Soot ahoy! Ship traffic in the Arctic

From the University of Delaware – As the ice-capped Arctic Ocean warms, ship traffic will increase at the top of the world. And if the sea ice continues to decline, a new route connecting international trading partners may emerge — but not without significant repercussions to climate, according to a U.S. and Canadian research team that includes a University of Delaware scientist.

 

If the Arctic Ocean continues to warm, new shipping lanes could emerge at the top of the world, as shown in these scenarios. An increase in shipping under current pollution controls in the Arctic could further accelerate warming. Figure courtesy of Prof. James Corbett, University of Delaware; published in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, Vol. 10, 2010.

Growing Arctic ship traffic will bring with it air pollution that has the potential to accelerate climate change in the world’s northern reaches. And it’s more than a greenhouse gas problem — engine exhaust particles could increase warming by some 17-78 percent, the researchers say.

James J. Corbett, professor of marine science and policy at UD, is a lead author of the first geospatial approach to evaluating the potential impacts of shipping on Arctic climate. The study, “Arctic Shipping Emissions Inventories and Future Scenarios,” is published in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.

Corbett’s coauthors include Daniel A. Lack, from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colo.; James J. Winebrake, of the Rochester Institute of Technology; Susie Harder of Transport Canada in Vancouver, British Columbia; Jordan A. Silberman of GIS Consulting in Unionville, Pa.; and Maya Gold of the Canadian Coast Guard in Ottawa, Ontario.

“One of the most potent ‘short-lived climate forcers’ in diesel emissions is black carbon, or soot,” says Corbett, who is on the faculty of UD’s College of Earth, Ocean, and Environment. “Ships operating in or near the Arctic use advanced diesel engines that release black carbon into one of the most sensitive regions for climate change.”

Produced by ships from the incomplete burning of marine fuel, these tiny particles of carbon act like ‘heaters’ because they absorb sunlight — both directly from the sun, and reflected from the surface of snow and ice. Other particles released by ship engines also rank high among important short-lived climate forcers, and this study estimates their combined global warming impact potential.

To better understand the potential impact of black carbon and other ship pollutants on climate, including carbon dioxide, methane and ozone, the research team produced high-resolution (5-kilometer-by-5-kilometer) scenarios that account for growth in shipping in the region through 2050, and also outline potential new Arctic shipping routes.

Among the research team’s most significant findings:

  • Global warming potential in 2030 in the high-growth scenario suggests that short-lived forcing of ~4.5 gigagrams of black carbon from Arctic shipping may increase the global warming potential due to ships’ carbon dioxide emissions (~42,000 gigagrams) by some 17-78 percent.
  • Ship traffic diverting from current routes to new routes through the Arctic is projected to reach 2 percent of global traffic by 2030 and to 5 percent in 2050. In comparison, shipping volumes through the Suez and Panama canals currently account for about 4 percent and 8 percent of global trade volume, respectively.
  • A Northwest Passage and Northeast Passage through the Arctic Ocean would provide a distance savings of about 25 percent and 50 percent, respectively, with coincident time and fuel savings. However, the team says tradeoffs from the short-lived climate forcing impacts must be studied.
  • To calculate possible benefits of policy action, the study provides “maximum feasible reduction scenarios” that take into account the incorporation of emissions control technologies such as seawater scrubbers that absorb sulfur dioxide emitted during the burning of diesel fuel. Their scenario shows that with controls, the amount of Arctic black carbon from shipping can be reduced in the near term and held nearly constant through 2050.

“To understand the value of addressing short-lived climate forcers from shipping, you need to know the impacts of these emissions, the feasibility and availability of technologies that could be put in place to reduce these impacts, and then engage the policy-making community to debate the evidence and agree on a plan,” Corbett notes. “Our hope is that this study will enable better communication of emerging science with policy makers and aid the eight Arctic Council nations with climate policy.”

Corbett also has led recent studies to determine the global health effects of shipping, and more recently, a comparison of the daily release of oil from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and Americans’ daily energy use.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

97 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Chuck
October 26, 2010 8:46 am

Anyone betting on this?

chemman
October 26, 2010 9:02 am

rbateman says:
October 26, 2010 at 7:06 am
If that were actually true we wouldn’t have an “over abundance” of transoceanic trade going on.

R T Barker
October 26, 2010 9:06 am

Warrick says:
October 26, 2010 at 2:15 am
“~4.5 gigatons” – the paper, not behind a paywall, is gigagrams. The press release is wrong.
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.org/10/9689/2010/acp-10-9689-2010.pdf
Thanks Warrick. A sanity check is always in order when things don’t make sense.

woodNfish
October 26, 2010 10:05 am

“As the ice-capped Arctic Ocean warms, ship traffic will increase at the top of the world. And if the sea ice continues to decline…”
Well, neither of those assumptions are happening, so this entire study is based on falsehoods – go figure. Seems on par with the rest of climate junk-science.

