Stanford: Urban CO2 domes mean more death

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

From figure 5 of the Jacobson study - looks like nightlights doesn't it?

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.

###
0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

247 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Stephen Skinner
March 16, 2010 2:45 pm

I am reminded of R J Mitchell (WWII Spitfire aircraft designer) who advised a test pilot: “If you read a document that you don’t understand, it’s no good”.

Stephen Skinner
March 16, 2010 2:48 pm

It might have been: If you read a document that you don’t understand, it’s no bloody good”.

Bob
March 16, 2010 2:49 pm

According to the Death Records report of the Department of Public Health, State of California, there were 236,220 total deaths in the state in 2005. Attributing 50 to 100 deaths a year to the specific cause of CO2 levels at total mortality of this magnitude might be difficult.

Urederra
March 16, 2010 2:50 pm

I would love to know how CO2 induces ozone formation.

March 16, 2010 2:53 pm

“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.

Hang on a tiny fraction of a second there. We are talking about a maximum overall difference of 100,000 parts per billion (funny how they like to use that as the measurements get oh so much more scary looking). That is 100 parts per million. Or 0.1 parts per thousand. Or to put it in more clear terms, 0.01%, or one part per 10,000.
So an extra CO2 molecule in every 10,000 molecules of air is going to have any kind of health impact on anyone?
Has anyone even looked through this paper to check any of the conclusions before publishing it, or was it just a “It says global warming is bad, publish it!” decision?

wsbriggs
March 16, 2010 2:56 pm

This “study” proves that it is all about the control of lives, not about science. Of course, Stanford U. is a hotbed of Post Modern Science, so what would one expect.
I keep thinking, it’s just all so sad, watching formerly great institutions wither and die from intellectual fraud.

tallbloke
March 16, 2010 2:56 pm

“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.”
But none of this affects the thermometers in cities of course…

Richard M
March 16, 2010 2:58 pm

If someone tried to pass this through our court system it would be tossed as frivolous and they would be fined. If only that could be applied to climate research we might eliminate this kind of nonsense.

GP
March 16, 2010 2:58 pm

Anthony,
Are you sure that you should have published this at this time?
From what I read it seems like it probably comes with an embargo on publication for another couple of weeks or so. Very early next month would be perfect timing.

Richard Mansin
March 16, 2010 3:01 pm

Voodoo-science!

George Turner
March 16, 2010 3:03 pm

The study says the CO2 domes cause urban heating which in turn causes all the deaths. But another factor that can raise a city’s temperature is latitude. If this study is true, all the city folk south of the Mason-Dixon line are already dead men walking. The only sane response is for the government to evacuate all urban dwellers in the South and South West.

Hu Duck Xing
March 16, 2010 3:10 pm

“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. ”
He’s an alarmingly alarming alarmist!
Hu Duck Xing
Department of Redundancy Department

DirkH
March 16, 2010 3:12 pm

“Richard Telford (14:45:35) :
There seems to be some misunderstanding of the paper in the comments here. The experimental design is quite neat – run the climate model once with uniform CO2 concentrations, once with higher urban CO2 concentations. In principle, any difference between the two model runs can be attributed to urban CO2”
Thank you Richard! The entire time i was thinking: Anu, Wren, Sou, Richard, Joel, they usually defend everything done with climate models. So they MUST defend this mindless drivel as well. They have to. They can’t back out.
And there you are. Defending a guy who argues with a temperature difference of 0.000… i forget how many zeores. ….63 K.
You are making a fool out of yourself but you have to… you’re in the Jacobson trap.

John in L du B
March 16, 2010 3:12 pm

How much longer do we have to put up with tripe from Stanford. If it’s not Condoleezza Rice’s nonsense, it’s Paul Ehrlich or Stephen Schneider making some wild unsupported claim or other. Left/right, conservative/liberal, Republican/Democrat, in the 21st century they just seem to have a lock on silliness. Honestly, if I produced this kind of drek when I was a PhD student I’d have been drummed out the department.
Can’t somebody remove their accreditation?
ahh snip me….Who cares anyway.

RayG
March 16, 2010 3:14 pm

Has anybody measured the CO2 level in the House or Senate chambers? The atmosphere there certainly appears to be toxic.

Stephan
March 16, 2010 3:14 pm

Some real smart climate scientist have discovered that we will not need a sun to survive in the future LOL!
http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2010/03/even_a_long_period_of_low_sun.html#comments

Henry chance
March 16, 2010 3:17 pm

This is a great thread. Jacobsen has made an outrageous conclusion and seemingly hasn’t actually performed an experiment. Just think how ignorant people are that feed him research funds.
They told us eating eggs would kill us. Then on bad smog days, stay inside. I guess we now have numbers for people that went outside. For a few dollars, we could put the fence to exclude California like Mexico from our territory.
Califoirnia produced some great thinkers like Anthony Watts and others on this board and Jacobsen must be an intelligence offset.

March 16, 2010 3:17 pm

Something isn’t sitting right with this. There is nothing about the effects of temperature (i.e, heat waves) inversions, high winds (known to increase asthmatic symptoms)… I could go on. Did Jacobson go looking for his conclusion before he started?

Peter
March 16, 2010 3:17 pm

It’s simple, really
Pollution causes excess deaths
CO2 is a pollutant (according to the EPA)
Ergo, CO2 causes excess deaths
Add a bit of epidemiology into the mix, and you get some precise figures – plucked, quite literally, out of thin air.

franks
March 16, 2010 3:25 pm

Urban Heat Islands tend to disappear when the wind gets up, I guess they will have to factor in a wind factor charge as well. And of course if the prevailing wind for a city blows all of this CO2 to another location, say out in the country, then people there will have to pay more because of the higher starting concentration and consequent risk from increased death rates
I am sure they can ramp up the taxes and excuse for control in other ways as well.
I have just cut our the hedges back today and the amount of growth I have had to remove convinces me that CO2 is definitely a pollutant

Douglas DC
March 16, 2010 3:28 pm

hell_is_like_newark (12:25:32) :
good lord these people are getting desperate. Next they will blame CO2 for male pattern baldness.
I knew it! my ancestor that had MPB was a sea captain- in the early days of Steam!
Jimmy you got Co2 Poisoning from th coal-fired smoke stack! should’ve stayed with
Clipperships…

March 16, 2010 3:29 pm

So let me see, a little reasoning. If the CO2 dome trapped heat, and since the ppm measurements are so much higher than that required to cause runaway global warming, then why isn’t it thousands of degrees by now in NY City? OK, that was only a little sarcasm, but still doesn’t it say there may be a problem with the CO2 forced theory?
And why couldn’t these high CO2 cities just plant more trees. Our city just won some sort of award for trees, maybe the cities with the most CO2 could get in the competition. I hear trees love CO2 and grow big and strong with lots of it.

Editor
March 16, 2010 3:33 pm

Junk.

brc
March 16, 2010 3:39 pm

I can drive 500 miles from here and find a place that is at least 1-2 deg warmer on average. Funnily enough I don’t drop dead when I’m there. I guess we humans can handle a range of temperatures after all.
I would have thought that higher mortality rates in urbanised areas would be from:
– increased crime
– increased traffic deaths
– increase in ‘urban’ problems like drug overdoses, death of homeless people, etc
I cannot possibly see how you could filter out the noise of death rates and attribute it to any one variable, unless you were counting deaths directly attributable to that cause (like stabbings or pedestrian accidents)

Al Gore's Holy Hologram
March 16, 2010 3:40 pm

They mean life expectancy has decreased in developed cities?
File them under Crazies.

1 3 4 5 6 7 10