From Boston College another failure of climate models to capture reality has been exposed by field empiricism. The map below from NASA’s Earth Observatory will likely have to be revised now that absorption has been demonstrated to be far less.
Up in the air: Heating by black carbon aerosol re-evaluated
First field study finds soot particles absorb significantly less sunlight than predicted by models
CHESTNUT HILL, MA (Aug. 31, 2012) Viewed as a potential target in the global effort to reduce climate change, atmospheric black carbon particles absorb significantly less sunlight than scientists predicted, raising new questions about the impact of black carbon on atmospheric warming, an international team of researchers, including climate chemists from Boston College, report today in the latest edition of the journal Science.
Mathematical models and laboratory experiments used to study airborne soot particles led to projections that the absorption-boosting chemicals that coat black carbon could yield an increase in absorption by as much as a factor of two. But field studies in smoggy California cities found black carbon absorption enhancements of just 6 percent, suggesting that climate models may be overestimating warming by black carbon, the researchers report.
The surprising results highlight the early challenges in a nascent sector of climate science and could have implications for regulatory efforts to reduce the production of black carbon, or soot, by curbing the burning of fossil fuels. Still, scientists agree that black carbon in the atmosphere has a significant effect on global and regional climate, with earlier studies ranking the warming effects of black carbon particles second only to carbon dioxide gas.
“The team’s field measurements in California showed the enhancement of absorption was very small – approximately six percent instead of by a factor of two,” said Boston College Professor of Chemistry Paul Davidovits, an authority on airborne particles, known as aerosols. “In one respect, it shows that nature is much more complicated than our initial laboratory experiments and modeling indicated. Now we will try to unravel and understand that complexity.”
The historic role of black carbon soot in climate change has been well documented by scientists, most notably in the study of ice samples taken from deep within glaciers. For the past several years, Davidovits has collaborated with Aerodyne Research Inc., and colleagues from universities and government labs in the U.S., Canada and Finland. Their research has focused on the chemical and optical properties of sub-micron airborne particles of black carbon produced by commercial and industrial activity.
Unlike carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses, which can survive in the atmosphere for decades and centuries, black carbon has a relatively short life span of approximately one to two weeks. Black carbon is part of a group of pollution sources known as Short-Lived Climate Forcers (SLCFs), including methane gas and ozone, which are produced on earth.
During their lifetime, black carbon particles are coated with airborne chemicals, which sophisticated laboratory tests have shown can act like lenses capable of increasing the ability of the particles to absorb sunlight and heat the atmosphere. That has raised a critical question as to whether targeting black carbon emissions in an effort to reduce climate change could yield relatively quick results on a regional or global level.
Led by principal investigators Christopher D. Cappa, a professor of engineering at the University of California, Davis, and Timothy B. Onasch, principal scientist at Aerodyne and an associate research professor of chemistry at Boston College, the team analyzed air samples near the California cities of Los Angeles, San Francisco and Sacramento.
Researchers tested air samples using a combination of real-time techniques, including aerosol mass spectrometry and photoacoustic spectroscopy. These techniques are capable of making measurements to determine the chemical, physical and optical properties of the black carbon particles, said Onasch, whose Billerica, MA-based company has developed the aerosol mass spectrometer instruments.
Onasch said the recent findings set the stage for further studies around the world under different atmospheric conditions in order to better understand how chemical coatings from a range of emission sources affect the absorptive properties of black carbon.
“When you put a soot particle into the atmosphere, we known it contains an elemental carbon component and we know what it’s absorption will be based on mass and size,” said Onasch. “But black carbon particles in the air are constantly changing. They collect inorganic and organic materials, they grow, change shapes, and change composition. These changes affect the absorption or warming capability of the black carbon. So the question remains: to what extent exactly?”
The recent findings only add to the challenge of understanding complex chemical activity in the atmosphere, said Davidovits, whose research is supported by the National Science Foundation’s Atmospheric Chemistry division and the U.S. Department of Energy’s Atmospheric System Research program.
