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.
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.
Surely eliminating soot wouldn’t undo past warming, merely reduce the rate of future warming? Or does Dr. Jacobson really mean what the article said, that the Arctic temperature anomaly would decrease back to zero (or near that)?
First of all, there is no
Just take a look at NASA’s Earth Observatory and select forrest fires and dust storms and volcano’s. That will convince you that the anthropogenic soot is totally insignificant.
Besides some pictures of “haze” over Asia there are no visible “soot events” observed from space.
What you do find is an incredible number of massive natural dust, smoke and volcanic emission events.
One striking picture shows a dust plumes emerging off the Alaska coast.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=47082
This is the dust found on the Alaska glaciers but as always, natural causes are ignored.
Only human activity is interesting since it is humanity that is targeted here.
Some people think over population is a threat to the planet.
Only a doctrine that provides unlimited political control over humanity can do something about that, see: http:/green-agenda.com and UN Agenda 21
In short, the current establishment simply wants a few billion of us to vanish from the planet.
So at the UN all the talk is about “human rights” while at the same time they pull the plug on our economies.
Now help me, what was the article about?
My most recent environmental projects all centre on black carbon emissions, which the IPCC has until this year basically ignored.
Black carbon soot kills people in the third world daily. Major sources of it are the brick kilns used throughout India, China and Pakistan etc. and the cooking stoves which are basically universal throughout the third world.
Soot is a real health threat to many humans, it kills them, it genuinely pollutes, and it is turning up on ice worldwide, which must have some effect, quaere what effect that is pending more studies.
Eyal Porat says: September 1, 2011 at 1:03 am
“Why not just claim the obvious: Ice loss in arctic is caused by soot.”
Because no one’s thought of a way to make money out of it yet?
Likewise, if you wanted “solar power” in most northern latitudes you can do this simply by having big south facing windows, and small ones on the north. But no one can sell you a bigger window, but they can sell a solar panel which costs most in energy to produce than it will ever produce unless you spend half the time up a ladder cleaning them … yet another thing they don’t mention.
The scaling up of CO2 in the climate models is a theory that is completely bogus. It has no evidence to support it, except that you have to scale up CO2 to match the temperature curve, and then when the evidence goes against it … it did not predict the cooling … what happens? We get called racist holocaust deniers for pointing out that this scaled up CO2 theory is totally rejected by the evidence.
Capitalist markets work well in some areas, but in other’s like preying on the gullibility of people they work entirely against the good.
Since we are not warming (have not since 1998 and cooling since 2006), would this not be a meaningless goal?
Decreasing soot, of course, is good just to respect the environment and if it is not exorbitant in expense. If it was expensive to do, the prospect would have to be seriously considered: to do or not to do, particularly as there are no established effects shown by soot on the current cooling. China’s soot is in the northern hemisphere and the southern hemisphere has had the most cooling.
Why are these people talking about fighting global warming when we are not warming? Are they stuck in one mode, being simple-minded, wedded to a single meme, or just stubborn and not well informed?
The CO2 obsession of the AGW movement has cost us billions of dollars, time and lives.
My question is… Is the greatest melting of the Arctic ice from the top or underneath?
Anyone who’s ever used a couple small lumps of coal as eyes for a snowman, and seen them fall out a few days later, knows this. Black carbon absorbs solar energy far more readily than the snow and ice around it, radiating back out and melting the surrounding white stuff.
The westerlies that bring warmth to the Arctic and compact sea ice, will also bring soot from the continents. Could this be a factor in the location of the main areas of seasonal ice loss compared to climatalogical norms, i.e. north-east of China?
The tipping point bit was a load of hokum though.
Like many other people throughout the world and throughout history, the Chinese have made a choice and decided to make a trade-off of some pollution in exchange for not living in abject poverty.
We’ve all seen studies indicating a reduction in soot and other particulate matter caused the late 20th century warming because cleaner air allows more sunlight to strike the earth and warm it. And studies which say the exact opposite. And studies which say soot is causing the northern snowpack/icepack to melt.
Which is right? I recall when Bob Dole ran for president and they asked him if he wore boxers or briefs. The answer? “Depends.”
This soot thing will go nowhere with the elitists since the soot in the world does not reflect upon how “evil,” and morally “corrupt” the United States is, which is their true objective.
Wasn’t it the dramatic increase in artic ice during the early seventies that set off the coming ice age scare? I believe Time ran an article claiming a 20% increase. Where’s the evidence that this is so abnormal?
