A bit of a bombshell from the AGU IGBR: Black carbon is a larger cause of climate change than previously assessed

From the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme via Eurekalert, some of the heat gets taken off CO2 as the ‘big kahuna’ of forcings, now there is another major player, one that we can easily do something about. I’ve often speculated that black carbon is a major forcing for Arctic sea ice, due to examples like this one.  – Anthony

Reducing diesel engine emissions would reduce warming

blackcarbonl[1]
This shows black carbon processes in the climate system. Credit: American Geophysical Union 2013. Credit D. W. Fahey

Black carbon is the second largest man-made contributor to global warming and its influence on climate has been greatly underestimated, according to the first quantitative and comprehensive analysis of this issue.

The landmark study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres today says the direct influence of black carbon, or soot, on warming the climate could be about twice previous estimates. Accounting for all of the ways it can affect climate, black carbon is believed to have a warming effect of about 1.1 Watts per square meter (W/m2), approximately two thirds of the effect of the largest man made contributor to global warming, carbon dioxide.

Co-lead author David Fahey from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said, “This study confirms and goes beyond other research that suggested black carbon has a strong warming effect on climate, just ahead of methane.” The study, a four-year, 232-page effort, led by the International Global Atmospheric Chemistry (IGAC) Project, is likely to guide research efforts, climate modeling, and policy for years to come.

The report’s best estimate of direct climate influence by black carbon is about a factor of two higher than most previous work, including the estimates in the last Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment released in 2007, which were based on the best available evidence and analysis at that time.

Scientists have spent the years since the last IPCC assessment improving estimates, but the new assessment notes that emissions in some regions are probably higher than estimated. This is consistent with other research that also hinted at significant under-estimates in some regions’ black carbon emissions.

The results indicate that there may be a greater potential to curb warming by reducing black carbon emissions than previously thought. “There are exciting opportunities to cool climate by reducing soot emissions but it is not straightforward. Reducing emissions from diesel engines and domestic wood and coal fires is a no brainer, as there are tandem health and climate benefits. If we did everything we could to reduce these emissions we could buy ourselves up to half a degree less warming–or a couple of decades of respite,” says co-author Professor Piers Forster from the University of Leeds’s Faculty of Earth and Environment.

1-blackcarbonl[1]
This shows global climate forcing of black carbon and co-emitted species in the industrial era (1750-2005). Credit: American Geophysical Union 2013. Credit D. W. Fahey
The international team urges caution because the role of black carbon in climate change is complex. “Black carbon influences climate in many ways, both directly and indirectly, and all of these effects must be considered jointly”, says co-lead author Sarah Doherty of the University of Washington, an expert in snow measurements. The dark particles absorb incoming and scattered heat from the sun (solar radiation); they can promote the formation of clouds that can have either cooling or warming impact; and black carbon can fall on the surface of snow and ice, promoting warming and increasing melting. In addition, many sources of black carbon also emit other particles whose effects counteract black carbon, providing a cooling effect.

The research team quantified all the complexities of black carbon and the impacts of co-emitted pollutants for different sources, taking into account uncertainties in measurements and calculations. The study suggests mitigation of black carbon emissions for climate benefits must consider all emissions from each source and their complex influences on climate. Based on the analysis, black carbon emission reductions targeting diesel engines followed by some types of wood and coal burning in small household burners would have an immediate cooling impact.

In addition, the report finds black carbon is a significant cause of the rapid warming in the Northern Hemisphere at mid to high latitudes, including the northern United States, Canada, northern Europe and northern Asia. Its impacts can also be felt farther south, inducing changes in rainfall patterns from the Asian Monsoon. This demonstrates that curbing black carbon emissions could have significant impact on reducing regional climate change while having a positive impact on human health.

“Policy makers, like the Climate and Clean Air Coalition, are talking about ways to slow global warming by reducing black carbon emissions. This study shows that this is a viable option for some black carbon sources and since black carbon is short lived, the impacts would be noticed immediately. Mitigating black carbon is good for curbing short-term climate change, but to really solve the long-term climate problem, carbon dioxide emissions must also be reduced,” says co-lead author Tami Bond from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

###

FULL REPORT: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgrd.50171/abstract

Images to use for reference in the report for this press release:

Figure 1.1 Schematic overview of the primary black carbon emission sources and the processes that control the distribution of black carbon in the atmosphere and determine its role in the climate system [Bond et al., 2013].

