The "cool" particle

Two press release on this this week, both below

From the University of Manchester

Researchers discover particle which could ‘cool the planet’

In a breakthrough paper published in Science, researchers from The University of Manchester, The University of Bristol and Sandia National Laboratories report the potentially revolutionary effects of Criegee biradicals.

These invisible chemical intermediates are powerful oxidisers of pollutants such as nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide, produced by combustion, and can naturally clean up the atmosphere.

Although these chemical intermediates were hypothesised in the 1950s, it is only now that they have been detected. Scientists now believe that, with further research, these species could play a major role in off-setting climate change.

The detection of the Criegee biradical and measurement of how fast it reacts was made possible by a unique apparatus, designed by Sandia researchers, that uses light from a third-generation synchrotron facility, at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory’s Advanced Light Source.

The intense, tunable light from the synchrotron allowed researchers to discern the formation and removal of different isomeric species – molecules that contain the same atoms but arranged in different combinations.

The researchers found that the Criegee biradicals react more rapidly than first thought and will accelerate the formation of sulphate and nitrate in the atmosphere. These compounds will lead to aerosol formation and ultimately to cloud formation with the potential to cool the planet.

The formation of Criegee biradicals was first postulated by Rudolf Criegee in the 1950s. However, despite their importance, it has not been possible to directly study these important species in the laboratory.

In the last 100 years, Earth’s average surface temperature increased by about 0.8 °C with about two thirds of the increase occurring over just the last three decades.

Most countries have agreed that drastic cuts in greenhouse gas emissions are required, and that future global warming should be limited to below 2.0 °C (3.6 °F).

Dr Carl Percival, Reader in Atmospheric Chemistry at The University of Manchester and one of the authors of the paper, believes there could be significant research possibilities arising from the discovery of the Criegee biradicals.

He said: “Criegee radicals have been impossible to measure until this work carried out at the Advanced Light Source. We have been able to quantify how fast Criegee radicals react for the first time.

“Our results will have a significant impact on our understanding of the oxidising capacity of the atmosphere and have wide ranging implications for pollution and climate change.

“The main source of these Criegee biradicals does not depend on sunlight and so these processes take place throughout the day and night.”

Professor Dudley Shallcross, Professor in Atmospheric Chemistry at The University of Bristol, added: “A significant ingredient required for the production of these Criegee biradicals comes from chemicals released quite naturally by plants, so natural ecosystems could be playing a significant role in off-setting warming.’

###

From DOE/Sandia National Laboratories

Sandia, UK partners publish groundbreaking work on Criegee intermediates in Science magazine

IMAGE:Sandia combustion researchers Craig Taatjes and David Osborn discuss data found from the detection and measurement of Criegee intermediate reactions. The apparatus seen on the left was used to make…Click here for more information.

LIVERMORE, Calif. — In a breakthrough paper published in this week’s issue of Science magazine, researchers from Sandia’s Combustion Research Facility, the University of Manchester and Bristol University report direct measurements of reactions of a gas-phase Criegee intermediate using photoionization mass spectrometry. (visit www.youtube.com/SandiaLabs to see a short video of Sandia combustion chemists discussing the research.)

Criegee intermediates – carbonyl oxides – are implicated in autoignition chemistry and are pivotal atmospheric reactants, but only indirect knowledge of their reaction kinetics had previously been available. The article, titled Direct Kinetic Measurements of Criegee Intermediate (CH2OO) Formed by Reaction of CH2I with O2, reports the first direct kinetics measurements made of reactions of any Criegee species, in this case formaldehyde oxide (CH2OO). These measurements determine rate coefficients with key species, such as sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and provide new insight into the reactivity of these transient molecules.

The detection and measurement of the Criegee intermediate reactions was made possible by a unique apparatus, designed by Sandia researchers, that uses light from a third-generation synchrotron user facility, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory’s Advanced Light Source, to investigate chemical reactions that are critical in hydrocarbon oxidation. The intense tunable light from the synchrotron allows researchers to discern the formation and removal of different isomeric species – molecules that contain the same atoms but arranged in different combinations.

