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.
Somebody once told me that soot and UHI are examples of AGW. Are those things global, regional or just local? And what does either have to do with controlling greenhouse gas emissions?
“”” 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.” “””
That’s amazing ! Carbon dioxide only remains in the atmosphere for 100 years.
Here I am looking at a graph of Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere going back to 600 million years ago; basically to the start of the Cambrian period/era/whatever. Now to be honest, it doesn’t show any CO2 in the atmosphere prior to about 560 million years ago; but it does show the average global temperature to be 22 deg C and absolutely constant from about -610 to -460 meg years.
But nowhere else does it show the atmosphere to have ever been devoid of CO2, so how they figure it only lasts for 100 years I can’t imagine. I would say that CO2 has been a permanent component of the atmosphere +/- a fudge factor of three.
SEE http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif
I would bet that H2O has also been a permanent component of the atmosphere for at least the same period/era/whatever , with of course the same fudge factor of three.
Amazingly, although the temperature stayed absolutely constant at 22 deg C for 150 million years, the CO2 level ranged from 7000 ppm down to about 4100 ppm, and then after a catastrophic temperature drop to 12 deg C, the temperature recovered but the CO2 dropped below 3000 ppm.
Presumably 500 million years ago, the definition of LOGARITHMIC must have been different from what it is today; because there is no evidence back then, that the temperature paid any attention to the amount of CO2.
Looking at that temperature graph; one might actually conclude that there is some statutory bar to the temperature on earth ever rising above 22 deg C; well other than a couple of glitches up to about 23.5 deg C maybe; those might have been due to some forest fires in Malibu Canyon; or maybe just noise.
So black carbon is the culprit eh ? And just think that back in the late 1970s, the experts, were going to spread black carbon all over the ice everywhere to get rid of the ice.
We have some wonderful people planning our future for us.
Our simulations
I wish researchers would just give graphs of raw data and where obtained. I’m fed up with models and dubious statistical processes.
While this results in more intense rainfall in some regions, it leads to less in other regions.
Should read:
While climate results in more intense rainfall in some regions, climate leads to less in other regions.
That is how I look at all this data based on short length satellite records.
From solrey (09:44:02)’s link:
“About one-third of the world burns wood and other biomass for cooking, heating, and lighting, accounting for 13 percent of global energy consumption. When burned in traditional cooking stoves, the toxic emissions result in 1.6 million premature deaths each year, according to World Health Organization estimates. Children younger than five account for half of the fatalities.”
Must be mostly Carbon Monoxide poisoning which would get a lot of the adults too? But they don’t mention it and say instead:
“An estimated 826 million [~1/2 the population of] Indians depend on simple cook stoves that burn solid fuel, mainly fuelwood or coal. When households are filled with smoke from inefficient stoves, the toxic soot can increase the risks of developing pneumonia, cataracts, and tuberculosis.”
If people are tolerating smoke filled rooms – doubtful, because it’s not that hard to avoid, unless they’re not as smart as American Indians – they should more likely be getting CO poisoning. It competes with O2 at a rate of about 220/1, so all that’s needed is a CO concentration of about 0.1% vs O2’s 20% to get half of one’s hemoglobin occupied by CO, which is ususally a deadly effect.
But they do mention or imply the potential for the smaller irritated airways of children to be further compromised and complicated by viral infections so as to produce a greater risk from airway obstruction and pneumonia, also raising the fact that a lot of children in India are not vaccinated against whatever they can be vaccinated against to begin with – which might be a greater problem.
So it looks like India needs more Nuclear Energy, infrastructure, and public health measures in order to really help people. Getting rid of the ipcc was or would be a good move all around. All it aims for is a man made disaster, another thing which really irritated me early on about the ipcc which alleges to “help” people and “save the World”.
George E. Smith (10:23:50) :
We have some wonderful people planning our future for us
And they are a bunch of nuts:
“Dr Robert Muller spent 53 years working within the United Nations and Assistant Secretary-General for more than 12 years (#2 in charge). He is the Founder and Chancellor of the United Nations University of Peace. Here is how he describes himself (remember this is not some fruitcake standing on a streetcorner, this guy was responsible for formulating many UN policies):
“A divine motivator … the wise man of the UN … the shaman of the UN ... the man through whom God speaks … the spokesman of Christ … a magic being …”
http://www.green-agenda.com/gaians.html
Oops, correction: “An estimated 826 million [~1/2 the population of] Indians”
Probably more like ~2/3 the population.
