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.
So the Forest Service should knock off this ‘controlled burn’ business and go back to total fire suppression?
Most sea ice melts from the bottom up. The thickness of the sea ice depends on how cold the atmosphere above the ice is. The colder the air, the thicker the ice. That means that if the air gets warmer but is still many degrees below freezing, the ice will melt from below until it reaches whatever thickness that air temperature will support.
Most of the energy required to melt the sea ice comes from the ocean. The net flux is from the ocean to the ice to the atmosphere or radiation to space.
Ice is an insulator. Less ice means less insulation. Ice also prevents evaporation. Evaporation can transfer a huge amount of heat to the atmosphere. I think it likely that the net result of an ice free arctic ocean is that much more heat is transferred from the ocean to the atmosphere than for an ice covered ocean (even if the albedo decreases).
Here’s a link to an article that gives an idea of the complexity of the issue: http://www.eoearth.org/article/Sea_ice?topic=49523
Katherine got farther into the article than I did. Anyone who finds a solution for a hypothesis before they’ve proved the hypothesis leaves me thinking we need better stewardship of our grant dollars.
What is black soot? Words have meanings – just not always the meaning they should have.
In the parts of the USA where water freezes on roads and careless drivers earn Darwin Awards the relief from blame comes with the understanding that the cause was black ice. This always makes me think of comedian Flip Wilson’s saying “the Devil made me do it.” In any case, the roads are mostly made of black material except when they are not, and the ice is clear – lines and markings can be seen through it. Nevertheless, “black ice” it is!
“Black soot” is considered to be the product of incomplete combustion of hydrocarbon. As such it differs from the “soot” under your bed. That is, some folks use the term for fine debris that gets blown about, say from pulverized rock, leaves, corn flakes, and dandruff. These two meanings should be decipherable from the context.
Alan the Brit says:
September 1, 2011 at 2:12 am
“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!”
Reference the Universal Law of Dust which says: “dark dust only falls on light objects and light dust only falls on dark objects”.
Soot again? About the only thing it might contribute to is melting of ice and snow. The only reason it should be controlled as much as possible is due to the adverse effects of breathing it, because it is in fact, a pollutant, unlike C02. All this hand-wringing over its “warming” effects is total nonsense, and a red herring. We don’t need an excuse to clean up soot/black carbon.
John F. Hultquist says:
September 1, 2011 at 8:27 am
“In the parts of the USA where water freezes on roads and careless drivers earn Darwin Awards the relief from blame comes with the understanding that the cause was black ice. This always makes me think of comedian Flip Wilson’s saying “the Devil made me do it.” In any case, the roads are mostly made of black material except when they are not, and the ice is clear – lines and markings can be seen through it. Nevertheless, “black ice” it is!
Since I was a youngin’ living in New England and skating on frozen ponds, ‘Black Ice’ refers to ice that has frozen so clear that when you look at it it appears to be black. Of course what you are seeing is the dark water in the pond below the ice. I guess the description is now used for any clear ice.
steveta_uk says:
September 1, 2011 at 2:40 am
Stephen Skinner says:
September 1, 2011 at 12:06 am
“I think the main image is upside down?”
“”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.””
Anthony and Steveta. I think the main picture should be rotated vertically. Top to bottom, bottom to top. Currently the land is closest at the top of the picture and the clouds are casting their shadows up. It all looks odd.
Doesn’t the Arctic sea ice float? I don’t see how it would contribute to a rise in sea level if it all melted (the old “melting ice cube in a full glass of water” science class experiment.)
Regarding carbon, I think that this clearly shows how the science of climate change is ANYTHING but settled!! Also, the geopolitics are vast…..if, as this article surmises, that much of the problem is from China, what the hell do we do about it anyway? Pay them not to pollute?
A few years ago, Ramanathan launched a bunch of unmanned aerial vehicles – UAV’s – into China’s brown cloud (black carbon) to collect data and found that the brown cloud apparently, and unexpectedly, produced higher temperatures within the cloud. So we have the brown cloud producing higher temperatures, and then the soot settles on the Arctic and Himalayan ice and melts that ice and speeds up glacial and polar melting. Hunh.
