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]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/blackcarbonl1.jpeg?quality=83)
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]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/1-blackcarbonl1.jpeg?quality=83)
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).
More junk science. I’m sure BC has some warming effects. It also has cooling effects. To claim they know how this all balances out is pure nonsense.
At first glance Black Carbon would appear to be a great survival strategy for the Greater Western Spittle-Flecked Doom-Screecher. After all the “adding radiative gases to the atmosphere will reduce its radiative cooling ability” theme does not appear to be working out*.
The pros look good –
– The word “Carbon” can still be used
– The science is uncertain, so anthropogenic warming can still be claimed
– CO2 sceptics agree that black carbon is a pollutant
– Fossil fuels can still be implicated
However there are the cons-
– With low cloud forming after container ships pass the net effect could be cooling
– The majority of per capita black carbon emissions are occurring in the developing world
– Just the cost of administering a BC tax would exceed the cost of mitigation technology in the developed world
– Residence time is low so generational western guilt cannot be invoked
– BC concerns are not a suitable vehicle for global taxation under a framework of UN global governance
– Those that promoted CO2 pseudo-science cannot use a BC scare to erase their advocacy for the CO2 scare in the age of the Internet.
Cleaning up BC will be a good thing for the planet. It however is no lifeline for the Greater Western Spittle-Flecked Doom-Screecher.
* – Have a think about what would really happen if we removed radiative gases from the atmosphere. 33C cooler? No! Radiative cooling at the top of the troposphere is vital for continued vertical convective circulation. Without this the atmosphere heats via conduction and convection but can not cool. Conductive cooling at the base of an atmosphere with a strong vertical pressure gradient cannot offset this heating. The empirical experiment to check this is very simple 😉
old engineer says:
January 15, 2013 at 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.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Sure, doesn’t mean they can’t controll/tax it more
What warming?
This site as well as CA targeted black carbon years ago, good to see the mainstream finally catch up. One additional source besides vehicle exhaust – the particulates produced via the wear of tires and drive belts.
40 years ago, it was called “soot”.
Now they have to call it “Black Carbon” so low information alarmists can conflate it with CO2
I am still struggling to find a plausible link of BC to any significant warming effect. Yeah, I can just see that black soot on white snow affects albedo and snow melt on ice or glaciers, mountain tops, etc. But I simply cannot see a significant world wide warming forcing from general BC in the atmosphere or even on normal ground surfaces. In the atmosphere, we have the likelihood that soot/carbon is ‘rained out’ – and any direct atmospheric warming effect (of soot absorbing energy) is likely to be very minor – you only have to think of the ‘thermal’ mass of the soot (in a cubic metre of atmosphere for example) to see that it is unlikely to be able to hold significant amounts of energy, over and above water vapour for example.
On the ground, unless you were talking about massive blanketing (a la massive volcanic ash type covering) – I don’t see the absorptivity of the ground being changed much over and above the normal vegetative and soil cover! Soot onto the sea is equally unlikely to cause a significant effect.
I find this estimated value of 1.1 w/m2 of forcing somewhat amazing – and I do think it’s been deliberately ‘designed and assigned’ to try and further the significant anthropogenic climatic change cause.
So this still has the problem that they need to find the massive reduction of black carbon emissions that would account for the fact that THERE HAS BEEN NO STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT WARMING FOR THE LAST 15-17 YEARS . I know we have seen an economic downturn over the last 5 years, but I haven’t noticed diesel traffic being down much.
@Dale Rainwater. Acula says:
>>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.
Actually it has been a big surprise to everyone in the domestic stove industry how much PM can be reduced for no cost at all – jsut better designs. It is just that the mental image people have is of old coal fired power stations and they do not think beyond that. Small domestic stoves can burn cleaner than even modern power stations at many times the capital cost per kW. It is aknowledge problem, not a capital problem.
Coal fired burners are optimised to be as small as possible (re cost) and have high gas velocities with huge fans. A great deal of their ‘soot’ is actually ash blown up by fans, now captured with electrostatic precipitators. There is no need for that (referring specifically to coal) because simply not blowing it up in air in the first place solves the problem of air-borne ash (much of which is not BC anyway).
BC is created by incomplete combustion and trying to make the burner as small as possible is not how to get perfect combustion of anything. Crosspatch mentions a burning tire – an excellent example of a really lousy, dirty fire, not because tires are inherently dirty, but because an open fire is not how to burn it really cleanly. A tire is just biomass plus carbon black made from natural gas, after all. Nothing special in there – but it needs a high Temperature and residence Time and Turbulence to burn well (TTT).