George E. Smith (10:23:50),
I believe that the 100 years of CO2 in the atmosphere is referring to the persistence of an average CO2 molecule from emission to being re-absorbed.
I’m not certain, I’m only basing it on this chart.
Richard Wakefield:
I’m not saying this research is correct, that’s what more research is for. I’m just saying be cautious in out right rejecting this because of the past history of climate science. Each item must be evaluated on it’s own.
Amen. And I also want to know why so many people seem to automatically think that if glaciers start to “melt” net, it’s going to stop snowing and raining.
J.Peden (10:40:58) :
On the back cover of (Al Gore’s) Earth in the Balance the well-known New Ager M. Scott Peck states: “Earth in Balance is a brilliantly written, prophetic, even holy book, clearly pointing the way we need to change to assure the survival of our children. I pray it will have the dramatic impact it deserves – and must have for our collective salvation
Then we should make a pledge: ” God, protect us from the good ones, who want to save us, and we shall protect ourselves from the evil ones”
Because these “good” ones nuts are by far more dangerous.
Can I ask a silly question?
We are being told that sea level has risen 6 inches in the last 100 years (thanks to Prince Charles for reminding us of this today as he visited Manchester’s Science ans Industry Museum) – is there any evidence that this (sea level rise not HRH visiting Manchester) has caused anybody, anywhere in the world, any problems from the rise in levels rather than the sinking of the land?
Can anyone cite evidence of communities that have had to be moved, reductions of total land area of any islands or even continents, shortening of rivers, rebuilding of ports and docking facilities, rebuilding of bridges, changes in ecosystems due to increased salinity in formerly freshwater locations or any other effect as a consequence of sea levels rising rather than coastal erosion?
Taking the evidence as presented by Wikipedia (I use this as it is likely to be the most pro-warming) there is a pretty constant rate of rise over the last century. Wikipedia highlights the fact that recent rise rates have increased, but their own graph shows similar if not greater rate increases at a number of points in the last 100 years so it would be unsound to suggest as they do that recent increases are extraordinary. And yes, I understand that there is evidence that even more recently the rate of rise has decreased, putting the 1993 to 2003 rises into context.
The evidence of the past thus indicates that there has been an inexorable rise in sea level that is not alarming and that is also not linked to any recent man-made influence.
Which brings us neatly back to black carbon. I have a feeling, but no direct evidence, that man’s production of soot is more likely to have been a constant influence over the last century than CO2, with the occasional ramp-ups coinciding with western industrial boom periods around both world wars and the 80s, and the rise of China in the 90s.
Time to stop worrying about runaway climate change, and spending some of that environmental guilt money to develop white carbon 😉
View from the Solent (05:24:20), thanks for the link to the Spectator article. It seems the CRUTape Letters are as embarrassing for the news media as for UEA.
Ed Scott (06:53:34), thanks for the link to the Steyn article. That guy is one of my favorite writers.
WRT the LBNL article: yes, like Camelot “It’s only a model”, but CAGW lives by the model, so it’s only appropriate that it dies by the model.
George E. Smith (10:23:50) :
“…So black carbon is the culprit eh ? And just think that back in the late 1970s, the experts, were going to spread black carbon all over the ice everywhere to get rid of the ice.
We have some wonderful people planning our future for us.”
Of course, this is all a CIA plot from 1974! As I recall spreading soot on snow to increase its melting and decrease the earth’s albedo was one of the suggested solutions to thwarting the coming Ice Age. /sarc
J.Peden (11:00:48) :
“Richard Wakefield:
I’m not saying this research is correct, that’s what more research is for. I’m just saying be cautious in out right rejecting this because of the past history of climate science. Each item must be evaluated on it’s own.
Amen. And I also want to know why so many people seem to automatically think that if glaciers start to “melt” net, it’s going to stop snowing and raining.”