Ray
October 26, 2010 10:07 am

Is that why they want to open the polar air routes? Would they spray “stuff” up there to make the ice melt? Another day, another fraud!

Ed Zuiderwijk
October 26, 2010 10:47 am

These projected “possible” shipping routes are hilarious. The only one viable is the red one, which has been used since the 1930-ies on and off. The reason is that the ice at the red route melts during the summer because that’s where the Gulfstream dumps its heat.
The blue route is a no-no, because even if the pole would melt the route will be saturated with icebergs and if that melt takes a holiday, well, it will be frozen stiff. The light-blue route is even now barely usable and both the light-blue and the yellow route depend on the pole melting completely, which is a nonsense on current data.
Just ask the Greenpeace canoo guys.

Editor
October 26, 2010 12:12 pm

Ed Zuiderwijk says: October 26, 2010 at 10:47 am
“These projected “possible” shipping routes are hilarious. The only one viable is the red one, which has been used since the 1930-ies on and off. ”
Here is a map with Arctic Summer Shipping Lanes in 2004;
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/srp-view.aspx?id=111609
and within this report;
http://www.pame.is/images/stories/PDF_Files/AMSA_2009_Report_2nd_print.pdf
Map 1.1 on Page 10 shows an Arctic map including shipping lanes and estimates of 2004 Number of Trips.

PaulH
October 26, 2010 12:16 pm

Even if the Arctic ice cap melts (and I’m not betting on it), I have a hard time believing these projected shipping lanes will be of any practical use because of the lack of ports and other support facilities in the Arctic.

October 26, 2010 12:16 pm

Jerry says:
October 26, 2010 at 5:38 am
The “Red Diversion” was used by the Russians before 1902 to shift their fleet to the Far East – where it got creamed by The Japanese in 1903 🙁

It was Russians all about obtaining a warm-water port, so it is climate related. Port Arthur offered a harbour that would Ice-free all year round.
But the actual battle that creamed the Russian fleet took place in the Tsushima Straits in late may 1905 when the Baltic fleet after a voyage of 33.000 km tried to reach Vladiwostok to refuel. The Russian fleet got Pwnd when they tried to pass troughTsushima and the Japanese wasted no time in capturing the chain of the Sakhalin Islands and forced the Russians to sue for Peace.
The 33.000 km voyage around Cape Good Hope was needed since the Suez-canal was off limits because it was British hands. And the Brits where allies with Japan, since it was in their intrest that Russians would not use Vladiwostok and Port Arthur to their full potential, wich meant that aiding Russia in a war with Japan would mean the Brits would come to the aid of Japan. Basically that would mean starting a World War.
So yes, the Russians had a score to settle, the loss of Port Arthur, the Sakhalin Islands and control over Japan means that you control a better of the Pacific Ocean all year rond. All factors wich made it a smart move to surrender to the US.

DesertYote
October 26, 2010 1:59 pm

Robert
October 26, 2010 at 12:16 pm
Thanks for filling in the details. I learned most of this quite a while ago and my memory was getting a bit fuzzy.

LarryOldtimer
October 26, 2010 2:27 pm

IF Could
None of this is “theory”. It is mere speculation by “scientists” who obviously don’t know the fundamentals of chemistry and physics (statics & dynamics, thermodynamics and electrical) and higher level math, such as theory of probablity or the nature of random distributions (let alone grade school arithmetic). And they surely know little or nothing of history.
As a person who was well trained in all aspects of intelligence work, I can assure you that if you can see only 15 0r 20 pieces of a 100 piece jigsaw puzzle, you can’t possibly see the “big picture”. A little knowledge is indeed a dangerous thing.
Of course, I am not qualified to comment as I am a mere civil engineer, who only applied the fundamentals of these branches of science and mathematics in my engineered designs.
If I were a rich man,
Ya ha deedle deedle, bubba bubba deedle deedle dum.
All day long I’d biddy biddy bum.
If I were a wealthy man.
I wouldn’t have to work hard.
Ya ha deedle deedle, bubba bubba deedle deedle dum.
If I were a biddy biddy rich,
Yidle-diddle-didle-didle man.

October 26, 2010 2:37 pm

tty says:
October 26, 2010 at 5:40 am
“Someone on WUWT has maybe made a transcription error?”
No, it says “gigatons” in the UD press-release. A beautiful example of “press-release science”. By the way who has ever heard of “gigagrams”? But it sure sounds bigger than megatons. Will we have teramilligrams next?

Actually it’s Gigagrams and is a proper SI unit so any scientist should know what is meant. The use of teramilligrams is improper because it mixes prefixes.

October 26, 2010 4:41 pm

“Global warming potential in 2030 in the high-growth scenario suggests that short-lived forcing of ~4.5 gigatons of black carbon from Arctic shipping…” 4.5 gt from Arctic shipping? I don’t think so.
A quick check of any atmospheric carbon cycle website will reveal that ~5.5 gigatons of carbon comes from the burning of fossil fuels for industry, power generation, heating, and transportation, etc. ~4.5 Gt is not going to come from Arctic shipping. I believe this number is off by at least two decimal places to the left.