Figure 9.1 Quantitative estimates of black carbon climate forcing. This study indicates the direct effects due to black carbon are nearly twice the number reported in the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment [Bond et al., 2013].

###

The International Global Atmospheric Chemistry (IGAC) Project was formed in 1990 to address growing international concern over rapid changes observed in the Earth’s atmosphere. IGAC operates under the umbrella of the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP) and is jointly sponsored by the international Commission on Atmospheric Chemistry and Global Pollution (iCACGP). IGAC’s mission is to coordinate and foster atmospheric chemistry research towards a sustainable world (www.igacproject.org). The IGAC International Project Office is hosted by the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) at the University of Colorado, USA.

The new assessment, “Bounding the role of black carbon in the climate system: A scientific assessment,” is published online at the Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres, a journal of the American Geophysical Union, and can be accessed free of charge. The four coordinating lead authors are: Tami Bond (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign), Sarah Doherty (Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean, University of Washington, USA), David Fahey (NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory and Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder, USA) and Piers Forster (University of Leeds, UK).

Other co-authors are: T. Berntsen (Center for International Climate and Environmental Research-Oslo and Department of Geosciences, University of Oslo, Norway), B. J. DeAngelo (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), M. G. Flanner (University of Michigan, USA), S. Ghan (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, USA), B.Kärcher (Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt Oberpfaffenhofen, Germany), D. Koch (Department of Energy, USA), S. Kinne (Max Planck Institute, Germany), Y. Kondo (University of Tokyo, Japan), P. K. Quinn (NOAA Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, USA), M. C. Sarofim (Environmental Protection Agency, USA), M. G. Schultz (Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH, Germany), M. Schulz (Norwegian Meteorological Institute, Norway), C. Venkataraman (Indian Institute of Technology, India), H. Zhang (China Meteorological Administration, China.), S. Zhang (Peking University, China), N. Bellouin (Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter, UK), S. K. Guttikunda (Desert Research Institute, USA), P. K. Hopke (Clarkson University, USA), M. Z. Jacobson (Stanford University, USA), J. W. Kaiser (European Centre for Medium-range Weather Forecasts, UK; King’s College London, UK; and Max Planck Institute for Chemistry, Germany), Z. Klimont (International Institute for Applied System Analysis, Austria), U. Lohmann (Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich,, Switzerland), J. P. Schwarz (NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory and Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado, USA), D. Shindell (NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, USA), T. Storelvmo (Yale University, USA), S. G. Warren (University of Washington, USA), C. S. Zender (University of California, Irvine, USA).

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
169 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Holbrook
January 15, 2013 12:39 pm

The article made several references to Global Warming…..thought this had stopped 15 years ago?…and in real terms we have of course been cooling for 10,000 years.
Having lived through the end of major pollution in the UK, I recall anything covered in soot turned black. There is mention of Sahara sand in the article. and thatwould have travelled a longer distance than the soot.
If it were diesel from lorries the exhaust particles would be kept low near the surface.
Overall an interesting suggestion but logic tells me warming and cooling are natural.

January 15, 2013 12:40 pm

If AF 1 had been grounded for the year prior to the Nov. election,
enough BC could have keept from the atmo. for a respite = 1ky

Laurie Bowen
January 15, 2013 12:40 pm

The World Bank – Working for a world free of poverty
Iceland’s Volcano and Climate Science: Will there be a Silver Lining to the Ash Cloud? 04/22/2010
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:0x81irF5hJgJ:blogs.worldbank.org/climatechange/iceland-s-volcano-and-climate-science-will-there-be-silver-lining-ash-cloud+black+carbon+volcanoes&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Auto
January 15, 2013 12:41 pm

Jack says:
January 15, 2013 at 11:05 am
So turns out the greens blocking slow burns actually create soot from massive bushfires. Irony as thick as their hypocrisy. But still a lot of work to be done before ny politician seizes the excuse for another tax and another round of alrmist grants.
=========
“before ny politician ”
I bet I make more typos than you do, but this set me thinking. . . .
MY politician – ahh, you’ve a tame one! How sweet! Why not let it loose, and see if it can earn a living in the real world.
ANY politician – but ‘extra grants’? theyre already there. And their buddies have earmarked the funds.
NY politician – Bloomberg? Can’t he pay those grans out of his back pocket? A successful capitalist. Are you confusing him with Johnson – different great city [City]? Not one for grants (happily!).
MANY politicians – see above, but consider the number of trotters that can fit in the trough! Even a very big CAGW-OS trough!
NEY politician – I assume the Frenchman is dead, but doubtless Hollande will see if euros can be extracted . . .
Auto