I love the way the whole equation involving glaciers is so often ignored especially in the sensationalized propaganda.
[Snowfall] – [sublimation] – [melting] = increase or decrease in glacier size.
The amount of snowfall always seems to get left out of the equation. If I recall one of the “retreating glaciers” in Africa was caused not by melting, but by a lack of snowfall.
The twisting of truth, the use of half truths and exaggeration is what I really hate about the whole CAGW movement.
Gilbert-(23:30:14)
The referenced paper on Himalayan Glaciers, IMHO appears to be exactly how I think science research should be conducted. Although I may be one of the least technical types frequenting WUWT, this is a must read for anyone interested in Glaciers. It not only presents a clear and concise technical information, but also contains unbelievable pictures of glaciers.
The author clearly indicates this paper is meant to serve as a basis for informed debate and discussion. How novel is that in “climate research”?
For my own education, I would appreciate hearing any comments from the more technical types about the content and presentation of this paper.
It is well worth looking at, if only for the high quality pictures.
Note to moderator- I was unable to add the direct link to this report. Hopefully you could add this for me.
Thanks
Russ Blake
[Reply: time to learn. Just copy the URL address in the address bar, like this:
http://wattsupwiththat.com
It will become a link. {Best to put it on its own line.} ~dbs, mod.]
Phil. (08:34:49) :
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!
Phil, I know you understand the difference between snow cover and glaciers, or at least I thought you did.
Snow cover on a glacier adds minuscule amounts to the glacier each year, compared to the size of the glacier itself. Loss or additions of snow over a short period of time will show impossible to measure differences. Over a longer period of time you will begin to see effects. Some weather pattern variations have oscillations lasting many decades. I just don’t see how CO2 or carbon can come in at a significantly greater affect than weather. It’s weather stupid. IWS. My new tag line.
“”” Smokey (10:58:32) :
George E. Smith (10:23:50),
I believe that the 100 years of CO2 in the atmosphere is referring to the persistence of an average CO2 molecule from emission to being re-absorbed.
I’m not certain, I’m only basing it on this chart. “””
And the consequences of that particular CO2 molecule being “reabsorbed” is what ?
A simple 8th grade science class explanation of evaporation, describes the simple concept of dynamic equilibrium, between say water molecules being “emitted” from the surface (typically the more energetic ones), and the “reabsoption” of other water molecules that arive at the water surface from the atmosphere above the water, where they have accumulated.
In the end, the number of emitted, and absorbed molecules equalizes; but that does not mean by any means, that molecules stop being emitted or absorbed once quilibrium is established.
So in that sense, CO2 in no way differs from H2O, they both are constantly emitted and absorbed, and at any time, the number of H2O molecules in the atmosphere greatly outnumbers the number of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere.
Both are permanent componets of earth’s atmosphere and have been so for at least 600 million years, and who knows how much longer than that.
The “Residence” time of a single CO2 molecule in the atmosphere, is as critical to life on earth as the mean lifetime of a single Krill crustacean in the earth’s oceans; namely, not at all; no matter what happens to the population of the great whales.
It seems obvious that the soot from India and China is leading to increased cloud formation, which in turn is responsible for the current unexpected global cooling!
Note: Just a joke, NOT for inclusion in IPCC AR5.
Aerosols and black carbon (human induced of course) are melting glaciers!
Let’s look a little bit closer in to what Manon has to say:
“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”.
As stated, Manon doesn’t know anything for sure (may be, could be, could be worse) but as always, one thing is for sure, humanity burning fossil fuels and bio mass is responsible for the entire disaster.
In this case our aerosols and our black carbon (but don’t forget CO2) is melting the planet’s glaciers!
Oh dear, we have to act quickly, even if we don’t know for sure, no time to lose.
The planet has to be saved, the planet! It’s not only CO2, but BLACK SOOT and Aerosols as well!!!! Heeelp! Modern societies have to be taxed into the stone age and the industrialization that thrives our civilization has to be rolled back!
Really? I don’t think so! I think this is just another scam.
Why?
The major volume of those glaciers have been melting since we came out of the last ice age, long before we drove around with SUV’s.