In the present case, CH2OO can be distinguished from its more stable isomer, formic acid (HCOOH), because of their differing thresholds for photoionization. The Manchester and Bristol researchers recognized that this apparatus could elucidate not only combustion reactions but also important tropospheric oxidation processes, such as ozonolysis.

Ozonolysis, or the cleavage of carbon-carbon double bonds through reaction with ozone, is a reaction that plays a key role in a number of fields, including synthetic chemistry and tropospheric removal of unsaturated hydrocarbons. In the 1950s, Rudolf Criegee proposed that ozonolysis of alkenes occurs via the carbonyl oxide biradicals, now called Criegee intermediates. Criegee intermediates also have been calculated to be markers of critical chain-branching steps in hydrocarbon autoignition chemistry.

However, until 2008 no gas-phase Criegee intermediate had been observed, and rate coefficients derived from indirect measurements spanned orders of magnitude.

In the Science publication, Sandia researchers reported a new means of producing gas-phase Criegee intermediates and used this method to prepare enough CH2OO to measure its reactions with water, SO2, nitric oxide (NO), and NO2. The ability to reliably produce Criegee intermediates will facilitate studies of their role in ignition and other oxidation systems.

In particular, the present measurements show that the reactions of CH2OO with SO2 and NO2 are far more rapid than previously thought. Moreover, the Bristol and Manchester investigators demonstrated that these kinetics results imply a much greater role of carbonyl oxides in tropospheric sulfate and nitrate chemistry than models had assumed, a conclusion that will substantially impact existing atmospheric chemistry mechanisms. For example, SO2 oxidation is the source of sulfate species that nucleate atmospheric aerosols. Because the oxidation of SO2 by Criegee intermediate is much faster than modelers assumed, Criegee reactions may be a major tropospheric sulfate source, changing predictions of tropospheric aerosol formation.

###

This capability breakthrough was funded by the Office of Basic Energy Sciences (BES) within the Office of Science in the U.S. Department of Energy, and conducted using the Advanced Light Source, a scientific user facility supported by BES.

Sandia National Laboratories is a multi-program laboratory operated by Sandia Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Lockheed Martin company, for the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration. With main facilities in Albuquerque, N.M., and Livermore, Calif., Sandia has major R&D responsibilities in national security, energy and environmental technologies, and economic competitiveness.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
72 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
DirkH
January 14, 2012 1:19 am

Looks like the Criegees mop up pollution and at the same time create clouds. Life seems to have developed some nice ways of controlling the weather. (like the Dimethylsulfid emitted by Plankton when it gets too hot). But don’t call it Gaia – it’s a free market of life forms each with their self interest, not a collective.
Kirkby about the CLOUD experiment and the creation of condensation nuclei by Dimethylsulfid + cosmic rays, 1 hour video:

January 14, 2012 1:27 am

When I started reading this I thought April 1st had come early. But I guess it really is true. There are reactions taking place in the atmosphere which serve as a negative feedback mechanism for temperature increases. Who’d of thought it?! Well I never!
Oh, and what’s this “about two thirds of the [0.8degC] increase occurring over just the last three decades”? Does that include the last 15 where it hasn’t warmed, and the last 10 where it may even have declined a little?

Charles.U.Farley
January 14, 2012 1:39 am

You just know some idiot in UEA is going suggest we seed the atmosphere with this stuff.
Pushing buttons to see what they do eh….Dont press the red one!

Roger Knights
January 14, 2012 1:52 am

D Marshall says:
January 13, 2012 at 9:25 pm
What cooling trend is that?

There might be a very short term one here (a forecast of GISS’s Dec. figure)–we’ll know within a week, when the actual Dec. figure is released by GISS.
http://junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/MSUvsGISTEMP.html

January 14, 2012 2:01 am

This is just but another misinformed idea, just like the year 2000 when most people thought the heavenly body was going to crush the earth, but it never happened!! Stop this guys, there is no shortcut, as long as we continue to emit the greenhouse gases to the earth’s atmosphere, the globe is never going to cool!