“These findings do require us to reduce our projections about the amount of heating soot produces, at least under some experimental conditions. But the findings don’t point to soot as being a harmless climate forcer,” said Davidovits. “Soot remains an important climate heating agent, as well as a health problem that has been well documented.”
![anthropogenic_black_carbon_forcing[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/anthropogenic_black_carbon_forcing1.png?resize=468%2C522&quality=75)
Particulates are probably responsible for a fair amount of the melting ice in glaciers & Greenland, though.
Certainly a better candidate than CO2, re ice melt.
man to swedish shopkeeper “I would like a deodorant please.”
chemist in swedish accent “which kind, ball or aerosol?”
man “neither, it’s for my armpits.”
Let’s see, Black carbon in the upper atmosphere intercepts heat that was heading for the ground. Transfers that heat by convection to the upper atmosphere where it is radiated to space. Sounds more like a cooling effect to me. Now if that black carbon falls from the sky onto a surface with a lower albedo (oh I don’t know let’s say ice) the surface it fell on would absorb more heat and accelerate melting. That is more of black carbon’s role. It is a wash in the atmosphere as far as I can see.
I think I got my albedo directions backward above. oh well that’s what I get for dashing it off quickly before taking my wife out to dinner.
Wait a moment.
So they grow and become better sunlight absorbers, yielding more heat.
Then when these grown-larger particles leave the atmosphere and are deposited on surfaces, suddenly they no longer contribute heat to the nearby atmosphere?
Must be similar to the well-understood principle where a rock, heated by the sun, never heats up the air around it, it only heats the ground it rests on. Then the ground, in turn, will specifically retain the heat gained from the rock and prevent it from heating the atmosphere while only allowing other heat to warm the air above it.
Well, at least it must be well-understood by whoever programmed the models that are saying that’s true for black carbon particles.
jorgekafkazar on September 3, 2012 at 12:47 pm said:
Ah, yes. The insidius Dihydrogen Monoxide. Nasty stuff, that. Kills millions every year. I’ve been patitioning the government to ban it for years. Did you know it can even corrode steel? And while it’s not as strong a GHG as Carbon Dioxide on a molicule per molicule bases, it can easily get up to even higher concintrations in the atmosphere. Best to outlaw it completely.
Owen in Ga says:
September 3, 2012 at 1:58 pm
Let’s see, Black carbon in the upper atmosphere intercepts heat that was heading for the ground. Transfers that heat by convection to the upper atmosphere where it is radiated to space. Sounds more like a cooling effect to me.
Correct. Atmospheric black carbon warms the troposphere, which means it cools the surface, and cools the climate as the residence time of that energy in the climate system is reduced.
Led by principal investigators Christopher D. Cappa, a professor of engineering at the University of California, Davis, and Timothy B. Onasch, principal scientist at Aerodyne and an associate research professor of chemistry at Boston College
People with no particular expertise in the field, climbing onboard the AGW gravy train.
So if soot is not so important it must mean the CO2 is more important. That’s gotta hurt.
Schitzree says:
September 3, 2012 at 2:58 pm
“The insidius Dihydrogen Monoxide. Nasty stuff…on a molicule per molicule bases, it can easily get up to even higher concintrations in the atmosphere. Best to outlaw it completely.”
The only known method to remove it is to tax it out of existence. Gore should start a Dihydrogen Monoxide trading scheme immediately.
LazyTeenager (September 3, 2012 at 4:21 pm):
You are assuming a zero sum. That is not a fact in evidence.
LazyTeenager says:
September 3, 2012 at 4:21 pm
So if soot is not so important it must mean the CO2 is more important. That’s gotta hurt.
No. It means CO2 is less important. Atmospheric aerosols, including black carbon are a negative (cooling) forcing.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_05/
LazyTeenager says:
September 3, 2012 at 4:21 pm
So if soot is not so important it must mean the CO2 is more important. That’s gotta hurt.
No. Atmospheric aerosols are a negative (cooling) forcing, both directly and indirectly through cloud seeding. This means CO2 is less important.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_05/
tckev says:
Gore should start a Dihydrogen Monoxide trading scheme immediately.
