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.
From “rotten ice” to “domed co2”, from “well mixed gas” to “lumpy”, from “2035 glaciers vanishing” to “2350 glaciers vanishing”, from “Earth spins faster” to “Earth slowing down.”
Climate science at its best! Now I know why the IPCC’s reports are riddled with the word “uncertainties” yet they are 90%> certain of AGW.
Things caused by global warming:
WARNING – do not have food or drink in your mouth.
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
This definitely brings “human health junk science” to a new level, doesn’t it.
This character has outdone Paul Ehrlich, I believe – Paul can’t top this.
Rachael Carson couldn’t top this.
There’s no “scientologist” out there who can top this.
This is a league of its own, I want a coffee mug with Jacobson’s picture on it. Anytime I see some more junk science, I’ll look at his picture and say, “this is pretty bad, but it still didn’t top Jacobson. Try again.”
Lets see, cars are one of the major killers of people. Factories / industrial accidents too. So we have a very high correlation between risky activities and machinery. Machinery that runs on CO2 produced energy.
So if we swap that machinery to run on non-CO2 produced energy things will become safer how again?
Someone need to learn the mantra:
Coincidence, Correlation, Causality
and the rules for moving from left to right…
For these fools;
repeat after me
“Correlation does not necessarily mean causation”
“Correlation does not necessarily mean causation”
“Correlation does not necessarily mean causation”
Why are we paying these idiots ???
They just won’t stop. 😐 omg, we’re all going to die, in L.A. anyway. 😐 We’re all going to die. We should all commence to wail and gnash our teeth at man’s use of energy sources provided.
Actually, this could work pretty good for me. I live in a rural area. So, we should make it easier for CO2 to be emitted here, just to be fair to the poor saps in metropolitan world. Please be advised, you are to move all of your job producing, standard of living increasing businesses here, IMMEDIATELY!!!
From the office of………..
“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.”
Are the number of deaths statistically significant? If we take California as 75 deaths then can they please list the names of the deceased in 2009?
With all of the CO2 death gas being produced it’s wonder the US population is living longer and healthier lives than during pre-industrialization.
Technology has pluses and minuses. While living conditions generally get better there’s always a downside as well. If we compare, for example, Chicago’s health to Calcutta’s and determine Calcutta’s to be worse is it due to a relative lack of CO2?
Anway I thought that the mechanism of AGW required the CO2 to permeate the upper atmoshere and hold in heat globally, which was supposed to trigger out of control evaporation of water, and the water vapor was supposed to really get the temperature going. now we’re being told that it can occur locally over cities. Has anyone’s city been experiencing greenhouse like conditions?
I would have bet the most common and dangerous greenhouse gas in the wild was water vapor. There’s lots of it, there’s plenty more where it came from, and there’s no place to put the source of it to keep it out of the environment. It thrives in sunlight, hides at night in the grass, and pools it’s resources when we’re not looking. Crafty.
I wonder how many lives could be saved if we just took shorter showers.
16 March: Politico: Lisa Lerer: Bill Clinton rallies Dems on climate bill
Former President Bill Clinton urged Senate Democrats to pass a climate bill this year during their weekly luncheon on Tuesday, arguing that legislation would spur innovation and create new jobs..
And he dismissed the idea of an energy-only bill, a proposal backed by some moderates. A cap on greenhouse gas emissions is necessary to spur new, clean energy investments and jobs, Clinton told the Democratic senators.
“He was very strong about it and that we need to price carbon in the effort to get the money flowing to help to transform the economy,” said Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.). “I thought he spoke very strongly.”
Kerry is working Lieberman and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on a revamped version of the climate bill that they hope to release by the end of the month. In hopes of attracting bipartisan support, the three lawmakers plan to include several proposals traditionally backed by Republicans like expanding nuclear power and offshore drilling…
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34523.html
someone should start a “Hands Off CO2” campaign. maybe we can make our own t-shirts…
Climate Clowns like Jacobson know a hell of a lot that ain’t so.
