Also, see below the “Continue reading” line for an impressive scientific visualization video of black carbon being transported around the globe.
University of Iowa News Release July 27, 2010
UI researcher finds black carbon implicated in global warming
Increasing the ratio of black carbon to sulphate in the atmosphere increases climate warming, suggests a study conducted by a University of Iowa professor and his colleagues and published in the July 25 issue of the journal Nature Geoscience. No paper was provided with the press release.
Black carbons — arising from such sources as diesel engine exhaust and cooking fires — are widely considered a factor in global warming and are an important component of air pollution around the world, according to Greg Carmichael, Karl Kammermeyer Professor of Chemical and Biochemical Engineering in the UI College of Engineering and co-director of the UI’s Center for Global and Regional Environmental Research. Sulfates occur in the atmosphere largely as a result of various industrial processes.
Carmichael’s colleagues in the study were V. Ramanathan and Y. Feng of Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, Calif.; S-C. Yoon and S-W. Kim of Seoul National University, South Korea; and J. J. Schauer of the University of Wisconsin, Madison.
In order to conduct their study, the researchers made ground-level studies of air samples at Cheju Island, South Korea, and then sampled the air at altitudes between 100 and 15,000 feet above the ground using unmanned aircrafts (UAVs).
They found that the amount of solar radiation absorbed increased as the black carbon to sulphate ratio rose. Also, black carbon plumes derived from fossil fuels were 100 percent more efficient at warming than were plumes arising from biomass burning.
“These results had been indicated by theory but not verified by observations before this work,” Carmichael said. “There is currently great interest in developing strategies to reduce black carbon as it offers the opportunity to reduce air pollution and global warming at the same time.”
The authors suggest that climate mitigation policies should aim to reduce the ratio of black carbon to sulphate in emissions, as well as the total amount of black carbon released.
In a paper published in May 2008 in Nature Geoscience, Carmichael and Ramanathan found that black carbon soot from diesel engine exhaust and cooking fires — widely used in Asia — may play a larger role than previously thought in global warming. They said that coal and cow dung-fueled cooking fires in China and India produce about one-third of black carbon; the rest is largely due to diesel exhaust in Europe and other regions relying on diesel transport. The paper also noted that soot and other forms of black carbon could equal up to 60 percent of the current global warming effect of carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse gas.
Carmichael is chair of the scientific advisory group for the World Meteorological Organization’s GURME (Global atmospheric watch Urban Research Meteorology and Environment) project and chair of the scientific advisory group for the Shanghai Expo pilot project on air quality forecasting. He has worked with Shanghai authorities for three years to help develop an early warning system for air quality problems and heat waves.
The study was funded by National Science Foundation.
=======================================
Tiny air pollution particles commonly called soot, but also known as black carbon, are in the air and on the move throughout our planet. Black carbon enters the air when fossil fuels and biofuels, such as coal, wood, and diesel are burned. Since black carbon readily absorbs heat from sunlight, the particles can affect Earth’s climate, especially on a regional scale. Though global distribution of soot remains difficult to measure, NASA researchers use satellite data and computer models to better understand how these short-lived particles influence Earth’s climate, cryosphere, and clouds. This scientific data visualization uses data from the GEOS5 GOCART climate model to show black carbon’s atmospheric concentration from August to November in 2009.
Credit: NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center Scientific Visualization Studio
I have just watched a video of Frank Zappa , he was unconcerned about black snow.
The song title was “do not eat the yellow snow” good advice I feel.
The shifting of the goal posts by both scientists and politicians is to be expected as the rugs keep being pulled out from under them. Real information and science keeps snookering them. They are trying to wiggle out, climate reality is check-mating them.
Give them a few years and the cooling will cause many of them to ask for a grant to study the possibility of spreading carbon on the ice to warm our planet. Such is their integrity.
