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.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

72 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Justa Joe
January 14, 2012 9:12 am

No thx, I’m already freezing.

DirkH
January 14, 2012 9:17 am

CATHERRINE T. says:
January 14, 2012 at 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!”
Catherrine, you emit greenhouse gases when you exhale, so might I suggest:
YOU FIRST.

January 14, 2012 9:22 am

A solution in search of a non-existent problem.

JDN
January 14, 2012 9:38 am

Atmospheric chemistry & physics has been kicked around by political concerns for the last 40 years. Nothing to see here. Wait 10 years and they’ll discover that Criegee is irrelevant and the Liegee chemistry is the new thing, followed by Fiegee (you all know Fiegee factors). If you try simulating large-scale atmospheric-pressure chemistry & physics, you immediately come upon almost intractable problems because of the varying timescales (stiffness) and the chemistry of everything reacting with everything else using the most exotic species possible. It’s nice that they found a new reaction, but, it is probably completely irrelevant, based on a past history of irrelevant “major discoveries” in atmospheric chemistry.

Babsy
January 14, 2012 9:59 am

R Gates will be along shortly to explain why this is but another ploy to undermine the ‘model’…

January 14, 2012 10:34 am

Tenuc says:
January 14, 2012 at 1:16 am
That temperature lead CO2 levels can also be seen in the recent record, where the CAGW catastrophists find it harder to cast doubt than it is with the less reliable paleo record…
Sorry, but the graph you did refer to is not the CO2 level, but the year by year increase in CO2 level. That indeed is influenced by temperature variations, but in all cases there is an increase of total CO2 over the past 50+ years. The latter is hardly influenced by temperature (about 8 ppmv/°C according to the past 800 kyr ice core record). See:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_emiss_increase.jpg
For the current temperature, CO2 levels should be around 290 ppmv, but we reached over 390 ppmv. That is far beyond the temperature influence on CO2 levels. In how far the increased CO2 levels influence(d) temperature, that is a quite different question…

charles.U.Farley
January 14, 2012 11:07 am

CATHERRINE T. says:
January 14, 2012 at 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!
Which part of “no statistically significant warming” do you not understand?
Quoted from the high priest of warmness, the one, the only, iiiiiiits Mr Phil Jones of UEA.
Duh!

paddylol
January 14, 2012 11:22 am

At last, the mystery is solved. Now we know how the climate was screwed up and precipitated the ice age that formed the environment described in “Fallen Angels”.

Saxon
January 14, 2012 11:28 am

Still not sure why humans think they have to try to “fix” everything that’s going on in the world. Ever think it might be natural evolution at work? Talk to any credible astronomer and you’ll learn that the Earth is at an extreme alignment, both within our own solar system (we complete a full “wobble” on our axis this year, what the Mayans predicted to happen on the winter solstice, happens every 26,000 years, our sun will also eclipse the black hole at the center of our galaxy) and within our own galaxy. We are on the upper outside edge of the arm we’re located at the moment, which is a more exposed position. MAYBE less interference with the natural world isn’t such a bad idea.

Alex the skeptic
January 14, 2012 4:10 pm

Damn these radicals, they seem to want to control everything and everyone. Now they are occupying wall street and cooling the planet at the same time. sarc off.
Wasn’t the science supposed to be settled. These biradicals seem to have unsettled the science. I bet Pachauri is a very happy man now, since the IPCC will have a new lease of life getting funds to develop new models that would show that unless we reduce carbon dioxide emissions that make trees and vegetation grow better and faster thus producing more Criegee biradicals and cause a new glaciation era, we are doomed. The IPCC lives in a funnel; everything they throw up eventually always ends going down the same anti-carbon hole.

Steve Garcia
January 14, 2012 4:51 pm

Thoughts:
1. Team Posers by 1990 was telling the world, “The science is settled. Global warming is real.”
2. In 1997 biologist (not climatologist or meteorologist) Steven Hare discovers the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. This much-bigger-than-El-Niño cycle proved that the climatologists didn’t know about all the mechanisms that could possibly be going on in the (supposedly settled) science of climate.
3. Move forward to 2010. Team Posers again was telling the world, “The science is settled. Global warming is real.”
4. In 2011 CERN’s CLOUD study showed that Henrik Svensmark’s suggestion that cosmic rays might seed cloud formation is all but certain. This proved that the climatologists didn’t know about all the mechanisms that could possibly be going on in the (supposedly settled) science of climate.
5. In 2012 Criegee biradicals/intermediates are found at Sandia NL to actually exist and that

“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.”

