I find it funny though, that this study (full PDF here) mentions urban warming related to CO2 only. The terms “Urban Heat Island” (and variants including UHI) are not found in this study at all. The image from the study below, looks roughly like the CONUS nightlights image I provided for Dr. Roy Spencer’s latest essay on population versus temperature. – Anthony
Urban CO2 domes increase deaths, poke hole in cap-and-trade proposal
From Stanford University via Eurekalert
Everyone knows that carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas driving climate change, is a global problem. Now a Stanford study has shown it is also a local problem, hurting city dwellers’ health much more than rural residents’, because of the carbon dioxide “domes” that develop over urban areas. That finding, said researcher Mark Z. Jacobson, exposes a serious oversight in current cap-and-trade proposals for reducing emissions of heat-trapping gases, which make no distinction based on a pollutant’s point of origin. The finding also provides the first scientific basis for controlling local carbon dioxide emissions based on their local health impacts.
“Not all carbon dioxide emissions are equal,” said Jacobson, professor of civil and environmental engineering. “As in real estate, location matters.”
His results also support the case that California presented to the Environmental Protection Agency in March, 2009, asking that the state be allowed to establish its own CO2 emission standards for vehicles.
Jacobson, director of the Atmosphere/Energy Program at Stanford, testified on behalf of California’s waiver application in March, 2009. The waiver had previously been denied, but was reconsidered and granted subsequently. The waiver is currently being challenged in court by industry interests seeking to overturn it.
Jacobson found that domes of increased carbon dioxide concentrations – discovered to form above cities more than a decade ago – cause local temperature increases that in turn increase the amounts of local air pollutants, raising concentrations of health-damaging ground-level ozone, as well as particles in urban air.
In modeling the health impacts for the contiguous 48 states, for California and for the Los Angeles area, he determined an increase in the death rate from air pollution for all three regions compared to what the rate would be if no local carbon dioxide were being emitted.
The results of Jacobson’s study are presented in a paper published online by Environmental Science and Technology.
The cap-and-trade proposal passed by the U.S. House of Representatives in June 2009 puts a limit on the amount of greenhouse gases that each type of utility, manufacturer or other emitter is allowed to produce. It also puts a price tag on each ton of emissions, which emitters will have to pay to the federal government.
If the bill passes the Senate intact, it will allow emitters to freely trade or sell their allowances among themselves, regardless of where the pollution is emitted.
With that logic, the proposal prices a ton of CO2 emitted in the middle of the sparsely populated Great Plains, for example, the same as a ton emitted in Los Angeles, where the population is dense and the air quality already poor.
“The cap-and-trade proposal assumes there is no difference in the impact of carbon dioxide, regardless of where it originates,” Jacobson said. “This study contradicts that assumption.”
“It doesn’t mean you can never do something like cap and trade,” he added. “It just means that you need to consider where the CO2 emissions are occurring.”
Jacobson’s study is the first to look at the health impacts of carbon dioxide domes over cities and his results are relevant to future air pollution regulations. Current regulations do not address the local impacts of local carbon dioxide emissions. For example, no regulation considers the local air pollution effects of CO2 that would be emitted by a new natural gas power plant. But those effects should be considered, he said.
“There has been no control of carbon dioxide because it has always been thought that CO2 is a global problem, that it is only its global impacts that might feed back to air pollution,” Jacobson said.
In addition to the changes he observed in local air pollutants, Jacobson found that there was increased stability of the air column over a city, which slowed the dispersal of pollutants, further adding to the increased pollutant concentrations.
Jacobson estimated an increase in premature mortality of 50 to 100 deaths per year in California and 300 to 1,000 for the contiguous 48 states.
“This study establishes a basis for controlling CO2 based on local health impacts,” he said.
Current estimates of the annual air pollution-related death toll in the U.S. is 50-100,000.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Embarrasing. These people are insane.
I’m looking at the article, and, he’s using a cartoon for the US outline. Who knows what maps where. Also, that map isn’t CO2 domes, it is: “For the U.S. as a whole, the correlations between increases in CO2 and increases in O3 and PM2.5 premature mortality were also both visually apparent (Figure 5) and statistically significant (r = 0.31, p < 0.0001 for ΔCO2 vs ΔO3 mortality; r = 0.32, p < 0.0001 for ΔCO2 vs ΔPM2.5 mortality)." In other words, it's his calculations of association of both CO2 & O3 with "premature mortality", which he doesn't define in the article. Nice!