Harold Pierce Jr says:
July 30, 2010 at 2:54 am
I ask you all this simple question: Since 1900, where have the hundreds of billions of pounds of rubber and asphalt dust gone? [–snip rest for brevity–]
Well, Harold, I will think that in total, it amounts to nought, inasmuch as the latter part of the decade of the 1960’s to the early 1970’s, there was an ‘Ice Age’ scare, and that even with all the dust you remark of.
Now, if you must complain about the ‘black and reflective’ particles on the back of a Post-it™ note, how about you do this: Collect a bunch of it, send it to a lab to be analyzed for both chemical and spectrographic content, and then get back to us.
Of course I’ll be willing to bet that much of the ‘dust’ you collect will be natural detritus from plants, animals, and humans as well.
tallbloke says:
July 30, 2010 at 2:55 am
Remember the total world population was a lot lower then, and got even lower when the Black Death wiped out a 1/3 of the population of Europe in the C14th. But, the world had a lot more forests then too, so how many more tonnes of soot went into the atmosphere due to natural forest fires?
Not so easy to determine these factors I would say.
That is very true regarding the population. But again: The only things they burned were what was available, and I neglected to mention whale and olive oil, turpentine, and few other distillates of ancient origin. But largely speaking, it was wood, coal, peat and dung.
Additionally, farming practices back then called for the burning of fields at the end of the harvest.
So everybody alive was burning things, including nature, as you state.
Heck, when I was a youngster, people would rake leaves into a pile in the autumn, and set fire to them. It was a memorable occasion, and I can just recall that odor, as it marked the yearly passage of time: Almost Thanksgiving.
Anthony,
Do you find it not strange that natural occurances such as the millions of acres each year from forest fires generating soot and volcanic ash was not included?
What a load of Soot! The fact is there is still no discernable human signal in the climate trend, the climate has been warming steadily for 300 years since the Maunder Minimum (before human influence) and cooled or levelled off in the past 8-9 years. The 1980-2001 incline has occurred many times before even before the turn of the century well before heavy industry.
Once again they claim positive feedbacks like this supposed soot induced polar melting that should theoretically accelerate GW exponentially, but, surprise surprise! It hasn’t happened!
CO2 feedbacks are empirically and logically zero to negative due to increased relative humidity in the upper troposphere due to warming based subsidence causing less water vapour at the emission level, thus more outgoing longwave radiation and thus less warming. There is also the albedo effect from warming induced low level cloud that cools the planet.
The water system creates counterbalances to GHG effects and neither soot nor CO2 has warmed the planet significantly, one just needs to look at the climate record, before tampering by corrupt scientists that is.
“They said that coal and cow dung-fueled cooking fires in China and India produce about one-third of black carbon; the rest is largely due to diesel exhaust in Europe and other regions relying on diesel transport.”
Well, it has already been pointed out on here that even reasonably efficient coal fired power stations produce NO soot. Likewise even reasonably efficient diesel engines. (Just try driving a diesel with sooty exhaust in the UK and see how long it is before the cops pull you over).
So that leaves “cow dung-fueled cooking fires”. Not many of them in Europe or the US.
This is most inconvenient as it is supposed to be the developed world that’s to blame for Global Warming (and much else besides). What do the Warmistas suggest for those third world countries burning too much cow dung?
Obvious! “Let them eat salad!”
I’ve been harping about black carbon (soot) for years. I grew up in western New York in house next to what was, at the time, a city street that was also Route 17, a major artery for east/west traffic through the state. Constant stream of 18-wheelers belching diesel exhaust.
The snowbanks near the road were actually pristine most of the winter but when they started to melt they turned black on top.
Then I lived near the coast in Southern California for the next 20 years. That was in the 1970’s and 1980’s before they got serious about cleaning up the air. Anything a light color left outside gradually turned black over a few years as it accumulated soot. Outside window sills painted white largely protected from rain by overhead eaves would turn just about black.