Dr. Acula
January 15, 2013 12:52 pm

Crispin in Waterloo says: ” Something we can do a lot about is improving combustion efficiency of every device we make and use.”
That is likely a malinvestment. It’s easy for you to suggest spending other people’s money, but it’s harder when you are investing your own money and risk financial losses for choosing wrongly.
Crispin in Waterloo says: “I don’t think BC heats the Earth as much as is claimed – it is a forcing”
This statement bothers me. Despite its instantaneous, certeris paribus effects, black carbon might be keeping the Earth cooler. Isn’t it possible for a positive (negative) perturbation to lead to a negative (positive) outcome when you have a non-linear, chaotic system with zillions of variables like the climate? To really understand, we need climatologists to show the math. But when we do that we get ex ante predictions that don’t work.

January 15, 2013 12:53 pm

When you subtract the downward adjustments in predicted warming, the thermometers placed next to AC units, solar effects, and particulate pollution contributions, the overall impact of CO2 on global temps has got to be approaching the square root of squat. Those Australian taxpayers must be thrilled to bits.
Having said that, unlike some on this forum, I’ve never had a problem with governments spending some of our money to reduce particulate forms of pollution. They are unpleasant and the adverse effects on human health have been amply demonstrated with real data!
Let’s spend some public money reducing the soot; it’s a reasonable and achievable goal. But enough of throwing my hard earned dosh at futile and pointless CO2 reduction, already.

richardscourtney
January 15, 2013 1:00 pm

Crispin in Waterloo:
In your post at January 15, 2013 at 12:31 pm you say

BC is important and received short shrift early on because everyone was tripping over themselves to blame CO2 for natural warming. Well, behind the academic curtain the knowledge has been there for some time – more than 10 years – CO2 is not all that important and BC is

Yes, please see my earlier post at January 15, 2013 at 11:31 am.
If the earlier scares on ‘acid rain’, ozone depletion, and CO2=CAGW are a guide, then the next thing to expect is a claim that ‘natural’ black carbon does not vary and anthropogenic black carbon threatens disaster.
Richard

pochas
January 15, 2013 1:02 pm

I don’t know… If the surface of the earth were black with a transparent (or no) atmosphere the surface would be at the blackbody radiating temperature of – 18C. If there were so much soot in the atmosphere that the atmosphere looked black from space the atmosphere would be isothermal at -18 C. We know that volcanic ash cools the atmosphere. I hope this isn’t just another gimmick.

Crispin in Waterloo
January 15, 2013 1:08 pm

Pat Frank says:
>The error bars are so large that the net effects of black carbon (BC) are impossible to judge.
>Forcing from BC alone is 1.1(+/-)0.8 W m^-2, and “BC and its co-emitted species from BC-rich sources” is -0.06(+/-)1.37 W m^-2. The confidence intervals are 90%. It’s hard to see how any definitive conclusions are possible.
Certain things are conclusive, such as BC has a much larger effect than had been previously assumed in the absence of measurements and calculations. In other words the measurements are pretty simple, real and consistent.
As to the effects of BC, they are diverse as the particles are, unlike gas molecules, in constant transition to larger clumps that eventually settle to the ground. A great deal is known about the elemental and chemical composition of BC particles. Because of this, using clever subtractions not unlike those employed in FTIR gas analysis, the source of the particles can be determined. For example BC from low temperature domestic coal fires can be differentiated from high temperature power station combustion even if they burn the same coal. Similarly the wood smoke and diesel exhaust (etc) fractions can be apportioned to source.
I appreciated the comments above regarding the extreme fuel efficiency of modern diesel engines and the clean burns that can be obtained by modern engineering and retrofitting the equivalent of a catalytic afterburner – Peugeot being the first to use them. They can be fitted to any vehicle, looking like a silencer/muffler but a bit longer. They burn the BC to CO2. There are thermo-electric generators which can be bolted to them to generate power for the vehicle to tax the engine less. A perfect use of technologies that deliver real benefits and efficiencies.