His epidemiology data comes from the EPA, which is then fed back to the EPA in a classic echo chamber effect. This PM2.5 measurement is highly speculative to begin with. It's laughable to attribute hospitalizations to ozone. That's not even a diagnosis. The whole journal is alarmist crap.
This is another great quote: "The relationship between ozone exposure and premature mortality is uncertain; however, ref 19 suggests that it is “highly unlikely” to be zero. Similarly, ref 20 suggests that the exact relationship between PM2.5 exposure and mortality is uncertain but “likely causal”. Cardiovascular effects of PM2.5 are more strongly “causal”. " What does causality mean to these guys?
His belief that CO2 warms the air over Los Angeles in the summer is precious. How do you suppose the CO2 gets up there if not through heating of a huge urban heat island? One precedes the other, and as you can see, he has trouble with his definition of causality. He also doesn't look for counter-examples. That would go against his special interest. This whole article reads the deconstructionist movement.
That’s the way to do it…constrain your model so as not to resemble reality. Is there really any area that will have no local carbon being emitted…anywhere. Am I wrong in that assumption? I don’t think so. Also, his death additions are within the margin of error, which is quite enormous at 50-100,000 per year. I guess there was no concensus on that number.
Also, why does he use “ppbv” instead of the properly used “ppmv”? Since he is using the larger scale, wouldn’t the addition at the top only be 100 ppmv after adjusting?
Death Domes…..riiiiggght.
This raises a serious scientific issue though. If an increase in atmospheric CO2 is causing an increase in temperatures we should see a spatial correlation between delta CO2 and delta T. We know now from the satellite data that CO2 is not uniformly well-mixed.
This appears to be an attempt at supplying further argument for the EPA’s finding that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant. It still seems a bit of a stretch, however. It looks more like CO2 can be a marker for higher concentrations of air pollutants so it is guilt by association. You could take away the CO2 and still be left with dangerously high concentrations of harmful air pollutants, as well as more potent greenhouse gases.
If Democratic party leaders can force their members of Congress to abandon all ethics and normalcy to pass the Health Care Bill, look for them ramming through a number of contentious bills, including Cap and Trade, before the November elections. They will be counting on the Republicans not being able to win a veto proof majority, leaving the Obama administration to apply the new legislation as it sees fit.
How do you control a study like this? Almost all pollutants are concentrated near cities–how can you isolate the effects of CO2 (which is not a pollutant, BTW)?
Lots of the verbiage in this report conflates the effects of pollutants, CO2 and UHI. How can they tell how much temperature increase is due to UHI and how much to CO2? How can they tell which health effects come from temperature or pollutants or simply socioeconomic factors? These things sure make it seem like a piece of questionable research at best.
Study sponsored by the EPA?
Jacobson found that domes of increased carbon dioxide concentrations – discovered to form above cities more than a decade ago – cause local temperature increases that in turn increase the amounts of local air pollutants, raising concentrations of health-damaging ground-level ozone, as well as particles in urban air.
“Domes”? Really?
REALLY?
The domes are just spacial/temporal manifestations of all the CO2 emissions that go on in a city due to transportation, residential, and commercial use of diesel, gasoline, natural gas, etc. Cities are, i.e., manufacturing hubs for CO2 because of this. There is no evidence, to my knowledge, to demonstrate that these are properly described as “domes” or that it is the CO2 vs. other known UHI drivers that is responsible for the temperature difference that they propose (again, without any evidence to my knowledge) that is responsible for “trapping” other pollutants that ultimately is their justification for linking mortality rates into their equation.
In the Economics world this is called “fantastical thinking” – the stringing together of a series of unlikely events (in this case relationships) to support a preconceived, desired, and ultimately highly unlikely outcome.
…but I guess we should look on the bright side, if taken seriously this kind of stuff will help kill cap and trade schemes so (/sarcon) Go Stanford Go!!!! /sarcoff
“This study establishes a basis for controlling CO2 based on local health impacts,” he said.”
