From the American Chemical Society something I’ve always wondered about, that soot plays a major role in the Arctic. Controlling soot though, has to start outside of the United States, because soot emissions are already highly regulated by the EPA.
Cutting soot emissions: Fastest, most economical way to slow global warming
DENVER, Aug. 31, 2011 — A new study of dust-like particles of soot in the air — now emerging as the second most important — but previously overlooked — factor in global warming provides fresh evidence that reducing soot emissions from diesel engines and other sources could slow melting of sea ice in the Arctic faster and more economically than any other quick fix, a scientist reported here today.
In a presentation at the 242nd National Meeting & Exposition of the American Chemical Society (ACS), Mark Z. Jacobson, Ph.D., cited concerns that continued melting of sea ice above the Arctic Circle will be a tipping point for the Earth’s climate, a point of no return. That’s because the ice, which reflects sunlight and heat back into space, would give way to darker water that absorbs heat and exacerbates warming. And there is no known way to make the sea refreeze in the short term.
Jacobson’s calculations indicate that controlling soot could reduce warming above parts of the Arctic Circle by almost 3 degrees Fahrenheit within 15 years. That would virtually erase all of the warming that has occurred in the Arctic during the last 100 years.
“No other measure could have such an immediate effect,” said Jacobson, who is with Stanford University. “Soot emissions are second only to carbon dioxide (CO2) in promoting global warming, but its effects have been underestimated in previous climate models. Consequently, soot’s effect on climate change has not been adequately addressed in national and international global warming legislation. Soot emissions account for about 17 percent of global warming, more than greenhouse gases like methane. Soot’s contribution, however, could be reduced by 90 percent in 5-10 years with aggressive national and international policies.”
Soot or “black carbon” consists of particles, nearly invisible on an individual basis, released in smoke from combustion of fossil fuels and biofuels. Major sources include exhaust from diesel cars, buses, trucks, ships, aircraft, agricultural machines, construction equipment and the wood/animal dung fires that hundreds of millions of people in developing countries use for used for cooking and heating. Black carbon particles become suspended in the atmosphere and absorb sunlight, just like a black t-shirt on a sunny day. The particles then radiate that heat back into the air around it. Black carbon also can absorb light reflected from Earth’s surface, which helps make it such a potent warming agent.
The good news is that decreasing soot could have a rapid effect, Jacobson said. Unlike carbon dioxide, which remains in the atmosphere for years, soot disappears within a few weeks, so that there is no long-term reservoir with a continuing warming effect. And the technology for controlling black carbon, unlike that for controlling CO2, already is available at relatively modest cost. Diesel particulate filters, for instance, can remove soot from car and truck exhaust. Government and other agencies also are trying to introduce low-soot cookstoves in developing countries. “Converting gasoline- and diesel-burning cars and trucks to electric or hydrogen vehicles and reducing emissions from diesel generators could have an immediate effect on warming,” according to Jacobson.
Jacobson, who developed the first detailed climate model to include the global effects of soot, reported on use of the model to gain new insights into the effects of soot particles trapped inside and between the water droplets that make up clouds. Previous research on black carbon and climate overlooked that topic. Jacobson said the information is important because black carbon within clouds makes the clouds “burn off” and disappear over heavily polluted urban and other areas. Climate models that ignore this “cloud absorption” phenomenon underestimate the effects of black carbon on climate.
The American Chemical Society is a non-profit organization chartered by the U.S. Congress. With more than 163,000 members, ACS is the world’s largest scientific society and a global leader in providing access to chemistry-related research through its multiple databases, peer-reviewed journals and scientific conferences. Its main offices are in Washington, D.C., and Columbus, Ohio.
To automatically receive news releases from the American Chemical Society contact newsroom@acs.org.
ABSTRACT:
Air pollution mortality and global warming are two significant problems today. Over 2.5 million people die prematurely each year worldwide from air pollution. Nine out of the 10 warmest years on record since 1850 were during 2000-2010. The Arctic sea ice extent has dropped 10% (1 million square kilometers) since 1979. Sea levels have risen 1.8 mm/year for the past century but 2.8 mm/year in the most recent decade. In this talk, I provide new results examining the relative contributors to global warming and air pollution health problems. Fossil-fuel and solid biofuel soot particles are found to be the second-leading cause of global warming after carbon dioxide. Whereas fossil-fuel soot is a stronger warmer than biofuel soot, biofuel soot enhances mortality about 8 times more on a global scale, since it is emitted mostly in highly-populated developing countries. Part of the strong climate effect of black carbon is due to its absorption within cloud drops. BC inclusions within cloud drops result in a greater heating rate than the same BC interstitially between cloud drops, and interstitial BC causes more heating than BC in the clear sky. As such, ignoring BC inclusions within cloud drops or between cloud drops results in underestimates of the climate effects of BC. Controlling fossil-fuel and biofuel soot appears to be the fastest method of reducing Arctic ice loss and global warming than any other control option, including control of CH4 or CO2, although all controls are needed.