I’m not sure why the author of the article featured in the OP called black carbon particles “short lived”. These things live as long as conditions allow them to live. In the case of snow they live until the snow is completely melted.
See, the thing about black carbon particles is that they float. If you have a partial melt all the soot that is distributed through the depth of the snow (fresh snowfall covers up whatever accumulated since the last snowfall) floats to the top as the snow melts and gets darker and darker until it looks like that iceberg pictured in the OP. If it isn’t a complete melt then there it stays in a concentrated top layer.
Soot can travel from its source up to several thousand kilometers from its source depending on winds and so forth. That’s just far enough to travel from major sources in the northern hemisphere to the arctic. Major sources include slash & burn agriculture, coal, diesel, wood used for heating and cooking, and so forth – basically any complex hydrocarbon substance that is ignited.
In 1963 the United States passed “The Clean Air Act” which over the course of the next few decades drastically reduced soot emissions.
The rub in acknowledging the major role soot plays in the melting of northern hemisphere glaciers and sea ice and contributing to earlier springs as winter snowmelt is accelerated is that you can’t blame the United States for any of it anymore.
See, global warming is a political movement not a scientific one. Much of the world wants to make the United States a scapegoat for it. Since we cleaned up our act with regard to particulate pollutants like sulfates and soot, and gases like ozone and carbon monoxide, while few other nations enacted (eg. Europe has a long standing love affair with diesel engines) measures to clean up the air then that left carbon dioxide as the only thing they could use to pin the blame on the USA since we are admittedly still a leading source of it. China recently took over the title of being the biggest CO2 emitter in the world however.
So that’s the story of soot and why it isn’t highlighted in the global war against global warming – soot isn’t a politically correct causative factor even though it’s a scientifically correct one.
(Just try driving a diesel with sooty exhaust in the UK and see how long it is before the cops pull you over).
I don’t think you can eliminate the impact of diesel just based on law enforcement in the UK, not when you’ve got a pretty large area not far from you in the form of Russia, where I’m willing to bet sooty exhaust is pretty common 🙂
JimB
The reason I mentioned that I liked the article in Wired better, from a different researcher, is it has quotes like this in it:
““Soot has such a strong climate effect, but it has a lifetime in the atmosphere of just a few weeks. Carbon dioxide has a lifetime of 30 to 50 years. If you totally stop CO2 emissions today, the Arctic will still be totally melted,” said Stanford University climate scientist Mark Jacobson. If soot pollution is immediately curtailed, “the reductions start to occur pretty much right away. Within months, you’ll start seeing temperature differences.”
So apparently, we’ve already lost the Arctic. I had no idea…Does Al know about this?
Maybe someone needs to send the author a link to the IcePage at WUWT? 🙂
JimB
This report confirms earlier studies on the melting of glaciers in the eastern Himalayas, caused by soot emissions from China and India. Soot (from Europe, USA and Russia) is also likely to be a major cause of increased ice melting in the Arctic and West Greenland. Contrast these areas with the near industry-free Antarctic, where ice is clearly on the increase.
From the IPCC website:
Soot
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/annex1sglossary-p-z.html
Particles formed during the quenching of gases at the outer edge of flames of organic vapours, consisting predominantly of carbon, with lesser amounts of oxygen and hydrogen present as carboxyl and phenolic groups and exhibiting an imperfect graphitic structure. See Black carbon; Charcoal (Charlson and Heintzenberg, 1995, p. 406).
Black carbon (BC) Operationally defined aerosol species based on measurement of light absorption and chemical reactivity and/or thermal stability; consists of soot, charcoal and/or possible light-absorbing refractory organic matter (Charlson and Heintzenberg, 1995, p. 401).
Charcoal Material resulting from charring of biomass, usually retaining some of the microscopic texture typical of plant tissues; chemically it consists mainly of carbon with a disturbed graphitic structure, with lesser amounts of oxygen and hydrogen (Charlson and Heintzenberg, 1995, p. 402). See Black carbon; Soot.
