
From PNNL: Worldwide sulfur emissions rose between 2000-2005, after decade of decline
Shipping, China top emissions growth in new analysis of 150 years of emissions

COLLEGE PARK, Md. – A new analysis of sulfur emissions appearing in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics shows that after declining for a decade, worldwide emissions rose again in 2000 due largely to international shipping and a growing Chinese economy. An accurate read on sulfur emissions will help researchers predict future changes in climate and determine present day effects on the atmosphere, health and the environment.
“Sulfur dioxide is an important component of the atmosphere. It changes the radiative balance of the earth by influencing the amount of the sun’s energy that warms the globe. We need to understand how much sulfur dioxide is emitted, and when and where it is emitted. This study will help us do that,” said lead author Steven Smith of the Joint Global Change Research Institute in College Park, Md., a collaboration between the Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in Richland, Wash., and the University of Maryland.
Unlike similar studies, the new analysis also provides an estimate of how accurate this study’s emissions tally is. Referred to as “uncertainty,” the accuracy estimate arises from difficulties inherent in tracking sulfur. This study estimates that actual emissions for recent decades lie within 10 percent of the average global emissions reported by Smith and his colleagues. Regional values could potentially be off by a much higher degree — up to 30 percent in China, for example.
“The regional uncertainty can be moderately high, but the global numbers are much more accurate,” Smith said. “Understanding the uncertainty will help us determine how sensitive the earth’s atmosphere and land are to changes in sulfur content.”
Surreptitious Sulfur
The Industrial Age ushered in widespread combustion activities that spew sulfur into the atmosphere. Sulfur dioxide has the potential to acidify rain, soil and lakes, and it can counteract some of the warming effect of carbon dioxide, making it an important component of the environment to understand.
Sulfur’s climate role is complicated. In the air, it can form tiny particles called aerosols, creating new ones or building up old ones. Aerosol particles help form cloud drops, potentially changing rainfall amounts as well as affecting the acidity of the raindrops. Both clouds and the aerosols themselves reflect sunlight, reducing the amount of energy absorbed by the planet.
To determine how much sulfur has been emitted between the approximate beginning of the Industrial Age, 1850, and 2005, Smith and colleagues analyzed data about sulfur-emitting activities such as coal burning, copper smelting, or the use of petroleum. The data came from more than 140 countries and went back as far as the 1800s, when publications even at that time tallied how much coal and copper were produced.
The team collected the datasets, evaluated the quality of the records and plotted the data over time, breaking them down by region, source — such as coal or oil burning — and economic use such as heating or cooking, power production, and others.
The team estimated emissions data both by calculating sulfur release based on how much was contained in sources as well as from actual data on emissions collected from modern power plants. In the United States, government agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy collect such data.
Sulfur’s Story
The factors that determine total emissions are the amount of fuel consumed, its sulfur content, and any pollution controls employed. The team found that manmade sources of sulfur emissions eclipsed natural sources by 1870, two decades after the start date of this analysis. By the year 2000, however, refineries were removing half the sulfur from crude oil, reducing emissions, the researchers estimated.
Since 1980, the fraction of sulfur coming from petroleum — 50 percent — and coal — 30 percent — has remained constant. In a reflection of desires for cleaner fuels, emissions as a fraction of fuel consumption began decreasing around 1970, due to shifting to lower sulfur fuel sources, different end uses, and emissions controls.
Total global emissions rose dramatically from 1850 to the 1960s, plateaued and then decreased after 1990, and then started rising again in 2000. Although the contribution from major emitters of the past — North America and Europe — has been declining since the 1970s, sulfur emissions are rising in much of the rest of the world. Especially noteworthy is China with its phenomenal growth. By 2005, China’s share of sulfur emissions came in at 28 percent of the global total, up from about 2 percent in 1950.
The international shipping industry generally uses a lower quality, higher sulfur content fuel than other transportation modes, and emissions from this activity have been growing in importance. They now constitute 10 percent of the global total. Although rising during the study’s time frame, a recent international agreement referred to as MARPOL promises to dramatically reduce these emissions in future years.
“Emissions from international shipping have not gone unnoticed,” said Smith.