If soot levels are causing the ice loss, why wasn’t it there from
Soot ‘influences Arctic climate’
Human activities have left a visible mark on the Arctic. Measurements from ice cores suggest that soot released by industrial activities has influenced climate change in the Arctic. The researchers looked at ice cores covering the period 1788 to 2002. The natural record shows that concentrations of black carbon, or soot, were particularly bad from 1851 to 1951, Science journal reports.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6939633.stm
And would reducing the levels also lead to drought?
The problem was how to heat the droplets differentially. Dr. van Straten solved it with carbon black, which is a fluffy kind of soot whose intensely black particles, about 500.00 in diameter, accumulate radiant heat just like a blacktop road. When these particles are released in a cloud, she reasoned, the water droplets that capture one or more of them should grow warmer by absorbing sunlight, and should lose their moisture by evaporation to droplets that have stayed comparatively cool because they have captured no particles. Then the cool, fattened-up droplets should fall slowly through the cloud, growing gradually bigger by jostling small droplets and combining with them. Eventually they should grow big enough to fall from the cloud.
This system, worked out theoretically, worked like a charm in actual fact, the Navy announced last week. It was tested last July over the coast of Georgia. The usual tactic was to attach a package of 1-2 Ibs. of carbon black to a static line and toss it out of an airplane flying through the top of a cloud. When the slack snapped out of the line, the package broke open, releasing the carbon black. Seven clouds out of seven tested dissipated entirely in 2½ to 20 minutes.
When carbon black is released in moist, cloudless air the effect is opposite but no less magical. Its black particles catch sunlight and heat the air between them. The heated air rises, expands and grows colder. Some of its moisture condenses, and a new, white cloud appears in the sky. This system will not form clouds in dry air, but when the air is moist enough, it works almost every time. The official Navy attitude is that the action of carbon black is “an interesting effect” that will have to be studied a great deal more before it can be rated as a promising rainmaking agent.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,825527,00.html
Soot…… Yeah, thats the ticket!
There are a lot of more pressing reasons for China to reduce soot emissions than worrying about melting polar ice. But their government has placed a higher value on rapid development over environment or public health. I don’t see that changing any time soon. But they might be willing to fix this if western governments would give them money to save the polar bears.
“…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.”
Uhhh…yes there is…it’s call polar nighttime. When the sun goes down during the polar winter, the temps fall & the water freezes. Happens every year. This really isn’t that hard 😉
Jeff
75% of the people in India and China still burn coal, charcoal, stover, and trash for cooking and heating. I am sure the Koch brothers would gladly sell air scrubbers. It is a specialty business they have for refineries and smokestacks in general.
We are smoking meats this weekend. Yum. Mesquite is the best.
George E. Smith says:
September 1, 2011 at 1:19 am
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.
——–
Yes. But I am also wondering if the rays that hit the downslope side also hit the upslope side of the next wave. Possibly at an even greater angle. Time to get the drawing instruments out and do some ray tracing diagrams.
“This study 1) undermines the IPCC theory of mid-20th century cooling – had the soot/sulphate aerosols caused cooling”
Agreed, the cooling then warming post WWII was according to mainstream caused by aerosols and CO2. When the Clean Air Act cleaned up the air, the cooling stopped and warming started.
Thus, this study debunks the idea that cooling after WWII was a result of pollution.
Soot is of course a real pollutant. There are good reasons to try to reduce it without it having a climate impact. The best way would probably be to phase out wood and dung burning cooking in places like India in favor of gas stoves. Economic development to the rescue!
“Besides some pictures of “haze” over Asia there are no visible “soot events” observed from space.”
The Haze was particularly bad in 1997 and killed one of the hereditary Malaysia kings. Largely a result of companies clearing land in Borneo to plant oil palm. At one point the haze covered most of SE Asia and was so thick you could no see more than a few hundred feet at best. It hurt the eyes and made breathing difficult. Anyone with respiratory illness was at risk.
While burning to clear land is “illegal”, the temptation is too high, as the burned jungle is ready made fertilizer for whatever crops are planted in its place. A company gets hired to clear the land, they hire another company, on down the line until a couple of unemployed locals with oil lamps are payed a few $$ to walk through the jungle, spilling lit oil as they go. When investigated, everyone has the necessary paperwork to show they acted legally.