Ok, so how does this relate to Climate Change?
Climate change Climate change refers to a change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g., by using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties, and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer. Climate change may be due to natural internal processes or external forcings, or to persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use. Note that the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), in its Article 1, defines climate change as: ‘a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods’. The UNFCCC thus makes a distinction between climate change attributable to human activities altering the atmospheric composition, and climate variability attributable to natural causes. See also Climate variability; Detection and Attribution.
Ok, given that “Soot” does not “persist for an extended period, typically decades or longer” and it is not solely caused by human activities. What percentage of “Soot” should we monitor so we can properly TAX individuals who burn Cow and Camel droppings and BBQ on the weekends?
Who is going to do the monitoring? It isn’t going to be the EPA — they have trouble reading English these days so it would be a huge waste of taxpayer funding.
If this is verified, it’ll be a handy tool to hold the ice sheets back when the next Ice Age begins in a century or two.
… scratching head wondering how IPCC can define an aerosol species — I’m seeing a remake of The Blob; http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0051418/news#ni3104198 — I may be missing something obvious?
from IPCC Glossary:
Black carbon (BC) Operationally defined aerosol species based on measurement of light absorption and chemical reactivity and/or thermal stability; consists of soot, charcoal and/or possible light-absorbing refractory organic matter (Charlson and Heintzenberg, 1995, p. 401).
Let’s remember a past post here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/08/25/greenland-ice-core-reveals-history-of-pollution-in-the-arctic-but-theres-a-twist-it-was-worse-100-years-ago/
Ice cores on Greenland showed peak soot levels in 1910! Time frame from 1850-1950 much higher than today’s levels.
Tailbloke, how about using Alpine ice cores to get a glimmer of the levels. They seem to show total levels very high back in the 1700’s, which I am led to believe were not all that hot.
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:tXkjeYK3pTcJ:www.atmos-chem-phys.net/6/5381/2006/acp-6-5381-2006.pdf+%22ice+core%22+Soot+level+history+alps&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjPmcfLyXfnoxFE5Iiy4NAde7sYS4Did7SXHcLaYFvsWEV33yKotBJXKRiOJd1d–pcQC3aH1YXf6Q4a_YPrkNd4nzlP_D9xmxKNu0yjl9Rs21DO5LKsubkqZa4hshQprZjQKav&sig=AHIEtbQdPJ80_JLNEZ8WoQyBi022Dn_XDA
Maybe these professors need to apply a little history lesson before presenting their papers.
I find a thin layer of powered black peat on top of the snow clears the driveway better than salt and with no harmful chemical after effects to the soil.
I actually agree with this article. Soot can be seen on the surface of many glaciers at the end of summer. It is the reason for glacier recession in Europe, Asia, Alaska, Canada, and Southern Greenland. Just check a few glacier pictures in Google images. CO2? No. Soot? Yes.
Soot persists for decades on permanent snow cover. Human activities within a few thousand kilometers of major sources in the northern hemisphere contribute much of it. The only natural source is forest fires.
Europe is largest consumer of diesel fuel by a wide margin and accounts for almost a third of worldwide consumption. Asia is the number two consumer. North America is number three.
world total = 763 billion liters per year (2005)
europe = 225 billion liters
asia = 183 billion liters
north america = 162 billion liters
http://earthtrends.wri.org/searchable_db/results.php?years=all&variable_ID=817&theme=6&country_ID=all&country_classification_ID=all
Europe area = 10 million square kilometers
Europe diesel use = 225 billion liters
Europe burns 22,500 liters of diesel per square kilometer each year.
North America area = 25 million square kilometers
North America diesel use = 162 billion liters
North America burns 6,480 liters of diesel per square kilometer each year
Any questions?
“Ice cores on Greenland showed peak soot levels in 1910! Time frame from 1850-1950 much higher than today’s levels.”