This soot-warming effect will be important when people realize that the real danger is cooling, not warming, and we need to start doing some serious soot-dusting of the great white north if we want to put off the threat of another Little Ice Age or worse. How about dotting northern Asia and America with hundreds of new coal plants that are designed for two modes of operation, old fashioned sooty-dirty for the winter, and new-fangled dirty (CO2 producing, but not soot producing) for the summer?
In North America we mainly use gasoline. It is very clean on the soot. Most of the rest of the world is on diesel. It’s true they are more efficient but they do emit a lot of soot.
“Jacobson’s calculations indicate that controlling soot could reduce warming above parts of the Arctic Circle by almost 3 degrees Fahrenheit within 15 years. That would virtually erase all of the warming that has occurred in the Arctic during the last 100 years”.
If that’s true, it leaves no room whatsoever for CO₂ induced warming in a region where it should have been the largest, as specific humidity is low there, so the most potent greenhouse gas, H₂O can’t possibly mask its effect. In other words Jacobson implies climate sensitivity to CO₂ is negligible.
That is, it’s certainly worse than we thought, therefore all his grants should be withdrawn as soon as practicable.
The Chinese want to breathe poisonous air about as much as anyone else, I’d imagine. CO2, no problem, of course.
concerns that continued melting of sea ice above the Arctic Circle will be a tipping point for the Earth’s climate, a point of no return. That’s because the ice, which reflects sunlight and heat back into space, would give way to darker water that absorbs heat and exacerbates warming. And there is no known way to make the sea refreeze in the short term.
I stopped reading there.
I think the main image is upside down?
“cited concerns that continued melting of sea ice above the Arctic Circle will be a tipping point for the Earth’s climate, a point of no return. That’s because the ice, which reflects sunlight and heat back into space, would give way to darker water that absorbs heat and exacerbates warming. And there is no known way to make the sea refreeze in the short term.”
Rubbish. Less ice, more loss of heat to space from open water – refreezing in short order.
Not convinced at all. There is zero correlation between soot and Arctic temperatures, or ice extent. This is just desperate attempt to find another anthropogenic cause of everything.
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/icrutem3_hadsst2_0-360E_70-90N_n_su_mean1.png
This study 1) undermines the IPCC theory of mid-20th century cooling – had the soot/sulphate aerosols caused cooling then, China should have been much colder now than the rest of the world, which is obviously not happening, 2) if soot warms Arctic, then CO2 has no visible effect in the most sensitive areas (polar caps). The real elephant in the room is Atlantic oscillation, where North Atlantic cools and warms in 30-year cycle and masses of Gulf stream entering the Arctic dictate conditions up there.
Wasn’t it emissions from chinese coal plants, including soot (pm10, etc), which were recently credited with reducing the ‘warming’ effect of CO2 by increasing cloud formation and reflection of solar energy?
Having said that carbon particles (soot) settling on snow and glaciers and causing surface melt has been shown to be happening and talked about for several years, although largely ignored by the CO2 theorists.
tallbloke says:
Rubbish. Less ice, more loss of heat to space from open water – refreezing in short order.
In addition to that: The yearly minimum is in September, when the sun is already very low in the Arctic. Today the sun will have a max altitude of 20 degrees at Longyearbyen, Svalbard (compared to 35 degrees around summer solstice). At such low angles, the reflectivity of water is quite high – however, waves will lower it, so I guess the actual albedo of the open sea cannot really be estimated without measuring it.
Really ? how do they know this ?
If controlling soot without controlling CO2 can reduce global heat, then CO2 is not the problem, but soot. Simple logics.
And again, this rubbish of “Tipping Point”… somebody should teach these folks some history: The North pole was ice free for few thousands years and the Point did not Tip.
Why not just claim the obvious: Ice loss in arctic is caused by soot.
Aren’t soot particles a perfectly good substitute for cosmic ray generated ions, as nucleation sites for water droplet (aka clouds) formation. And that China pollution photo shows that the soot particles are in the atmosphere, and not on the ground; so who cares how fast they are precipitated out as rain; the photo shows they a still plentiful in the atmosphere.
Follows along the same lines as a 2009 paper from Lau: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/15/soot_bigger_than_co2/
Soot warming ‘maybe bigger than greenhouse gases’ – NASA
Forget Copenhagen CO2 cuts, tune your diesel properly
By Lewis Page • 15th December 2009 12:16 GMT
Researchers from NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Centre, also the home of famous carbopocalypse doom-prophet James Hansen, have repeated earlier assertions that atmospheric soot may be as important as greenhouse gases in driving global warming.
…Earlier investigations including the effect of soot had focused on the Arctic, where Goddard scientists have previously suggested that “the impact of aerosols is just as strong as that of the greenhouse gases”. …
…Forget about burping cows, airliners and green IT – just tune up your diesel engine and chip in towards modern stoves for everyone
But according to NASA this week:
…Even Lau’s Goddard colleague Dr James Hansen, who has spent the last several decades relentlessly bigging-up the greenhouse gas threat and pushing for emissions cuts, now admits that soot is a major issue – though he can’t bear to suggest it might actually be bigger than greenhouse gases.