I would like to see the whole paper, but I have a pretty good idea that it does not establish a basis for that. Except, of course, to someone who wants it to do that very badly.
The CO2 obsession is going to prove far more dangerous than CO2 ever could be.
One important symptom of CO2 obsession, as this article demonstrates seems to be a greatly diminished reasoning ability.
“EVERYONE knows that carbon dioxide etc…………” ????
I suggest than NOT everyone knows. In fact, some people have suggested it, but no-one knows for sure.
Unless of course the Stanford study knows something that the rest of us don’t but they’re not telling us.
And as for “Not all carbon dioxide emissions are equal etc..”
Speechless.
ROFLMAO
Any essay which begins with a sentence like “Everyone knows that carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas driving climate change, is a global problem” is hardly worth reading. If the author crams four gross errors into that one sentence, there is little hope for the rest of the writing. Of course, the errors are:
1. “everyone knows” Acually, only those who are misinformed believe it. There is ample truly scientific data to disprove the allegations.
2. “main greenhouse gas”. Carbon dioxide is a trivial greenhouse gas. Water vapor is far and away the main one. Carbon dioxide may not even be capable of changing the climate
3. “driving climate change” There is no climate change. The climate gets warmer and cooler, but no period in the last hundred years has deviated beyond previous limits of temperature. Carbon dioxide has clearly failed to drive any change, since it is not happening.
4. “Global problem” The non-problem is known by many countries, India for example, to be a scam created by a small group of Government scientists, and distributed by the Indian, Mr. Pachury of the IPCC
I thought it was a well-mixed gas?
The only thing new about Jacobsen’s views are the hysteria. There are several errors including the claim about increased stability of the air column over a city. In fact, there is increased instability because the heat island is equivalent to an adiabatic bubble with circulation within as the air rises at the warmest point usually the Central Business District (CBD) and is held in by the inversion at the top of the bubble so it spreads out creating a general circulation within the bubble. During the day the bubble like an adiabat rises from its own buoyancy although it may also be displaced downwind.
Jacobsen predicts increased deaths due to rising CO2 levels but he needs to look at the levels at which it is considered a problem. In mines for example, the usual level at which miners are advised not to stay more than 15 minutes is 5000ppm. Can he cite a location in any city where levels reach above even 1500ppm and then can he cite any death to increased levels anywhere in the world.
Increased water vapour levels, because of increased evaporation from impervious surfaces, and increased cloud cover, (Atkinson) (http://www.jstor.org/pss/621493) are a much bigger factor than CO2 in amplifying the warming.
CO2 is not a pollutant, despite the Supreme court ruling that gave the EPA control. Higher levels in the city are conducive to more vigorous plant growth. I had the privilege of speaking to the first urban forest conference in Winnipeg a few years ago and identified the value of trees in the city. In greenhouses CO2 levels are often pushed to 1000 -1200 ppm to enhance growth.
Maybe Jacobsen’s time would be better spent studying the impact Enron and its carbon reduction plans had on California’s economy. The way it is heading there will be dramatically fewer cars in the very near future because of economic collapse.
How in h*** does he differentiate the heat from all of the energy usage from the supposed CO2-trapped heat? He certainly has a bloated idea of CO2’s abilities.
He is also assuming high levels of air pollution (non-CO2), which can be dealt with appropriately. I believe that there are a lot of people out there who think that smog is just as bad today as it was in the 1970s. There has been some significant improvement, but we can always do better.
Wow- you just have to shake your head after a while–100,000 US deaths a year from air pollution? #
CDC says in 2006 Chronic lower respiratory diseases accounted for 124,583 deaths of which some link 80% to smoking and then we have any number of other causative factors.. CDC outlines two minor air threats indoor pollutants and work place pollutants– absent is ambient air pollution. Do they just make this stuff up?
While car emissions may increase ground level ozone in an urban environment the largest ozone precursors are NOx from soil bacteria and isoprenes from trees. EPA’s proposed ozone regulations are flying under the radar because of all the attention on cap and trade– the ozone regs are going to be onerous in their own right…. So how does EPA intend to deal with the natural precursors of ozone (the same ones that gave the Smoky Mountains their name)? They are only going to put ozone monitors in urban environments. Sound familiar?