Stephen Richards
January 14, 2012 2:05 am

Just utter rubbish. They go from discovering a particle statistically to saving the planet in one giant leap for mankind. Searching funds ?

Otter
January 14, 2012 2:49 am

Very Curious! I have had in mind for about a year now, a short science-fiction piece (I have hopes of being a published writer someday), in which the governments of the Earth deploy a genetically-modified CO2 scavenger, which then goes astray, the end result being a much colder world (and the continent where they chose to test it, pretty much Dead).
I wonder how much longer it will be until someone tries to make use of this new discovery….
I do see a problem here: all the deforestation which had been (is currently?) going on in the Amazon. How long before someone points to this research and claims we are heating the planet, by cutting down the trees that (help) keep it cool?

Steve B
January 14, 2012 2:52 am

I can feel another scam coming on

KnR
January 14, 2012 3:11 am

To keep in line with the first rule of climate science, when the models and reality differ in value its reality which is in error . The following template for climate scientists has been created .
“Its not getting as warm as the model predicted because, (fill in with excuse ) , the models themselves are still perfectly valid “

John Marshall
January 14, 2012 3:14 am

This stupid idea should be binned ASAP.
Every intervention by man to cure a supposed problem in nature has caused worse problems down the line and sometimes insurmountable problems.
If it ain’t broke don’t fix it. And the climate ain’t broke just naturally changing as it always has.

AusieDan
January 14, 2012 3:22 am

Early on, they state that the global temperature has increased by 0.8 degrees, a considerable proportion in the last 30 years.
That rang large warning bells for me.
First they have not attempted to reduced this figure for an allowance for UHI, which must be a substantial percentage of the increase over the last 100 years.
Second, they infer that the 0.3 degree increase over the last thirty years, (I think the figure was) suggests an acceleration in the warming (no doubt mirroring the exponential increase in human CO2 emissions). They fail to note that most or all of the increase since 1980 can be accounted for by the cyclic upturn in the temperature which occurs every 60 years or so (the up zig of the cyclic zig zagzag was from 1976 to about 2005).
I know nothing of their research, but the tone of their report suggests that they believe something should be done about the climate.
They have no evidence to back that up.
Climate engineering must be opposed with great vigor.
Nobody knows what harm could be caused by global scale experiments.
This is one occasion that the so-called cautionary principle should be imposed on scientific cowboys.

January 14, 2012 3:27 am

A virtuous ppm (parts per million) wonder to save the Earth from the evil ppm man made toxin?
I don’t buy ppm climate theories.

January 14, 2012 3:42 am

Mankind has only recently embarked on a quest to understand the infinite in a scientific way.
Every time we discover anything it opens a pathway to more unknowns, if we exist for long enough we might start to understand some things.
This little oddity in itself could cause some heartburn in some green and warming circles, which is to be applauded.
The last few months have seen the beginning of a death by a thousand cuts to AGW, the dagger thrusts seem to be coming from every point of the compass.

Mydogsgotnonose
January 14, 2012 4:04 am

Because the aerosol optical physics misses a second optical effect, net AIE is probably slightly warming.

January 14, 2012 4:16 am

Makes good sense actually. AGW is nothing more than a set of equations, so we should fight it with these non-existent “things” that are nothing more than a set of equations.
Supermath fights Evil Dr Math. No reality involved; just billions of dollars for “scientists”.

markus
January 14, 2012 4:32 am

“”The intense, tunable light from the synchrotron allowed researchers to discern the formation and removal of different isomeric species – molecules that contain the same atoms but arranged in different combinations””.
I hope these nitwits don’t get the consensus to turn us into Venus.

ozspeaksup
January 14, 2012 4:52 am

dont let Gates see this or he will wanna go spray some..