Sooth, dust, aerosols, whatever that is transported by our atmosphere
has been part of the natural process all the time.
Besides that, all the scientific research by the “may be, could be, we don’t know for sure but..folks” never perform research or write about the “natural factors”.
Natural events, how inconvenient, don’t pay their research funds and no taxes, so why should they?
Here are some of those natural events I am pointing at:
They don’t mention the volcanic emissions (some of those volcano’s are real dirty smoke stags but they are always covered in snow), see these random examples:
Select the pictures by date and you see the ice cap is permanent, despite massive amounts of dirty black emissions.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/view.php?id=42499&src=eorss-nh
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/view.php?id=42484&src=eorss-nh
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/view.php?id=40918
(Natural) wild fires, watch the world burn.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/quarterly.php?cat_id=8&y=2009&q=4
(Natural) dust, smoke and haze:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/category.php?cat_id=7
Take your pick.
Thousands and thousands of those “events”, all observed from space.
During the Little Ice Age volcanic activity was 5 times more frequent compared to the past century and we have seen periods that have been much colder and much warmer than today.
So where are they worrying about?
We know what magnitude VEI III + eruptions can do in respect to earth’s temperature,
weather and climate a.o Pinatubo).
In the past, our planet has bounced back from thousands of extreme events in a very short time.
No disaster in the past has been big enough to destroy it.
Humanity in regard to the planet IMO is nothing more but a spec of dust on the ass of an elephant.
This planet is in no need for saving.
It’s humanity that needs to be saved, it’s humanity that is in jeopardy because of some evil narrow minds, whose intend to enslave control and regulate every individual person on the planet!
And that’s the end of the story.
Take it or leave it.
Hanson is one of those alarmists who came up with the CO2 and the sooth story and so are the people behind this publication.
They really don’t know what they are doing. They build a story on extreme assumptions but don’t have sufficient data to feed a computer models to prove their case.
But still they dare to conclude that whatever is going on, Human kind is the cause, burning all those horrible fossil fuels.
Humanity, is the best thing that could have happen to the planet and we should celebrate every progress we make building our magnificent civilizations.
Sure, we make mistakes. We must take care of of our environment.
And the best way to do that is to fight poverty, not promote it.
Don’t let a bunch of narrow minded power hungry book cooking control freaks stop us.
Fight for your freedom and enjoy every moment of your life on this beautiful planet.
“God save us from righteous men”
I think someone said that a long time ago, perhaps in a land far, far away. Whoever it was, and whenever it was, they sure hit the nail on the head.
Pascvaks (18:59:43) :
Re “God save us from righteous men”, I think it should be
“God save us from self-righteous men”
Ref – Anticlimactic (19:11:37) :
Pascvaks (18:59:43) :
Re “God save us from righteous men”, I think it should be
“God save us from self-righteous men”
______________
I thought that too after I hit “Submit”. But later I thought, is there a real difference? “Righteous” seems so old fashioned that it must be bad, right? Thanks for the comeback:-)
Pascvaks (19:39:08)
Righteous people can live their lives as an example, the self-righteous tend to be sociopaths who LOVE to tell other people how to lead their lives.
I feel that this has been a large appeal of AGW to the fanatics – ‘cast iron proof’ that enables them to attack almost everybody, with as much venom as they want as ‘Terracide’ is the ‘obvious’ conclusion if their words are not heeded.
What worries me are the psychopaths. To me, many terrorists are borderline psychopaths who need a cause to kill for. With some AGW believers arguing that civilisation, overpopulation, or simply mankind, is the root cause, and calling for sabotage, then it may prompt some kind of action to try and cause damage on a massive scale, especially if they feel they are losing the fight.
Richard M (14:36:23) :
Phil. (08:34:49) :
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!
Phil, I know you understand the difference between snow cover and glaciers, or at least I thought you did.
Hmmm, perhaps you should make that point to Menon and the original poster of the thread?
E.g.: title: ‘LBNL on Himalayas: “greenhouse gases alone are not nearly enough to be responsible for the snow melt”’
sub heading: ‘Black Carbon a Significant Factor in Melting of Himalayan Glaciers’
The text seems to switch between talking about snow melt and glacier melt, so which is it Richard?