No comments showing up yet. Delet this if it’s already been posted please.
Moneywall version of the paper is at:
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1021/es903018m
Is this what passes for science these days?
Notice that the graph of (delta) CO2 is in ppbv (parts per BILLION volume). Why didn’t they just add another three zeros and use units of pptv (parts per TRILLION volume); that would REALLY have accentuated the problem!
The atmosphere’s CO2 volume could double or even triple with absolutely no impact to human health. Consider the following:
Basic Information about Concentrations of CO2 in Air
1,000,000 ppm of a gas = 100 % concentration of the gas. Therefore, 10,000 ppm of a gas in air is a 1% concentration.
At 1% concentration of carbon dioxide CO2 (10,000 ppm) and under continuous exposure at that level, such as in an auditorium filled with occupants and poor fresh air ventilation, some occupants are likely to feel drowsy.
The concentration of carbon dioxide must be over about 2% (20,000 ppm) before most people are aware of its presence unless the odor of an associated material (auto exhaust or fermenting yeast, for instance) is present at lower concentrations.
Above 2%, carbon dioxide may cause a feeling of heaviness in the chest and/or more frequent and deeper respirations.
If exposure continues at that level for several hours, minimal “acidosis” (an acid condition of the blood) may occur but more frequently is absent.
Breathing rate doubles at 3% (30,000 ppm)CO2 and is four times the normal rate at 5% (50,000 ppm)CO2.
Toxic levels of carbon dioxide: at levels above 5%, concentration CO2 is directly toxic. [At lower levels we may be seeing effects of a reduction in the relative amount of oxygen rather than direct toxicity of CO2.]
I can well imagine the university needed a quick reply to the Hoover Institute’s Peter Berkowitz’ “Climategate was an Academic Disaster Waiting to Happen”, published in the Wall Street Journal March 13. It was only of their “most-read / most e-mailed” articles in the Saturday edition.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704131404575117314262655160.html
Its comments about universites-turned-breeding-grounds for boutique classes and fuzzy thinking is right along the lines of “postnormal” discussions here.
“Core curriculum” may make eyes glaze over, but it’s the problem at the decaying root of educational systems in U.S., in my not-so-humble opinion.
I tried to read this paper, and noticed: “The CO2 increases in California increased the PW air temperature by about 0.0063 K, more 16 than it changed the domain-averaged air temperature (+0.00046)”. 0.0063 K?? Give me a break!
So what’s the real deal in this paper? As far as I can tell, they’re using some models to show that there’s a correlation between CO2 emissions and real pollutants, which is really not very surprising. But then in the conclusion they say: “The results, combined with those in (14), suggest that local CO2 emissions should, in general, increase local ozone and particles due to feedbacks to temperatures, atmospheric stability, water vapor, humidity, winds, and precipitation. Thus, CO2 emission controls are justified on the same grounds that NOx, HC, CO, and PM emission regulations are justified.”
Maybe I should read the paper again, and more thoroughly, but I really can’t see how the 0.0063 K of warming would create all that. Are they making up a causal chain where there’s just covariation?
I think AGW hysteria is more likely to create deaths in urban areas, both from cold in winter and heat in summer – because of insufficient energy supply (or so expensive that many people, especially the poor and elderly, don’t buy air condition or proper heating)
Correction to my own phrasing above:
I know this to be true at middle and high school levels. I assume it pertains to higher ed as well.
Amazing…
All that steel.
All the concrete.
The paved highways.
Tarmac.
Buildings.
Cars.
All the heat gathering medium in an urban environment and the temperatures from UHI generally show a 1-2°C warming compared to surrounding areas.
Now tell me if CO2 concentrations are supposedly as high as the worst case scenarios in urban areas right now why aren’t they 10°C warmer than surrounding areas over the course of the year? Does the IPCC not say land areas will warm some 8-10°C by 2100 under such high concentrations of CO2?
Did the good professor look into how the local increase in temperature caused by the CO2 perhaps affected the death rate in winter due to cold?
Looks to me like this is a step down the same road, or possibly cul-de-sac ,as ‘health effects of low level radiation.’