Once again, this has proved that the climatologists don’t know about all the mechanisms that could possibly be going on in the (supposedly settled) science of climate.
How many more new discoveries does it take for the policy makers to realize the claims of omniscience by these posers are just freaking wrong?
Let’s give credit to Singer and Christy and Spencer and Lindzen and Svensmark and Soon and Baliunas for continuing to think for themselves and not get caught up in the error cascade. Through their efforts a sane climate policy might some day exist. (and WUWT and CA, too!)
Steve Garcia

Steve Garcia
January 14, 2012 5:04 pm

H 8:34 am:

Which leads towards the Inconvenient Observation that most of the “trend” happened in one year: 1998.

Nope. There was a huge step function in 1976-1977. THAT was the one during which most of the trend happened. 1998 was just the overall high point after the step had already pushed the temps into a different regime.

Brian H
January 15, 2012 8:38 am

feet2thefire says:
January 14, 2012 at 5:04 pm

Fair enough; I’d forgotten that temps fell back after 1998.
And don’t forget the Great Dying of the Thermometers circa 1990. My eyeball/quickie before-and-after suggests an instant 1.5K change of “Global Average” there, too.

Steve Garcia
Reply to  Brian H
January 15, 2012 12:45 pm

H –
Yeah, the Great Dying of the Thermometers. That just “coincidentally” happened to be right when the Hockey Stick blade started. No cause and effect there.
I was first told that in about 1999 by a meteorologist I happened to work with, who is no longer among us. He was a modeler, too, in his early days. He was not happy about them taking 85% of the meteorological stations off line in 1990 just when the capacity to handle MORE stations was becoming more easily done and much more powerfully processed. He said we should be ADDING stations, not removing 6 out of every 7 from the database. He sounded correct then, and he sounds correct now.
It is just too fishy, IMHO, that the “blade” started then.
I think 1998 was just when they reached their limit of how much they could fudge the numbers with their adjustments, without getting caught with their hand in the cookie jar. And I think it is retained artificially near that limit, because it is untenable philosophically to let it go down to where it really should be, while they can’t push it any higher, for the same reason 1998 was their limit.
When every adjustment is UP, when no one else is allowed to see their work (I guarantee it is in their lab books), and when they react so insecurely to any questioning of their work, and when thefeel they have to control OTHER people’s work being published – these are the actions of people who know they have either reached the Peter Principle ‘top’ or they are covering up their feelings of being frauds. Michael Mann’s bullying is a compensatory strategy; I think the guy is scared out of his wits that the bubble is going to burst. He is likely to go down in scientific history as one of the biggest frauds ever. And he is doing everything he can to forestall that day of reckoning. That is the main thrust of his lawsuit.
I don’t trust the record as it is recorded. I think the graphs they put out are artifacts – intentional artifacts – of the processing, and that there is no underlying warming occurring, outside of normal and natural variation. And that, I believe is quite small. (I’ve gotten into the dendro stuff of late, and the ‘divergence problem’ threatens to bring the entire edifice down around their heads – because without tree-rings, there ARE no records beyond 1655 and the start of the instrument record. Trust me: tree-rings do NOT have a linear correlation with temperature. The tree-ring record seemed like a good proxy, but after being given enough time, it has proven that it is not.)
But the 1976-1977 step change was real. But it was found – correctly, IMHO – to be the cause of the PDO. The leveling off not long after 1998 should actually be a decline, and it would be – if they weren’t artificially bumping up the numbers.
Steve Garcia

January 15, 2012 10:17 am

I see a less earth-threatening application: scrubbers for coal fired power plants removing SO2 from emmissions in a contained environment. Then can we shut down the EPA? And turn up our heaters?