January 14, 2012 4:52 am

The geoengineering gravy train began some time ago in Russia, where i suspect licensing procedures do not involve major public consultation exercises. Prof Izrael, is, i think, the same former Vice Chair of IPCC who once opined, off-message, that all this concern about global warming was misplaced and that the Russian academics thought natural cycles were the primary drivers (2001?). In 2004, Putin signed up to the Kyto carbon coupon scheme, and offered prof Izrael’s global ecology institute a fat percentage to research cooling our overheated planet. The results of the first experimental chem-trails are now in:
Russian Meteorology and Hydrology. Volume 36 Number 11 (2012) – Y.Izrael et al…A field experiment on modeling the impact of aerosol layers on the variability of solar insolation and meteorological characteristics of the surface layer.
In case any bureaucrats inclined to fund other bandwagoneers read this blog – take note (if truth matters int his game!):
1. All GCM models explained the lack of warming between 1945 and 1975 as due to sulphate aerosols from human emissions (and not natural cycles and changes in cloud cover and/or natural aerosols);
2. This error was exposed by three papers in Science in 2005 (read: Chill: a reassessment of global warming theory) but the authors did not point out the implications for the IPCC models; and although the IPCC admitted the error – it was buried in the working group technical reports and no implications were drawn on the models.
3. The implications are: land-based pollution is too small a percentage effect to influence global temperatures; most sulphur emissions are too low in altitude; the major heat gain on the planet is not where the pollution occurs and the pollution does not significantly affect the redistribution of this heat.
Any attempts to spray the planet would have to encompass the 30degreeNorth and 30degreeSouth zone over the major oceans and be prohibitvely expensive and virtually impossible to regulate and predict with any accuracy – and in any case, given that natural cycles are driving the natural aerosol and cloud patterns, we would have to know which way they were going (up or down) and for how long before we made any such interventions.
The whole issue is scientific lunacy….but that is not a good description….is there one word for cynical, self-serving manipulation of cash-laden bureaucrats riding on a fear-based ideology sown into the mass tax-paying consciousness?

January 14, 2012 5:34 am

Researchers looking at combustion chemistry [that’s fire] manage to prepare postulated intermediates for further study. Atmospheric chemists chip in with speculation about other oxidation reactions involving oxygen and ozone with naturally occurring organic species. Probability of significance to “climate change”: Very low. Very low before, very low now. What do they do to bang their own drum? Draught press release containing a few key words plus ‘coulds’, ‘mights’ and ‘maybes’, and let peoples imagination do the rest.
Next.

John-X
January 14, 2012 6:17 am

Thank God !! They’ve finally found a solution!
If only there were a problem.

Janice
January 14, 2012 6:17 am

Hamlet:
Well said, old mole, canst work i’ th’ earth so fast?
A worthy pioner! Once more remove, good friends.
Horatio:
O day and night, but this is wondrous strange!
Hamlet:
And therefore as a stranger give it welcome.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Richard M
January 14, 2012 7:13 am

First the con … additional GHGs will warm the planet. And now the cure … a magical elixir to cool the planet. The sting continues …

January 14, 2012 8:01 am

To all geoengineers: keep your grubby hands off the planet. You do not know what you are doing, and the planet does not need your help anyways. Should the law of unintended consequences bite, you could be responsible for the loss of billions of lives. Do you really want that?

Brian H
January 14, 2012 8:23 am

Robert W;
Grubbiness isn’t the problem. Untrained clumsiness, however, …

Brian H
January 14, 2012 8:34 am

Peter Ward says:
January 14, 2012 at 1:27 am

Oh, and what’s this “about two thirds of the [0.8degC] increase occurring over just the last three decades”? Does that include the last 15 where it hasn’t warmed, and the last 10 where it may even have declined a little?

Which leads towards the Inconvenient Observation that most of the “trend” happened in one year: 1998. That was some El Nino step-function! And it’s been leveraged to generate costs and downside economic consequences on an “unprecedented” scale ..