.vrac.iastate.edu/ethos/ethos05/proceedings2004/presentations/scottnewrocketstove.pdf
peace,
Tim
PaulH (05:58:44) :
“Our simulations showed… blah, blah, blah”
I’m sorry, but I find that more often than not I automatically tune out when I see that phrase.
Mega Dittos, PaulH. But at least she didn’t call them “experiments”.
@geo
“I’m not sure why this report is inherently problematic for IPCC. While they blew the date pretty badly originally, it should be remembered that IPCC actually stands for “Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change” rather than “Intergovernmental Panel on C02 Changes”. They can easily add next time trying to shake-down “rich” countries for black carbon suppression as well…”
I don’t actually see too much of a problem with that. Unlike CO2, I can readily believe that soot in the atmosphere causes problems, and that it is the interests of us all to lower it. I don’t think any ‘deniers’ are against all environmental protection – we just deny that CO2 is the proven cause of extensive and dangerous warming…
You can say that again.