Doug Huffman
January 15, 2013 1:14 pm

Of course, the ultimate extant carbon free power is nuclear power.
Beware the committed pollution of a new technology, PV or LFMST reactor, as it is integrated across industry.

Doug Huffman
January 15, 2013 1:18 pm

Cutting edge on-road diesels use DPF and Add-Blue. I will not have one for their complexity and fragility. My mechanic-guru assures me that my TDI will last as long as my money without accidents. TAG diesels may be reducing emissions but their cost per mile is skyrocketing.
Note the recent news of highway taxes shifting from per gallon to per mile.

Gail Combs
January 15, 2013 1:20 pm

Sam the First says:
January 15, 2013 at 10:58 am
….It’s time fire-setting was made a very serious offence esp in developed countries, for all kinds of reasons; and that forest maintenance was made a priority. So many of the raging forest fires are avoidable with more vigilance and foresight.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What idiocy. Fires are a very effective management tool for farms and forests. My neighbor just burned his fields yesterday.
I really wish the idiots, especially the activists idiots, would quit spouting nonsense they no nothing about. Fire has been a tool used in agriculture and forest management since BEFORE THE HOLOCENE!
Go look it up yourself I can’t be bothered.

old engineer
January 15, 2013 1:26 pm

I think they are beating a dead horse. As others have pointed out, particulate matter (of which “black carbon” is a part) is controlled for heath reasons. In the U.S., particulate matter (PM) was one of the first pollutants for which Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) where set over 40 years ago. And the AAQS for PM has been tighten regularly ever since. Yet most of the country is in compliance with the latest AAQS for PM2.5 (the smallest particles, of which black carbon is generally a part.) See: http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/mappm25_2006.html
As for diesel exhaust, it too has been the subject of ever tightening regulations since the early ’70’s, both in the U.S. and Europe. First for on-highway diesels, then off-highway (construction and farm equipment) and then for locomotives. All through the warming temperatures of the ’80’s and ’90’s black carbon emissions were decreasing in the U.S. and Europe. So it’s going to be hard to blame the “hottest year ever in the U.S.” (2012) on black carbon.

pochas
January 15, 2013 1:26 pm

My own opinion at this time is that suspended aerosols or dusts of any kind (or color) act to defeat the Greenhouse Effect and cause cooling. I welcome any arguments.

Terry
January 15, 2013 1:29 pm

The second last line of the table included with the press release indicates that the total BC forcing in 1.1 w/m-2 yet the next line indicates that the total forcing of BC and co-emitted products in only -0.06 w/m-2 (essentially 0 considering the error bars). Combustion (primary source of BC) would also be producing positive forcings from CO2 and water vapor. What are the co-emitted products with very strongly negative forcings that appear to counter the positive forcings of BC? Or am I misinterpreting the meaning of that last line?

MattN
January 15, 2013 1:34 pm

Once we get the correct feedback sign for water vapor amd clouds, which should drop CO2 sensitivity to ~.6C, it will be obvious black carbon is the dominant forcing. Simply getting China and India up to 1980s scrubber technology should by and large solve this…

January 15, 2013 1:48 pm

So once more it’s the ‘little person’ who gets targeted, right after trucks and lorries and other diesel vehicles, never mind that petrochemical and other industrial plants, and forest /industrial /domestic building fires must each of them pump out a huge amount more carbon than individual homes with a fireplace!

I am willing to bet one rioter burning a tire somewhere produces more soot in that action than I produce all year, possibly more than I produce in a decade. But I am thinking more about how the process works over time. Consider the last glacial. There would have been nearly a hundred thousand years of built up, stratified dust and soot in that ice in the far northern part of North America. While ice is accumulating, it has relatively little impact. The dust gets stratified with the snow. In summer, it might even melt back a little creating a relatively dirty surface. If you have several summers with more net ablation that accumulation, you might get a very dirty surface with several years worth of accumulated dust from several years worth of dust from melted (or sublimated) ice leaving it behind. But all it takes is a few years of net accumulation again to bury it. Once it is below the surface, it has little impact. But this might also be a part of why the ice melts so much more quickly than it builds up. As it melts back the surface gets dirtier and darker until at the end you have tens of thousands of years of accumulated dust on the top of the ice.
How much dust would accumulate in, say, 60,000 years of ice? That’s probably the amount of dirt that is going to lie on top of the ice just before it completely melts away if it doesn’t get washed away by rain.
I’m not convinced that soot is all that much of a problem. It has an impact only when things are generally melting anyway (so it will speed that up) but has no/little impact where there is net accumulation of snow. A couple of years of accumulation just covers it up again.