Luther Wu
January 15, 2012 11:37 am

Discovered at Lawrence Livermore… with Sandia researchers?
Can’t possibly be real; no CRU input or Mannish modeling.

January 15, 2012 4:46 pm

37% of the Criegee biradicles from plant produced ethene reacts with SO2 and NO2 to form cloud producing aerosols and some formaldehyde. The remaining biradicles (63%) go on to form formic acid which then breaks up into a few smaller molecules, one of which is CO2. How about that? Oh, and by the way, we don’t want too much formaldehyde in the atmosphere as it’s carcinogenic. So let’s not even think about throwing lots of these biradicles up into the air in the hope that we can cool the planet.

Jack Simmons
January 16, 2012 1:39 am

Do you think Lefty can also sell us Criegee particles?

Daniel
January 16, 2012 2:16 pm

Regarding CERN’s CLOUD experiment, IIRC, it was explained by Jasper Kirkby that unknown chemical processes in the atmosphere seemed to have a huge impact on cloud seeds formation, a sort of multiplier effect on cosmic rays effect…Here we are maybe !

Steve Garcia
Reply to  Daniel
January 16, 2012 3:00 pm

Certainly the CLOUD results and the Criegee biradicals are significant. They are both actual controlled laboratory experiments, so they are steps on the road to a science-based understanding of the climate. It is like the difference between the ancient Greeks reasoning (without empirical evidence) – which amounts to conjecture – and the hard sciences like chemistry. There is far too much conjecture in climatology and too few controlled experiments which which to nail down the fundamental principles.
It is pretty obvious from the emails that climatological opinions are like rectums – everybody’s got one. They have these HUGE reconstructions, with what looks like 80-90% of the fundamentals being candidates for the Vague Understanding of the Year Award.
Even though climatology is an Earth Science, its methodologies far too often look like something we would find in a psychological or anthropological study. By that I mean it is 10% fact and 90% interpretation. As I said, everybody’s got one.
When I see actual lab experiments going on, I don’t know whether to cheer or cry – cry because how can they have a ‘science’ in which so much is left to interpretation? Christy and Lindzen and Spencer must shake their heads a lot when talking to the other climatologists. The utter belief that models are the same thing as real experiments – holy bejeezus, folks!
Briffa has known now for over 20 years that there is a Divergence Problem. In all that time, how many experiments has he proposed in order to begin trying to get a handle on the fundamentals? I’ve done a decent amount of reading on that subject, and so far Briffa hasn’t done it. He just keeps on saying there is a problem, but doesn’t do anything about it. What kind of scientist goes two decades wringing his hands about a problem, instead of doing something about it? The actual divergence actually goes back to 1940, and Briffa has known about it for most of his career.
The Manchester guys knew about the Criegee biradicals, evidently, for years, and when they actually got a chance to access to one of the few pieces of equipment with which to start logging some results – to just SEE what happened (with evidently no preconceptions about what Criegee biradicals do) – they jumped all over it. And WHAM BAM KA-POW, BATMAN! They got results! And the results themselves drove the process of understanding.
Experiments that can allow researchers to collect and quantify EVIDENCE – what a radical idea! It is nice to see for a change.
Steve Garcia

January 17, 2012 2:27 am

It really does get up my nose that the media and governments think the people can only cope with a simple cause and effect situation – one factor causing one effect. So, more CO2 = hotter and less CO2 = colder has become a simple mantra which all can understand; it fits well with this patronizing view of general intelligence. Daniel’s piece on cloud seeding, suggesting that both atmospheric chemistry and cosmic rays are influential is probably closer to the truth. But of course there are now two influences which may well work in tandem. Far too difficult for the simple masses to cope with so let’s just stick with CO2 – it’s also got a better tax raising potential too.

katesisco
January 19, 2012 10:34 am

Well, since heliospheric compression is behind all these ‘discoveries’ —the more compressed the molecule is the more it is detectable— the info will not be applicable after the non locality event at the end of the year. we will mythologize it and ‘know’ it exists but be unable to reproduce it. Fluff, NASA name gas cloud that envelopes our solar system among others, is being energized with neutrinos from space which compresses our gas envelope, the heliosphere. This periodic 5,000 y cycle will end ephemerally as it began.