“Nine out of the 10 warmest years on record since 1850 were during 2000-2010.” Since 1850 coincides roughly with the end of the Little Ice Age, this inane quote is like someone in the NH issuing a statement in June that reads “Nine out of the 10 warmest days on record this year occurred this month.”
Remember – soot is carbon! Carbon evil! Carbon bad!
Unless it’s produced by a non-western nation such as India or China, of course. One answer is to restrict our production (and consumption) of everything to help compensate. And to feel better about ourselves.
Seriously, though. They will ignore everything about this unless they can tie it into big oil.
Evidence ? We ain’t got no evidence . We don’t need no evidence ! I don’t have to show you any stinkin’ evidence!
I don’t know what it is about this subject [ black carbon], but the world of climate science and sceptics alike have ignored it for the last two years or more.
I first heard about it through Drew Shindell’s research, later through the testimony of Shindell, Jacobsen and others to Congress, and since then have raised it on many blogs in Australia, the US, including this blog, the UK—in the online newspapers of various countries—on the blog of Australia’s AGW scientists after they released their ‘Critical Decade’ report, obsessing about the Arctic melt, sea level rise and the various ‘tipping points’, with their only mitigation solutions being carbon taxes and carbon trading—and I raised it two years ago on Real Climate—only to be told there was no soot impacting on the arctic regions.
This was one of the early reports I read on it:
[ ‘Washington, D.C., April 2, 2009 – An article published this week in Nature Geoscience shows that black carbon is responsible for 50%, or almost 1 ˚C of the total 1.9 ˚C increased Arctic warming from 1890 to 2007. The paper by Drew Shindell of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space (GISS) and Greg Faluvegi of Columbia University also notes that most of the Arctic warming – 1.48 ˚C of the 1.9 ˚C – occurred from 1976 to 2007. The study is the first to quantify the Arctic’s sensitivity to black carbon emissions from various latitudes, and concludes that the Arctic responds strongly to black carbon emissions from the Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes, where the emissions and the forcing are greatest.
Black carbon is an aerosol produced from the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels and biomass and is estimated to be the second or third largest contributor to climate change. Its emissions cause damage in two ways: while in the atmosphere, the dark particulates absorb sunlight and emit it as heat; when it falls back to earth it can darken snow and ice, reducing their reflectivity and accelerating melting.’]
This is a report on Jacobsen’s work;
http://www.igsd.org/documents/PR_JacobsonBCstudy_29July2010_000.pdf
And it’s all there in the report of Shindell, Jacobsen et al lobbying Congress—can’t find that link.
And elsewhere in Shindell’s words—
[ [“We will have very little leverage over climate in the next couple of decades if we’re just looking at carbon dioxide,” Shindell said. “If we want to try to stop the Arctic summer sea ice from melting completely over the next few decades, we’re much better off looking at aerosols and ozone.” ]
Why is it , I wonder, that those of us who are sceptical of the CO2 hysteria and the motives of those promoting it, want the black carbon impacts mitigated, and the Arctic warming stopped or slowed——but the true believers of CO2-induced GW do not—in fact don’t even want it mentioned? Are they afraid they’ll lose their relevance and power over us all?
We who are sceptical of the CO2 hysteria , certainly believe human activity has had an effect on the weather patterns of areas where it has impacted—and maybe , in its entirety , on the world climate.
Very few people deny that the destruction of massive tracts of the world’s forests and grasslands for agriculture, the replacement of rural land by concrete and steel over huge areas, the roads built and fuel burned in the transport of goods and people between the urban heat islands and between countries and continents—-all anthropogenic—alter weather patterns to some extent —– but they’re more a direct function of the enormous increase in world population than of CO2.
What makes us truly sceptical is the fact that warmists want to use CO2 hysteria less for real mitigation, than to bring on new taxes—to build huge bureaucracies, nationally and especially globally, to redistribute wealth—to water down sovereignty—to mandate the shift of taxpayers’ funds and technology from the democracies to the pseudo-democracies and the various versions of authoritarian regimes and Communist dictatorships—and generally to give the dysfunctional UN unprecedented oversight of, and authority over, the most democratic countries on earth.
And if this CO2 hysteria is not revealed for what it is—the panic it unleashes will infest all of the decent economies of the world with carpet-baggers in there for their cut, flogging dubious offsets, and , as is already happening in Europe, the Mafia in all its iterations along with the rest of the world’s criminals— all making carbon trading their own lucrative plaything.