Anthony,
I have no doubt that the people on your site could show scientists how ridiculous most have been with garbage science like this.
Not including other gases? No solar heat reflection and absorption? Humidity?
Population density?
Former “President” Bill Clinton urged Senate Democrats to pass a climate bill this year during their weekly luncheon on Tuesday, arguing that legislation would spur innovation and create new jobs..
And he dismissed the idea of an energy-only bill, a proposal backed by some moderates. A cap on greenhouse gas emissions is necessary to spur new, clean energy investments and jobs, Clinton told the Democratic senators.
Folks, you might as well start learning Chinese, and get used wearing baggy gray linen suits with Mandarin collars, and sandals. After they buy it out for a penny on a dollar, this will be your workforce life, when they start giving out jobs in the country – on their terms
I suppose we still have a number of studies linking CO2 to all kinds of ridiculous things that are going to be published given all the funding dished up for climate change research. Better take a deep breath and reach for the chips and beer – still lots more climate entertainment to be had.
I predict in five to ten years you won’t be able to find any scientists who’ll admit they embraced the idea of CO2-driven catastrophic warming.
Nicholas Harding (17:58:24):
And with increasing extreme weather events caused by AGW just how long does a CO2 dome stay in place?
—-
I have a theory these domes move about in a yet unnoticed manner and there are more than CO2 domes in existence. I’m going to apply tomorrow for a grant to follow up on a theory that there are several types of domes — suburban fresh air domes, rural farm methane domes, forest rain ozone domes, et al. — that get pushed to and fro by the wind and, if I’m right, a follow up study of what happens when these domes move over incompatible geographical areas.
Everyone does know that Steven Schneider also works at Stanford? Don’t you?
REPLY: Dr. Schneider is deceased – Anthony
“I just have a hard time believing that a highly localized difference in CO2 concentration measured in ppm can create a measurable temperature difference.”
And if it can, how can the world wide increase in CO2 NOT lead to temperature increases over the last decade?
“Everyone knows that carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas driving climate change, is a global problem.” Non sequitur. What a crock of pickled of turnips …no, that would be insulting to turnips.
If this post were true, we should all stay away from crowded theaters; the Navy should not have manned submarines, and one should never sleep in a smallish bedroom with the door closed.
Haven’t heard of any mass deaths among indoor concerts goers lately.
I don’t have the link for Prof. Blick, but he shows the following CO2 concentrations:
“…
At present the concentration of atmospheric CO2 is 385 ppm. Historically the amount of atmospheric CO2 has never reached a level where it is “…Sailors in U.S. submarines work in CO2 levels of 8000 ppm with no ill effects. Crowded auditoriums, may reach 10,000 ppm. The recommended threshold level in civilian workspaces for an 8-hour day is 5000 ppm. A typical office has 350 to 2500 ppm. Exhaled human breath is about 45,000 ppm
…” Source: Edward F Blick, PhD, Univ. of Oklahoma
Jimbo (18:41:14) :
From “rotten ice” to “domed co2″, from “well mixed gas” to “lumpy”, from “2035 glaciers vanishing” to “2350 glaciers vanishing”, from “Earth spins faster” to “Earth slowing down.”
It’s all the fault of ARM.
Anthropogenic Rotten Models…
This study is filthy, stinking, methane-producing bilge.
I pity the poor soul who has his name on it for eternity [Jacobson]. There is still time to retract.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
I couldn’t help but notice that in the Stanford article, figure 5 of the Jacobson study, that delta CO2 is given in ppbv instead of ppmv. This results in very large scary numbers (as high as 100,000 ppbv) with which to alarm the non-scientist readers.
As far as establishing an increase in mortality rates due to CO2 domes, it is very doubtful that the Stanford study had located a statistically significant number of Death Certificates that listed the cause of death as “Inhalation of air pollution”. To develop a model that points the finger at CO2 domes to account for increased mortality within large cities with CO2 domes, where there are literally dozens of other variables that certainly make a contribution is a stretch. It gets even worse, the overall urban mortality rate doesn’t even correlate with the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels since 1968, in fact metro mortalilty rates have declined at a greater rate than non-metro mortality rates since 1990.