Already exists in many places including California.
Gerry Parker says:
September 3, 2012 at 10:08 am
The Abstract says:
Soot on ice, in ice, or at the bottom of a glacial pond is not atomospheric soot.
LazyTeenager says:
September 3, 2012 at 4:21 pm
So if soot is not so important it must mean the CO2 is more important. That’s gotta hurt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
When I read the article, I thought to myself, how long before someone tries to gleefully spin this as meaning that CO2 has a larger role in warming than previously thought? Up steps Lazy to the plate, attempting to rub our nose in it.
I’m not even going to bother explaining why you cannot draw that conclusion from this stidy Lazy. I just want to know one thing.
What kind of a sick puppy are you that you announce with glee that you think you have evidence that CO2 os worse than previously thought? What makes you hate yourself and humanity so much that you wish the worst upon us?
LazyTeenager said on September 3, 2012 at 4:21 pm:
Water vapor is the most important GHG of all, far more important that CO₂. Alarmists cannot even make the transition from AGW to Catastrophic AGW without the assistance of water vapor acting as a positive feedback (when the evidence shows there’s actually a negative feedback).
So CO₂ was only a bit player at around current atmospheric concentrations, will remain a bit player at the predicted future concentrations, of only negligible importance compared to water vapor.
So how much more important could CO₂ have been made, when it was negligible compared to water vapor to begin with?
LazyTeenager says:
September 3, 2012 at 4:21 pm
So if soot is not so important it must mean the CO2 is more important. That’s gotta hurt.
==================================
Define important.
davidmhoffer says:
September 3, 2012 at 6:15 pm
LazyTeenager says:
September 3, 2012 at 4:21 pm
So if soot is not so important it must mean the CO2 is more important. That’s gotta hurt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What kind of a sick puppy are you that you announce with glee that you think you have evidence that CO2 os worse than previously thought? What makes you hate yourself and humanity so much that you wish the worst upon us?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It’s not complex. He’s just another loser who has time on his hands to to work for the cause. That being to make everyone else a loser so he can fit in. Good luck with that LT.
Come on Arctic ice. We desperately love Arctic ice. It’s so vital to our existence.
So please, please let the Arctic ice be destroyed.
I love my oceans. How could anyone acidify them – the big oil company capitalist b@st@rds.
Oh yay, there’s data that the ocean is being acidified, whoooo hooo. I’m so happy.
Dumb as a box of f—–g rocks.
…. and then there’s our modern fake socialism driving this crap. It may get worse for some families, but not mine.
So these sooty particles absorb incoming sunlight, which therefore does not reach the ocean and get stored deep in the ocean. The hot rocks then fall into the ocean along with their hitch hiking heat, and sink to the bottom along with their solar energy captives.
Seems like a net plus to me; the solar energy still gets to the ocean, and the air gets cleaner and better for your health, unless you eat a lot of soot eating fish.
Never let them forget.
The whole premise behind this farce, was that it would be catastrophic.
Schitzree says: “…And while it’s not as strong a GHG as Carbon Dioxide on a molicule per molicule bases, [dihydrogen monoxide] can easily get up to even higher concintrations in the atmosphere. Best to outlaw it completely.”
The precautionary principle says that’s the safest course, yes.
Once again, less than 500 ppm have nearly nil affect on the other 950,000 ppm…
No doubt the same logic, baseless in observable facts, will be used by the modelers when they tweak their models.
” LazyTeenager says:
September 3, 2012 at 4:21 pm
So if soot is not so important it must mean the CO2 is more important. That’s gotta hurt.”
And my immediate reaction was that UHI must have more of an effect than is in the models.
I think we can can allocate exa-dollars to be spent preventing evaporation of that bastardly evil GHG, Dihydrogen Monoxide. We can cook up a plan to roof over the Oceans. Imagine the megabucks that we can abscond with a project to do that. It would be hardly noticeable amongst the quintillions of bucks allocated to do the job.