Gail Combs
January 15, 2013 1:56 pm

Billy Liar says:
January 15, 2013 at 11:36 am
Oh, I forgot. Dust is blameless because it’s not man-made. Silly me!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
WRONG!
Farm dust bill approved in House Never underestimate what the EPA might decide to regulate.

Philip Bradley
January 15, 2013 1:57 pm

In addition, the report finds black carbon is a significant cause of the rapid warming in the Northern Hemisphere at mid to high latitudes, including the northern United States, Canada, northern Europe and northern Asia.
Note the omission of either ‘increased’ or ‘decreased’ black carbon. Most people will interpret this as increased black carbon, which is false. There have been large scale reductions in black carbon and other particulate emissions across the developed world over the last 60 years and over the last 20 years in the former Soviet Union and China*.
These BC reductions have had both a real warming effect and a measured but not real warming effect as I explain in this article.
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/11/4/australian-temperatures.html
* It’s a general misconception that BC and other particulates have increased in China. In fact, they have decreased as a few hundred million people went from coal and wood/biomass burning in domestic stoves and hearths to electricity and gas.

January 15, 2013 1:57 pm

The question now becomes which is easier to substantially reduce from our industrialized civilization; black carbon or CO2?
I’m hoping it’s the former as the world isn’t going cut back in any appreciable amount in its use of CO2-producing fossil fuels anytime in the near or even not so near future.

January 15, 2013 1:59 pm

Billy Liar says:
January 15, 2013 at 11:36 am
Oh, I forgot. Dust is blameless because it’s not man-made. Silly me!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It’s not man made, but the EPA tried to legislate/regulate it !!!

Zeke
January 15, 2013 2:00 pm

Quote: “The results indicate that there may be a greater potential to curb warming by reducing black carbon emissions than previously thought. “There are exciting opportunities to cool climate by reducing soot emissions but it is not straightforward. Reducing emissions from diesel engines and domestic wood and coal fires is a no brainer, as there are tandem health and climate benefits.”
1. fantom menace: global warming and atmospheric co2 levels
2. revised science conveniently timed to support current EPA regulations, by a factor of two
3. claims of enormous health benefits, and a lack of acknowledgement of all the health benefits of a warm home and efficient diesel delivery of medical, food, building, and fuel supply throughout the country – in particular, these are quickly delivered during an emergency by trucks and private businesses.
4. scientists claim “health” (narrowly defined and selectively applied) as highest value, thus supplanting metaphysical, ethical, philosophical, traditional, religious, and cultural values and considerations in our society, and of all human life. This is a gross, disorderly, immodest overreach.
5. claims of both acknowledging complexities and un-straightforward effects of legislation of soot on earth’s systems, while at the same time claiming a solid basis for action: “accounting for all of the ways it can affect climate, black carbon is believed to have a warming effect of about 1.1 Watts per square meter (W/m2)”
6. requires enforcement of soot and particulates measurements far below replicability or measurement by the rest of us mere mortals: “The federal Environmental Protection Agency’s revised fine particulate matter regulations (PM2.5) have cut the annual level of allowable fine particulates from 15 micrograms per cubic meter of air to 12 micrograms.”
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/14016-just-freeze-epa-says-burning-wood-is-bad-but-so-is-natural-gas-coal-oil

tz2026
January 15, 2013 2:02 pm

But if we can easily fix it there is no need to create soot exchanges, futures, or other things that would make Al Gore and/or Goldman Sachs richer!

Gail Combs
January 15, 2013 2:03 pm

Rob Ricket says:
January 15, 2013 at 12:02 pm
Great news…now all we have to do is waste more food crops on useless bio-fuel to save the planet from the Black Carbon Menace.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
NO, No, you have it backwards. We have to STOP producing biofuel.
Think of all the diesel trucks hauling monsanto’s seed, all the diesel pick ups used by farmers to get the seed, all the diesel tractors used to produce the corn, all the diesel trucks hauling the corn to the ethanol plants and all the diesel trucks hauling the ethanol to the gasoline blending plants.

Bob
January 15, 2013 2:03 pm

Hide this article from Mosher. His beloved CO2 in trouble again.