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.
“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 ”
I like science articles with no numbers except in the chart which is not clear. 20,000 ppb is only 20 ppm. 400 ppm is a health hazard? Thats BS.
BTW, next time you go to a town hall meeting, a movie or a basketball games, know that CO2 levels are likely 2000-5000 ppm, so prepare to have a heart attack. Also, since you exhale CO2, you are a polluter.
Pretty soon we will need a license to breathe.
“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.”
Is that statistically significant? If not, how could it ever be measured and/or confirmed?
I suggest that this story best fits your Ridiculae category. But just think of the economic opportunities, as we supply everyone with gas masks to prevent premature death by CO2 inhalation.
Actually the CO2 comes from the grave yards of all the ones that passed on.
Dust to dust gives off CO2 and water vapor and some CH4.. The residual is carbon and minerals.
The Los Angeles Times recently did a story detailing all of the NHTSA reports of Toyota “sudden acceleration” fatalities, and, though the Times did not mention it, the ages of the drivers involved were striking.
In the 24 cases where driver age was reported or readily inferred, the drivers included those of the ages 60, 61, 63, 66, 68, 71, 72, 72, 77, 79, 83, 85, 89—and I’m leaving out the son whose age wasn’t identified, but whose 94-year-old father died as a passenger.
Drinking Geritol and driving a Prious can be deadly. If you live under the DOME, drive the Toyota Hybrid make sure all your papers are in order.
To my comment above I should have added that a cursory reading of the Jacobson PDF left me scratching my head . To what depths of specious reasoning will these people sink ?
http://ecotretas.blogspot.com/2010/03/o-wake-effect-das-eolicas.html
Parts per billion??? That’s…uh…real big, right? Oooooooo! Billion!
Only took about 5 seconds for my propaganda detector to peg the needle. I knew warmist propaganda would get crazier and crazier as CAGW implodes, but this was beyond my expectations.
Is this guy PAID for this nonsense?
Does he have ANY idea what it was like for 1/2 my parents lives and 2/3’s my Grandparent’s lives with SOFT COAL as the primary heating fuel in Minnesota.
Excuse me, part of my Grandparents lives were under burning PEAT in Northern MN, for heat.
WHAT A MORON!
Max (breathing CH4+2O2 = CO2 + 2H2O, thank GOD!)
Repeat after me:
Carbon Dioxide is not a toxic gas.
It is a simple replacer of oxygen in the air.
If the EPA moves to put strict limits on CO2, I suggest we file a lawsuit demanding that all indoor air meet the stricter limit. Then all structures will have to leave their windows open year round and my state can sell ten times more coal! 😀
George in KY – thinking ahead.
“tarpon (15:29:34) :
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.”
Over a 24 hr period, trees are a CO2 sink. However, trees and plants only utilize CO2 during the daylight hours. Come evening, they release CO2 contributing to higher CO2 levels in the evening.
Trees may also contribute to local warming since the darker leaves and bark absorbs more short wave radiation than more reflective grass, and the trees mass per surface area stores more heat than an equivalent amount of grass covered ground. Also, they break up and reduce wind that removes heat from the surface So while trees might reduce the daytime maximum temperature if you are sitting under a tree, they might just contribute to higher surrounding temperatures.
There is one hypothesis that deforestation caused or contributed to the LIA. Reforestation may have an opposite effect.
“more death” – this is one of the real causes:
attn green groups. you would think the MSM would be eagerly covering The World Biofuels Markets conference in Amsterdam this week, but there’s zilch reporting on this once-touted solution to CAGW! wonder why?
9 March: BiofuelsInternat’l: EU exec sued over secret biofuels reports
Legal charges have been brought against the European Union’s executive as documents linked to biofuels and their detrimental effect on the environment have been kept under wraps.
The four environmental groups responsible for the suing say that these reports will add to a growing portfolio of evidence damning biofuels.
The groups, ClientEarth, Transport and Environment, the European Environmental Bureau, and BirdLife International, filed the suit after first gaining access to the documents on 15 October. They claimed that the European Commission failed to release all of the documents by the 9 February deadline under the freedom of information laws.
Some of the reports discuss the possibility of higher EU farm incomes but allude to the fact that biofuels refineries may lead to food shortages for the world’s most impoverished countries. Other documents suggest biofuels will increase the need for land and result in famers from tropical areas expanding their cropland into easily affected areas including wetlands and rainforests, which would have a negative on the surroundings.
The release of this evidence puts the EU 10% target at risk…
Nusa Urbancic of transport campaign group Transport and Environment said: ‘Current EU biofuels policy guarantees that Europe will use lots of biofuels, but it doesn’t guarantee reductions in greenhouse gas emission – in fact it seems likely it will make things worse.’
http://www.biofuels-news.com/industry_news.php?item_id=1853
15 Feb: Actionaid: New Biofuels report shows how Europe is driving hunger
In a major new report ‘Meals per gallon: the impact of industrial biofuels on people and global hunger’ ActionAid estimates that as a result of the legislation, the amount of biofuels in Europe’s petrol and diesel will increase nearly fourfold. It says this will have a disastrous impact on the world’s poor as food prices rise.
Report author Tim Rice said: “Biofuels are driving a global human tragedy. Local food prices have already risen massively. As biofuel production gains pace, this can only accelerate. ..
The majority of biofuels need nitrogen fertiliser, releasing nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas 300 times more damaging than carbon dioxide. Scientists believe that the extent of nitrous oxide emissions has been seriously underestimated…
http://www.actionaid.org.uk/102322/news.html
some hints as to the players here:
16 March: StreetAuthority: How to Turn $25,000 into $3.2 Million
by Andy Obermueller
Disclosure: Andy Obermueller owns shares of DYAI
How to Turn $25,000 into $3.2 Million will draw more than a thousand of the foremost experts together for three days ending Wednesday in The Netherlands. Nearly 300 speakers will talk about the industry’s latest developments.
