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.
“His findings that carbon dioxide domes over cities and carbon dioxide buildup since preindustrial times have enhanced air pollution mortality through its feedback to particles and ozone served as a scientific basis for the Environmental Protection Agency’s approval of the first regulation of carbon dioxide from vehicles in the United States (the California waiver).”
Science to order!
Wow! The EPA was right!
Everyone knows that carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas driving climate change, is a global problem.
Global problem?
In my opinion it shows clearly it’s more of a “certain city’s” problem. Funny how Miami and Atlanta and other big cities do not even register, maybe it’s the wind. Seems if you made all of those light blue city’s civilians buy electric cars you would watch those light blue cities turn bright red, not dark blue, without nuclear plants to fuel them. Ever notice how you get about one-third the joules or BTUs per dollar for electricity compared to other fuels. I know some is gained back at the car level but seems not enough to make up the difference, and polluting batteries as they go bad are not the way to go. We would be trading a harmless gas for REAL poisons.
OT – Just weather, not climate:
——–
Now, remember the good old days of “spring arrives early due to global warming. blah, blah, blah, blah, blah…”
Innuendo : def; Where it hurts the most.
I think it’s all related to McDonalds and Starbucks outlets. Must be the caffeine in their coffee.
Any idea how long it takes the CO2 dome to re-establish itself after a windstorm?
That study so is staggeringly stupid it boggles the mind.
If they had one.
Which they don’t.
Mildly OT: CO2 as refrigerant
http://co2engineerref.wordpress.com/2010/03/12/refrigerants/
“…Its environmental advantages (GWP of 1, non-ozone depleting, NON-TOXIC, non-flammable) could make it the future working fluid to replace current HFCs in cars, supermarkets, hot water heat pumps, among others…”
CO2 is a Global Warming gas but it is also a coolant. It has been outlawed as a pollutant but is non-toxic.
The ocean has 50 times higher CO2 content. As the Japan current travels past California, the water warms and the higher vapor pressure releases more CO2 from the ocean. Every time a fishy dies in the Pacific off the coast of Baja Norte, it decays and releases CO2 into the ocean and into the air.
Stephen Skinner (17:40:36) :
Cfc’s are NON toxic inert gases.
ScientistForTruth (17:19:05) :
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.
I know, the plumbing is well hidden but we are determined to find the spigot so we can turn it off!
Another OT.
Copenhagen climate summit undone by ‘arrogance’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8571347.stm
The “disappointing” outcome of December’s climate summit was largely down to “arrogance” on the part of rich countries, according to Lord Stern.
The economist told BBC News that the US and EU nations had not understood well enough the concerns of poorer nations.
And in the same article is the usual picture of a cooling tower! is the reason cooling towers symbolise sources of pollution because they are big?
RE: Dusty
And with increasing extreme weather events caused by AGW just how long does a CO2 dome stay in place?
Not sure how to bring this to your attention but see the following that I have just seen on the BBC website.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8571347.stm
The arrogance seems to me to belong to Lord Stern.
It’s very hard to be polite about this study. So Jacobson ‘estimates’ that CO2 domes will kill 300 to 1,000 annually. Let’s see, that’s 1 in a million to 1 in 330,000. No wonder he uses the weak word, ‘estimate’. I would like to ask him to ‘estimate’ how many people will die when they can’t afford to use their air conditioners when their electricity bills ‘skyrocket’ (in the word of the anointed one) due to carbon legislation and have to shut them off during a heatwave. How many elderly with heart conditions? How many on modest disability with respiratory conditions? So, Mr. Jacobson, care to ‘estimate’ that? But then they’re not supplying you with research funding, are they.
Sorry about the rant but this is as polite as I can be about such incredible nonsense.
CO2 is not a pollutant, and while not out to bat for genuine particulate pollution I have to say that my wife’s grandmother in Hong Kong died only a couple of years ago at 104, her mother is still vigorous at 82, despite the air pollution. The pollution daily drifting in from the Pearl River Delta is mind boggling, I have been visiting HK now for 25 years. I’m all for tackling THAT kind of pollution.
I have a new bird on my birdfeeder. It’s the very rare [fortunately] Jabcobson’s cookoo.
‘ “This study establishes a basis for controlling CO2 based on local health impacts,” he said. ‘
Good. They can start by banning carbonated drinks.
I must admit I am getting sick & tired of the phrase ‘…there is overwhelming scientific evidence…’ [for AGW].
I want any person saying that to provide a list of 10 pieces of scientific evidence to prove their case, and which can be studied, verified and criticised. Preferably on a blog such as this.
I’d settle for three pieces of scientific evidence.
Even one conclusive piece, with all raw data, programs, calculations, etc., and which is indisputably correct science and beyond criticism.
The population is aging. That is because women spent a lot of time with men once they came back from the war and then THOSE baby boomers had children. Those children are now past their prime (like me) and are beginning to push daisies. The baby boom echo. So we have this large cohort swelling the ranks of the dead. However, now that we are aging, thus dying off rather quickly, any increase in anything can be correlated to increasing death.
Name something that has been increasing, and I can correlate it to increasing death.
I don’t quibble over the long term effects of chlorine as pertains to human lifestyle…
In salt we find our hypertension…
let the “CFC” threat go…
Complaining about R-12 does you no good…
It’s not worth the Chlorine risk…
pat (16:45:38) :
“more death” – this is one of the real causes:
Most people care for our planet and especially other people but that does not classify them as an environmentalist. I always felt it would be the arrogant, meddling, hard-core environmentalists who would kill this world, not save it, blind to the hidden dangers. With politicians in their pockets they are now actually doing it. But that article in your comment says maybe a few are finally turning their eyes critically on themselves and seeing what they are actually doing, and have the backbone to reverse their actions in time. I hope.
I live about an hour south of LA. The Marine layer pours in every morning and sometimes takes until mid-day to clear.
The water vapor combines with particulate matter (principally from car exhaust, forest fires, and the arid climate) and probably helps to contribute to the “heat island”.
The San Bernardino mountains to the East provide a barrier to about 3,000 feet above sea level (peaks run up to 10,000).
Looking at the mountains from the coast, it a rare day to see them without a cloud of haze. Fly into this area and you drop into the haze before landing (height unknown).
I actually wish this study had been done with real world readings instead of some computer model which makes it to easy to dispute. Clearing the pollution from this area would be great but the water vapor will always remain.
A CO2 dome is pretty tough to prove without actual measurements?
Had to check whether today is 1 April………..