Link: http://www.dailyyonder.com/tracing-rural-americas-mortality-penalty/2009/09/30/2368
F Ross:
I think you’ve hit on something – you know when a person panics and hyperventilates? Medics ask them to breathe into a paper bag to cure their anxiety with CO2. That must be it! Like the world, these clowns are CO2 starved and living a panicked, anxious, paranoid existence. I think they should each one be gifted by one of us with a brown paper bag, and we should slip it gently over their heads whenever we recognize them. I suggest Gore should always be seen in public that way until his delusions are cured.
Rupert (13:56:15) :
Can we have a human biologist tell us what the maximum levels of CO2 in the atmosphere the human body can cope with.
Basically, the maximum atmospheric CO2 content tolerable first depends upon the body being able to effectively get rid of its own excess CO2, which in turn depends upon how much it produces as a result of its activity: base CO2 production from simply vegetating + exercise produced CO2.
The human body likes a CO2 concentration of about 56,000 ppm, or 5.6%, with the body’s pCO2 = 40-44. The brain’s Respiratory Center, located in the Fourth Ventricle, is truely “exquisitely responsive” to any changes in this concentration. It responds to increased arterial blood CO2 concentration, such as occurs with exercise, by increasing the automatic rate and depth of breathing – “ventilation” – which gets rid of the excess CO2 to the ambient air so as to maintain a normal arterial blood pH = 7.41- 7.44 .
Again, the main source of troublesome CO2 is first the human body itself. One calculation I did based upon Comroe’s text, “Respiratiory Physiology”, showed that a heavily exercising human can produce 1 pound = 454gm. of CO2 per hour, which has to be exhaled by increasing the rate and depth of breathing. Whereas an “average” person might only produce about 2.2 pounds = 1kg. per 24 hr. .
The main problem with an increase in ambient CO2 concentrations would be the decreasing concentration gradient or difference between the body’s 56,000 ppm and the ambient concentration, which is currently around 380 ppm, making it increasingly less possible for the body to unload its excess CO2 to the atmosphere per each breath/ventilatory cycle.
I’m guessing that an ambient CO2 concentration of 30,000 ppm = 3% would necessitate at least a doubling of the respiratory rate to about 32/min. along with increasing the depth of respiration, to keep the body’s pCO2 = 40 -44. That can be a lot of muscle work itself, which in turn produces more CO2
But at some greater level of increased atmospheric CO2 concentration it would not be possible to do anything other than breathe and eat without the body’s CO2 concentration increasing. Even then the body can still minimize the pH effect of an increased CO2 by increasing its HCO3 concentration via the Kidney’s increased HCO3 production: arterial blood pH = 7.4 = pkA + log [base]/[acid] = 6.1 + log [HCO3]/.03 [CO2] = 6.1 + log 20/1 = 6.1 + 1.3.
A body pCO2 = 60 = 84,000ppm., 50% larger than the normal pCO2 = 40 = 56,000ppm., can be tolerated but people usually don’t feel too well and might have some degree of decreased mental function and “obtundation”. At a pCO2 = 80 there’s usually going to be some degree of “narcosis” or “coma” simply on the basis of the CO2 concentration itself. But you never know exactly how any particular person will be affected.
That evil, evil CO2.
I had a load of beers last Friday evening. They all had CO2 in them, and I got drunk. That tells me CO2 makes you drunk.
I also had a headache the next day. That tells me CO2 gives you headaches too!
And now it’s building up in domes over our cities. It’s worse than we thought!
CodeTech (14:30:01) :
Oh great. Now, in addition to the usual run of fears, I have to fear a Giant Invisible Dome of Death surrounding my city. And there is a GIDD surrounding every city, so I can’t even run to somewhere else.
Fear the GIDDs.
Makes you GIDDY thinking about it.
Sorry. OK, I’ll go hide under a rock.
Don’t worry, it’s been peer reviewed.