ShrNfr
October 26, 2010 5:24 pm

Is the effect of carbon on rotten ice and flippy floppy ice any different than real ice? Just asking…

Skeptic Student
October 26, 2010 5:33 pm

I think it’s kind of funny that the map’s legend is just the name of the colors used.

Editor
October 26, 2010 6:31 pm

A couple of things to note…
1) The red route is not exactly new. Back in 1940 when “Uncle Joe” and “Uncle Adolf” were still buddy-buddies, the German auxiliary cruiser Komet sailed from Gotenhafen eastwards across the north coast of the USSr and out the Bering Straits before undertaking some WWII commerce raiding. The source for this info is none other than that hotbed of AGW alarmism known as Wikipedia!!! See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_auxiliary_cruiser_Komet
Remember that back then the Russians did *NOT* have nuclear powered icebreakers, and there were no satellites providing photos of leads in the ice pack. Also, ancient LORAN (assuming it was still functional in WWII) doesn’t compare with modern GPS for calculating your position. If it was possible with the technology of 70 years ago, it should be trivial today.
2) An item that isn’t mentioned in the article is that you won’t have to deal with modern-day pirates. The area is too cold for third-world pirates and the coastline is mostly Russian controlled. One thing that makes the Suez and Cape Horn routes risky is that Somolian pirates, using “mother ships” to tow attack speed boats, have hijacked cargo ships up to 1,000 km off the coast of Africa. Icebergs may be risky, but at least they don’t chase you and fire at you with bazookas and rocket launchers. At the rate things are going, icebergs may be less risky.

Jordan
October 27, 2010 12:14 am

Phil. says: ” ..Gigagrams and is a proper SI unit …”
Not what I was taught Phil. SI unit of mass is the kg. I would share with others who mentioned that “gigagrams” (gigagrammes?)is an odd expressionof mass and it certainly caught out the press release.
I would have much preferred this report to have quantified the mass in kilotonnes as that’s more commonly used in economic measures. The article is even confusing because it mixes grammes with tons (not tonnes)

October 27, 2010 5:23 am

Jordan says:
October 27, 2010 at 12:14 am
Phil. says: ” ..Gigagrams and is a proper SI unit …”
Not what I was taught Phil. SI unit of mass is the kg. I would share with others who mentioned that “gigagrams” (gigagrammes?)is an odd expression of mass and it certainly caught out the press release.

It’s the proper SI unit (see below) although ‘ton’ (or ‘tonne’ outside US) would also be acceptable. Lots of things that are correct catch out press officers/reporters.
From the NIST website:
“It is important to note that the kilogram is the only SI unit with a prefix as part of its name and symbol. Because multiple prefixes may not be used, in the case of the kilogram the prefix names of Table 5 are used with the unit name “gram” and the prefix symbols are used with the unit symbol “g.” With this exception, any SI prefix may be used with any SI unit, including the degree Celsius and its symbol °C.
Example 1: 10-6 kg = 1 mg (one milligram), but not 10-6 kg = 1 µkg (one microkilogram)”

Spector
October 27, 2010 5:42 am

I suspect those transpolar routes will require the development of a fleet of low-cost, nuclear powered submersible transports. Then the issue would be deep-sea thermal pollution and the occasional reactor disruption.

Charles Higley
October 27, 2010 9:20 am

“~4.5 gigatons of black carbon from Arctic shipping”
They’ve got to be kidding that this is the soot from a year’s shipping. The ships must exhaust more carbon that their own weight at this rate.
Da dream all they want, but the Arctic ice is not going to go away. What will be going away is the dreams and the idiots who are predicting an open Arctic sea in 20 years.
I just instinctively wonder what planet they are living on to be so out of touch with the real world. These are not just armchair predictions – they come from the armchair in the closet.

Symon
October 27, 2010 10:42 am

Last time of trying. The _abstract_ says gigagrams, not gigatons.
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.org/10/9689/2010/acp-10-9689-2010.html
By copying from the University’s press release, WUWT has replicated the transcription error.
Also, gigagrams is a perfectly fine SI unit. What else would they say? megakilogram?
[Fixed, thanks. ~dbs]

Jimmy Neutrino
October 28, 2010 4:36 am

Jason F.: The BBC spun story is as much a canard as this one is. There is not a “race on” to build icebreakers, the situation is that the US has let its icebreakers languish and only has a few in drydock now, believing the global warming propaganda. Russia and Canada have working icebreakers. Russia is building many more, in order to reach oil and natural gas fields in its Arctic claims. Canada is enforcing its claims with new registration policies for vessels entering what it considers Canadian waters. The Canadian maritime authorities are not all that worried about a new NW Passage opening up. But don’t trust me, look it all up for yourself.

Verified by MonsterInsights