Up and Coming
Although there is no central repository or process to keep this kind of information up-to-date, Smith reports that this data is being used by other researchers from climate modelers to social scientists. An earlier version of the data has already been used in models that are exploring possible futures of global climate, results that will be used in the next assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
In addition, Smith is curious to see recent emissions data from China, the largest sulfur emitter in the world. “The most recent numbers in this study are from 2005, six years ago,” said Smith. “Since this data was collected, China’s emissions-control efforts have gotten much stronger. In China, the government is well aware of the impacts of sulfur emissions on health and ecosystems, and they’ve started to control them.”
Reference: S. J. Smith, J. van Aardenne, Z. Klimont, R. J. Andres, A. Volke, S. Delgado Arias, Anthropogenic Sulfur Dioxide Emissions: 1850-2005, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, February 9, 2011, DOI 10.5194/acp-11-1101-2011.
This work was supported by the US Department of Energy’s Office of Science.

The Joint Global Change Research Institute is a unique partnership formed in 2001 between the Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and the University of Maryland. The PNNL staff associated with the center are world renowned for expertise in energy conservation and understanding of the interactions between climate, energy production and use, economic activity and the environment.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Won’t these emissions exacerbate the cooling scenario over the next decades forecast by prominent scientists? Doesn’t sulfur smog block sunlight very strongly?
China should be asked, or leveraged, to utilize clean coal technology, in which sulfur is scrubbed. This important air pollutant has been lost in the noisy chatter about the absurdly trivial CO2 “pollution”.
Why aren’t GE or Siemens using their talents to manufacture next generation scrubbers, instead of the silly pinwheels?
Excellent! Now there’s an aerosol to take the blame for global cooling (if such were to occur).
Sulfer: The next big cap and trade program?
Lemme see now, Carbonic acid is a weak acid; and Sulphuric acid is a strong acid. Do I have those in the right order ?
I couldn’t see any corals growing in that Chinese “weather” picture.
Kung Fu Panda.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/76/Kungfupanda.jpg/220px-Kungfupanda.jpg
Cooling the Globe
Many climate specialists see so-called geoengineering techniques as a way to bring down global temperatures if other attempts to combat global warming fail. One approach is to inject sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, where it reacts to form particles that block sunlight.
Roll over the numbers in the infographic to learn more.
http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/magazine/16-07/ff_geoengineering?currentPage=all
well,
[b]Thanks to Nature, a Large Atmospheric Sulfur Dioxide Experiment is Now Underway in the Pacific[/b]
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/08/18/large-atmospheric-sulfur-dioxide-experiment-now-underway-in-the-pacific/
wow…
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/so2_experiment.png?w=510&h=367
COEFFICIENTS OF THE EMISSION MATRIX
http://ecen.com/matriz/eee24/coefycin.htm#COEFFICIENTS
This can’t be true. After all, we all know that all pollution is caused by us in “the west”. (/sarc)
Is this going to be used to explain the lack of warming and/or cooling in future years?
Ye Olde “the global warming is masked” meme?
I guess we should all still be afraid because global warming will be back with a vengeance.
Warmist will definately try to blame increased SOx emissions for the coming global cooling. This is not good, because it can prolong CO2 hysteria.
For the same reason increased volcanic activity would be bad. It might be an easy escape for warmists and prolongation of the madness.
Gene Zeien says:
February 15, 2011 at 9:35 am
Excellent! Now there’s an aerosol to take the blame for global cooling (if such were to occur).
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
No doubt the warmists will point to this research and suggest that this explains why there has been no statistical warming since 2000. This has masked (and is masking) the effects of CO2 and that the underlying temperature trend is therefore still up.
John S. says:
February 15, 2011 at 9:38 am
Sulfer: The next big cap and trade program?
Already done – See EPA’s Acid Rain Program, the Clean Air Interstate Rule, and the next one coming will be the Clean Air Transport Rule.
Interesting article, especially in light of EPA’s latest policy assessment for SO2 and NOx National Ambient Air Quality Standards:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/no2so2sec/data/20110204pamain.pdf
wonder how much CO2 makes it to Hawaii from China?