As for the health effects of the brown cloud/black carbon/soot, it’s awful – hundreds of thousands of Indians and Chinese are dying every year from soot-related respiratory diseases due to their cooking stoves which use dung, biofuel and coal in enclosed spaces. I think we in the West could offer humanitarian aid by supplying more effective and cheap cooking stoves using gas, solar, whatever. As for the Chinese, I read somewhere that their newest coal burning plants have installed particulate-capturing technology to reduce this problem. If they can also retrofit their existing coal plants with this technology, so much the better. But it’s ultimately their decision on the quality of life they want for their people. We can help, but we’re not the solution.
“Soot” is just another nit-picking way to hate humanity and put up road-blocks to its survival. I’m surprised anyone here takes this new tactic seriously.
More soot than in WWI and II.
Those trucks transport every item used in commerce without which the modern world would collapse into third world status. And diesel trucks would be replaced by what that has not yet been ivented?
Is there a mental disorder that finds danger and fault in everything good and attaching it to an imaginary outcome or is it an excuse to grab power and control.
Probably too obvious to mention, but “soot” or “black carbon” is also “wasted fuel”. Filtering it out is good, burning it up (in a place where it would do some good) is even better. I don’t know how to improve combustion efficiency – the people who do are working on it (I hope).
Best,
Frank
I’ve read stories about how some charity or international agency is promoting the use of more efficient stoves in India, which use the traditional fuels. These are claimed to cut soot emissions by about 50%, iirc, and provide more heat. And they’re cheap (sheet metal, I think).
PS: A high-efficiency, compact, lightweight, innovative, and fairly cheap camping stove (I have one), the “Littlbug” (no “e”) is available from:
http://www.littlbug.com/
How much does soot lower the melting point of snow and ice? And how many hours of sunlight are required for the soot to lower the melting point. I ask because I have been in the far north in the winter, and believe me, even when the sun was at its peak (still far down on the horizon), solar energy melted nothing outside! Therefore I assume all this melting is done during the summer months. And what stops the ice and snow from replenishing when the temperatures drop? Just curious.
Quote from the American Chemical Society article:
“Soot emissions are second only to carbon dioxide (CO2) in promoting global warming, but its effects have been underestimated in previous climate models. ”
Title of this post:
Soot easier to control than CO2 – may help Arctic ice
So, control the soot, but not the CO2?
of course if you want to stop the trucks with their EVILE diesel engines you could try the novel concept of steel wheels (with one inch guide ridges on their inner edges) and run them down steel ribs set in the ground. of course this would mean that less diesel fuel would be used because a steel wheel against a steel rib takes much less power to move…….. and then if you really wanted to be green you could run a wire over the ribway and draw electric power from atomic reactors to power your system and every thing would be peachy keene.
well thats a railway. the first ones in the united states were built in the 1830s. the business about the reactor happened in 1953 when the Pennslyvania Railroad ran a train on tracks speciffically fed by the reactor at Saybrooke in newhampshire.
and you know what they do it every day. they just use commercial power from the grid which is what 20% nuke.
if you really want to cut diesel soot why not electrify the mainlines of the five big railroads as a WPA project and get the show on the road.
C
pk says:
September 3, 2011 at 1:41 pm
“…if you really want to cut diesel soot why not electrify the mainlines of the five big railroads as a WPA project and get the show on the road.”
Don’t you mean “get the show off the road”?
SIRRAH SKINNER:
the major railroads have taken a really good look at the economics and have signed contracts with the big trucking companies and as a result have given up the shorter than 500 mile hauls.
that means that if one of the two companies is offered a haul of say 350 miles the truck company does it. that is a (less than car load quantity) if it is more then its put in a trailer or container and taken to a tranship hub and put on a train.
railroads are interested in huge quantities hauled many many miles. these are mainly coal and ores.
at the coal fields they load a 12,000 tare train in three hours. and unload it in about the same time.
where they haul massive amounts of liquid (they cannot compete with pipelines but can and have competed successfully with coastal shipping) they have an arrangement where an entire train is loaded and discharged by connecting to a single connection [they cheat by breaking the train into several segments and connecting the fill and discharge lines into about a quarter of the train at each connection]. these they load and unload in 3-4 hours per trainload.
however the greenies consider them EVIL as they are large companies that study their work assiduously and don’t jump for the latest snake oil formula.
C