This isn’t some ho-hum annual confab of the Midwestern Region Widget Alliance going on at some down-market Vegas venue presided over by Wayne Newton. Rather, the World Biofuels Markets conference is a meeting of the men and women who are inventing a new industry, who are using cutting-edge science to harness new forms of energy that could not only reduce the world’s dependence on OPEC but that could help reduce harmful pollutants while opening new markets and creating scores of thousands of jobs.
Among the sponsors: Petroleum giant and clean energy pioneer BP (NYSE: BP), as well as agricultural titan Archer Daniels Midland (NYSE: ADM) and the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Energy & Transport.
The guy I want to hear most: Dyadic International (OTC: DYAI.PK) CEO Mark Emalfarb…
http://streetauthority.com/a/how-turn-25000-32-million-1218
the executive director of actionaid was interviewed extensively on aljazeera english this week, but the interview cannot be located; however, actionaid’s tim rice is quoted in this video (btw aljazeera is generally accepting of CAGW):
15 March: Video: Aljazeera: Biofuel use ‘could threaten poor’ http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2010/03/2010315113843716570.html
when CAGW proponents talk of saving the poor of the world, send them the video.
Is this guy getting paid for crap like this?
Honest to God – think about this. This LUNATIC “study,” which means less than nothing, is being bought and paid for – by somebody.
The State of California might as well have invested in Bernie Madoff – because Bernie would be far more reputable than the author of trash like this.
I would like to ask the author – Where is the lower limit? What in God’s name is YOUR lower limit? Do you have one?
“Everyone knows that carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas driving climate change, is a global problem”
“Everyone”!!! He obviously hasn’t heared of Climategate, WUWT, Climate Audit etc.
“…carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas…”
So, where does that put water vapour?
“…global problem…”
What the f*&^&%$ Show me how it is a global problem. The biosphere is greening and temperatures have remained relatively flat for over a decade.
Biosphere:
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003400/a003451/index.html
http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2008/06/biomass_boosting.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/300/5625/1560
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/documentaries/2009/06/090624_greeningdesert1.shtml
Temps:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
http://deepclimate.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/ar4-a1b-a2.gif
http://www.ianschumacher.com/img/TempsvsIPCCModelsWM.jpg
Geological perspective of temperatures:
http://www.longrangeweather.com/images/GTEMPS.gif
Everyone knows that carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas driving climate change, is a global problem.
Faulty premise to begin with. It goes down hill from there.
And they walk among us!
kwik (16:17:26) : “Carbon Cult Science from the Department of Silly Talks.”
Carbon Cult. I like it. Feynman would have liked it.
How money did they waste doing this only to come to the conclusion there is more air pollution in cities than rural areas? I already knew that!!!
mmmm bubbles of heat caused by co2 – have they evidence for that other than its warmer in towns at night? Correlation is not causation, especially when there are other more obvious reasons!
He ESTIMATES the numbers of deaths per year, then wants to use this estimate as FACT to form the basis for controlling CO2 levels!!!!
Is there some kind of competition to see how much AGW believers will stomach without actually employing any intelligent thought?
Wow, I think California should clean up Urban Sporadic Lead Particle Pollution before worrying about CO2.
“Everyone knows that carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas driving climate change, is a global problem”
This is a psychological ‘trick’ and it makes me want to puke…’everyone knows’… pathetic.
DirkH (16:18:10) :
“These alarmist claims are getting funnier all the time. This is even better than the recent BBC report about birds getting 1.5 % smaller due to global warming.”
And…the one about people becoming fatter because of global warming.
And, more earthquakes because global warming has melted glaciers which takes the weight of the land.
And, more snow because it’s warmer.
And, if all the ice in the Antarctic melted sea levels would rise loads.
And if all the sea ice melted sea levels would rise.
And more old people will die from Global warming in the future.
And CO2 is a pollutant.
And…
pft (16:44:33) :”Over a 24 hr period, trees are a CO2 sink. However, trees and plants only utilize CO2 during the daylight hours. Come evening, they release CO2 contributing to higher CO2 levels in the evening.”
Source? Link? How much CO2? How much higher?
CO₂
CO₂
CO₂
CO₂
The mantra’s getting old and stale. Reeks of thinking inside the box.
The problem of UHI must be gaining traction and has to be woven into the AGW fantasy world. What better way than to demonize concentrations of CO₂ found in the UHI’s. Don’t even think about concrete and asphalt.
Summing up: Horse Feathers.
Grant: U.S. EPA, Climate Effects on Air Pollution, 2007-2011
EPA pays the money and gets its report to order.
You guys in USA are paying for this junk science.
OK, I like poking holes in bad theories as much as anyone. But I can’t with this one. Really, I can’t. You can’t poke a hole in a hole. Its not even swiss cheese, its an outline of swiss cheese. On a napkin. With a hole in it.
Really, though, he missed the obvious. Its not as much the carbon dioxide as it is the dihydrogen monoxide. Think about it. dihydrogen monoxide is three times the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide. It is associated with acid rain. A person immersed in dihydrogen monoxide will die in minutes. At low temperatures, dihydrogen monoxide becomes a solid capable of destroying the traction capability of cars, causing tens of thousands of deaths from car accidents each year. When warmed, it is known to release dissolved carbon dioxide, leading to a potential tipping point.
Ban the real danger! Ban dihydrogen monoxide!