Yep, the ‘just so’ story about global warming just got another ad hoc parameter to play with.
“Warmist will definately try to blame increased SOx emissions for the coming global cooling. ”
Look at the Net change in the Totals for all regions.
By eye it looks like the total actually drops after 1975 or so.
But, the “Warmist will definately try” anyway.
Eclipsed natural sources by 1870….
So we have logged all natural sources?
Isn’t there a volcano in Kamchatka that emits half of Japan’s SO2?
This will give the CO2AGW theorists a bit of therapy and calm down the hysterics and desperation because it allows the theory to hide under a smog. Damn.
Back to the acid rain bit of alarmism? And as noted, now a prime suspect to pin on cooling so they won’t have to admit they’ve wasted everybody’s time and money on their contrivances and being wrong for about 4 decades. Smells bad.
Oh, and I have a surprise for many of you. Sulphur is plant nutrient required in amounts of about 10% of the nitrogen requirements. How did you think the sulphur got into coal? Okay, so sulphur in the past century’s atmosphere was not unprecidented.
http://www.agriculture.gov.sk.ca/Default.aspx?DN=1910208b-760e-4582-ac32-56ed8980b5a6
Gary,
I think you are trying to say that burning wood (which was not accounted for in the study) leads to Sulfur emissions. Yes, how did people heat their homes before 1850? Wood!
So, first China is near the top in CO2 production, but it is ok since they also countered it with large amounts of SO2.
This little article will definitely keep the hockey team from ever having to issue a mea culpa for the attempted destruction of Science. I don’t mind them being wrong, that comes with the territory of trying to stay on the bleeding edge of things, it’s the corruption of scientific scrutiny and falsifiable hypotheses that makes me cringe. Now we won’t have that moment when things cool again that clearly demonstrates the teams error.
Most of that stuff we call smog are sub-micron size sulfuric acid aerosols. It is especially harmful to our health because those size aerosols reach deep into our lungs (unlike gases that are adsorbed in passage ways). Acid rain, acid fog, acid dew, acid frost are all very damaging to most surfaces. Sulfur dioxide is a well known criteria polluntant that we have been attempting to control in the U. S. for decades. Early scrubber designs produced a “blue mist” that was sulfuric acid. Regardless of what China does in the future, we should continue reducing those emissions. Lives depend on us doing it.
John S.,
Where did you think the idea of the CO2 cap and trade program came from? It works relatively well for SO2 since there are relatively few sources of sulfur in the nation (notably, coal-fired power plants). Also, it helps that technology already exists to lower sulfur emissions from those power plants (e.g., switching to low sulfur coal, installing limestone scrubbers, etc.). Also, most sulfur has been removed from gasoline and diesel (at refinery operations) due to separate legislation. In 20 years or so, as more natural gas plants replace coal-based plants (not all have scrubbers by the way), I expect sulfur emissions will eventually be 10% of its peak in the US (note the graph above shows North America which includes dirty power plants and fuel in Mexico). However, removing CO2 from its sources is about 100x more complicated.
If, I said ‘if’, it should ever become necessary to restrict Chinese emmissions, the answer is quite simple and should not take more than 24 hours to implement — Close every retail outlet in the United States. Say what? Jobs? No! No! Don’t worry about that. We have Government Medical Insurance, Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, Food Stamps, AND radio, flashlights, candles, gas, and heating oil for about 30 days. (SarcOff)
If SO2 emissions were the culprit of cooling, industrial areas would see major cooling compared to rural areas, since the sun blocking effect would be much stronger over there. Not observed.
That’s it! Trenberth’s “missing heat”! Problem solved. sarc/off
There may be a silver lining here. If, as many of us suspect, CO2 is not the cause of damaging global warming, the economic externality involved in CO2 emissions would have a positive net social value due to its stimulative effects on plant growth, and hence food production. Some of the sulfuric acid that is produced by sulfur emissions would react with carbonates in seawater and rocks to release precious, life giving, CO2 into the atmosphere that will help “feed the children” around the world. Who could not be in favor of this? This is not to say that sulfur emissions are a net benefit, only that a positive component to the externality may exist, and it should be accounted for in any analysis that attempts to measure the cost of such emissions.