(continued)
And I guess Jacobson did a paper back in 2010 also: http://www.igsd.org/documents/PR_JacobsonBCstudy_29July2010_000.pdf
Where it was said that 50% or more of Arctic sea ice loss was from black soot…
Then as far back as 2003 even James Hansen had a black carbon paper stating that it was twice as effective as CO2… http://www.pnas.org/content/101/2/423.full
and one on the Himalayans from 1990-2000 http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/9/26593/2009/acpd-9-26593-2009.html
another: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ko06100c.html
and yet another NASA researcher in 2009 (this one even has a graph showing just where the clean air regs were started):
I’d bet there are others too, these are just the ones I hapened to have bookmarked.
Wot rubbish!
The Laws of Thermodynamics work as well with dust as they do with every other radiative substance; including water vapour, which is still the elephant squared (and maybe cubed) in this planet’s atmosphere; and given a “greenhouse” only works when there’s a heat trapping membrane as first noted by Prof Woods back in 1910, this li’l grant pitch should reasonably be consigned to reside with those of Mister Hockey Shtick hisself.
But, then again post the recent CERN advice re cosmic rays and cloud nucleation, there might yet be an earn for a bright lad in lining up fine carbon particulates up as a much to be feared accelerator of Global Cooling.
I reckon the Gorecal might be a suitable patron and certainly worth a call for a few tips
“”””” Espen says:
September 1, 2011 at 12:48 am
……………………………At such low angles, the reflectivity of water is quite high – however, waves will lower it, so I guess the actual albedo of the open sea cannot really be estimated without measuring it. “””””
Not necessarily. It is traditional for waves; particularly in the open ocean, to have an upside and a downside. If the sun hits an upslope, decreasing the angle of incidence, and hence the oblique reflectance, next to it is a downslope with an even greater angle of incidence, and grazing angle reflectance. The upslope side does however block a bigger solid angle than the downslope, so it intercepts a bit more flux.
As already noted there are some contradcitions with earlier claims about cooling & warming inducers. Poor old China, she can’t win either way it’s her fault! I can’t help thinking that this is all so much pulp, as what we have pumped out since 1750 must be a mere drop in the ocean (excuse the pun) in comparison to our geological volcanic history? Surely a few Krakatoas would make us look rather stingy?
Could somebody please explain to me what is the difference between “black” soot, & any other kind, because I only seem to be getting the black kind from my woodburner? Sure would like to have some translucent stuff if I could get it!
Ways to reduce soot are well known and not terribly expensive although no one would say they cost nothing at all. Other nations can adopt them with little turmoil.
In contrast, a substantial reduction of CO2 emissions is harder and seems to require a rejection of fossil fuels and a massive change of the entire world economy. Even then it is not clear what, if anything, reducing atmospheric CO2 would do.
Stated another way. If CO2 isn’t a huge problem then a lot of people lose prestige, income, and power.
Re albedo of ruffled water. Wind-ruffled water has a higher albedo than smoothed — one of the reasons that an oil spill which leaves a large area of smoothed water will have a warming effect. Also, ruffled water has higher emissivity and cools faster when not being irradiated — reduced cooling = warming.
Oh, look, NASA seawifs has estimated the amount of oil which coats the world’s oceans — I calculate enough to cover the entire water surface every two weeks. I wonder what that’s doing to global warming.
JF
What? You want to look at the underside of the picture? Not sure what that means, unless it’s printed, in which case the underside is probably plain white.
And there was me thinking that the science was settled.
“Black soot is probably responsible for …..
What is non-black soot?
Something that puzzled me, many moons ago when I kept an allotment in Southern England, was why other allotment keepers went crazy over the sporadic deliveries of soot. This stuff apparently came from the local council that owned the allotments. Supposedly it was a good soil conditioner – it ‘broke up’ clay.
Several moons later, I found out about ‘Terra preta’ and also ‘biochar’ and suddenly everything made sense.
I’m surprised the The American Chemical Society haven’t also heard about these things Maybe, just maybe, soot is not such a bad guy.
Katherine says:
September 1, 2011 at 12:06 am
concerns that continued melting of sea ice above the Arctic Circle will be a tipping point for the Earth’s climate, a point of no return. That’s because the ice, which reflects sunlight and heat back into space, would give way to darker water that absorbs heat and exacerbates warming. And there is no known way to make the sea refreeze in the short term.
I stopped reading there.
I also stopped reading right there, mostly because of the fact that they said ‘there is no known way to make the sea refreeze in the short term’ – Hey geniuses – maybe try waiting for winter!
We all know its the soot from chinese factories that is slowing global warming…SO, lets start writing about how soot is CREATING global warming. That way we’ll fool those pesky deniers AND get AGW going again! WA-HA-HA-HA-HA! [sarc]
(Sorry, couldn’t help it.)