Yup. Heating and cooking all wood and coal. Industrial processes powered by steam engines with wood/coal fueled boilers. Slash & burn agriculture. London was notoriously sooty back then to such an extent it’s a wonder anyone could breathe the air for long without dying of some chronic lung impairment. It’s better now but soot is still a problem and that soot trapped in glaciers is still trapped there waiting for surface melt to get deep enough to free it so it floats and concentrates on the surface. Partial glacier melt has a positive feedback associated with it in the form of soot that’s been continuously deposited in them for the past two centuries or more.
“Hello, has anybody actually looked at the exhaust of a modern diesel lately?”
Sure. I drive a full size 4WD pickup truck (~6000 pounds unloaded) with a 6-liter Cummins 24-valve turbo diesel. 16mpg city, 22mpg highway. Burns ultra-low sulfur fuel (that’s all that’s sold in US these days) but that only cleans up NOx. The engine was manufactured in 1999. I have 80,000 miles on it. The mean time between rebuilds for that motor is 300,000 miles.
The inside of the exhaust pipe has a layer of soot in it that is as black as black gets. But you can’t see the exhaust coming out of the pipe. Its exhaust is quite invisible except in cold weather but that’s not soot in cold weather it’s mostly water vapor.
The thing about diesel motors is the suckers last forever and as they age they become less efficient except for the initial break-in period where for the first 25,000 miles they become more efficient. My fuel consumption improved about 15% over that period. So what you end up is a huge number of diesels that were manufactured decades ago still in service today and becoming bigger soot sources with every additional hour they run.
Even modern high tech diesels like mine with a low number of operating hours on them still produce far more soot than gasoline engines.
Dave Springer says:
July 31, 2010 at 6:16 am
[–snip for brevity–] It’s better now but soot is still a problem and that soot trapped in glaciers is still trapped there waiting for surface melt to get deep enough to free it so it floats and concentrates on the surface. Partial glacier melt has a positive feedback associated with it in the form of soot that’s been continuously deposited in them for the past two centuries or more.
So, Dave Springer, do tell: How is it that carbon which is trapped in the ice will magically concentrate all in one place and cause ‘global warming,’ instead of say, get washed away with all of the other deposits which have lain just as dormant?
Are you possessing of knowledge which shows that the deposited carbon has such magical properties?
And by the way: Just how does carbon manage that other magical feat of producing a –ahem– positive feedback when it possess no ability to amplify anything in any way?
Does the carbon atom come equipped with a built-in energy amplifier?
Enquiring minds want to know!
There are quite a few forest fires going in Siberia. You can see in the Arctic Terra sat images the smoke is being transported into the Arctic pretty heavily today.
Dave Springer says:
July 31, 2010 at 6:54 am
[–snip for brevity–] Even modern high tech diesels like mine with a low number of operating hours on them still produce far more soot than gasoline engines.
What about modern volcanoes, or forest fires, or …
Actually, you’re essentially incorrect about Diesels become less efficient after about 25K miles.
I have an IH Scout II with a Nissan 3.3 ltr Diesel. It was made in 1980. It still gets 26 mpg, and it has OVER 200K miles on it.
Richard Holle says:
July 30, 2010 at 12:31 pm
I find a thin layer of powered black peat on top of the snow clears the driveway better than salt and with no harmful chemical after effects to the soil.
Well, I dunno, Richard, seeing as how when the temperature here in western Washington, US of A, is below freezing, your idea wouldn’t work nearly as well as a good snow shovel, and it would take far longer.
We get ‘dirty snow’ here, and the ‘dirty’ doesn’t help melt the snow, save when the temperatures would melt it otherwise, even without the dirty.
Usually I am 250% suspicious of these sorts of sweeping statements which include such exact and rounded percentages. Genuine empirical experiments would not yield such figures. Fatuous oafs are the likely authors of such figures. Real experiment might yield figures of 87.23% or something like that, if it were veridical.