>>“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.
Cooler is not the case. BC forms part of the total albedo of the atmosphere and is a very strong absorber of incoming or reflected or re-radiated energy provided the particle size is able to interact with the wavelength in question – typically it has to be larger than 1/4 of a wavelength to receive any effect. Perhaps someone else can comment on this aspect. At 1/4 of a wavelength it reflects quite well, whatever the colour.
BC performs the role that CO2 is supposed to: absorbs strongly. It does it over a far greater spectrum than CO2. Al Gore’s CO2 experiment conducted with black smoke instead of CO2 would have given a very much more successful result because the absorption is significant.
If they were wrong about CO2, why should we trust them on Black Carbon?
They will of course have to ban lightning, a major source of natural fire and those Africans and Indians had better shape up, can’t wait to see Groanpeace out there stomping out kitchen fires. Maybe they could chase folk around their villages in a big electric powered truck called the Carbon Cooker Crusher! They could chain themselves to open fire cooking pots. What about all the eco zealots with their oil fired Agas and Rayburns?
“From the report:
By far the largest regional source of soot is brush fires and biomass burning in China, India and other parts of Asia, accounting for between 25 and 35 percent of global soot emissions, according to soot emission specialists. The soot emitted in developing nations results from the burning of field stubble and the estimated 2.5 billion people who cook their food on open fires.”
I suppose need to go back and calculate what countries have contributed the most to global warming. the c02 emiiters or the black soot methane emmitters
I see a new BBQ tax coming and hateful looks from villagers with pitch forks as I pass by in my Diesel Jeep
Kev-in-Uk says:
January 15, 2013 at 2:19 pm
I am still struggling to find a plausible link of BC to any significant warming effect.
Think in terms of 3 types of warming.
1. Atmospheric warming
2. Surface warming
3. Measured surface warming (i.e. effect on measure minimum and maximum temperatures)
Ignoring cloud effects, atmospheric BC warms the atmosphere, but cools the surface.
And because of when most BC was (and to some extent still is) produced, atmospheric BC particularly cools minimum temperatures. I explain this in the link above, but 60+ years ago, a couple of hundred million European/N American/Australian households in winter would light a domestic fire around dawn, an activity that produces a lot of smoke (BC and organic particulates) and resulting in cooler minimum temperatures.
Remove those fires and minimum temperatures rise particularly in winter, which is what we have seen.
Billy Liar says:
January 15, 2013 at 11:34 am
What about dust from deserts? The Sahara puts plenty of dust on the glaciers of the European Alps every year, you can see it every summer – it makes the snow look pinkish or yellowish. Plenty of other dry places have dust storms where the finest particles will probably travel long distances. Why single out carbon particles when sand/rock particles are more than likely equally prevalent?
They single out black carbon because it comes from a internal combustion engine.
And, that is the ultimate prize. algore hates them.
Peter Melia says:
January 15, 2013 at 11:55 am
Diesel engine emissions are well fingered in the report. There is a danger in restricting diesel engine usage, in that virtually all of the world runs upon diesel. The poorer peoples of the globe, which is most people, would be vastly more poor if diesel engines were in some way, any way penalised, with results so well described by Willis Eschenbach yesterday. It should be remembered that the diesel engine cycle is the most fuel efficient energy to work transformer known to man. Any attempt to tamper with it would increase fuel costs, and therefore the cost of everything, there is. If diesel engines are to targeted, the efforts should be to maintain the pre-eminence of the diesel engine whilst reducing the carbon content (not carbon dioxide) content of the fuel.
As usual the BAU boosters avoid the truth. Oh, they will talk about the negative impacts of doing something positive about AGW, but they go into instant denial about the impacts of AGW itself on poverty, and they completely ignore the costs of BAU fossil fuel burning when they wring their hands about poverty. They do the latter simply by externalising fossil fuel burning costs – whether these costs be AGW, or premature deaths or tens of millions of lives blighted by chronic respiratory diseases. Simple thimble trick, no? Just leave the bad stuff out.
Around two million people a year die prematurely because of black soot. Uncounted tens of millions more have chronic respiratory conditions arising from black soot.
These needed to be added to the costs side of the so-called ‘cheap’ energy ledger. But BAU boosters ignore them. Neither are the deaths of thousands upon thousands of coal miners every year. Nope. These costs don’t exist.
Any, and I mean any, attempt to focus on the costs of addressing AGW, and in particular the impact of such on poverty, that does not also internalise two million premature deaths a year and/or the impacts on poverty on the poor having to adapt to AGW and/or to black soot all by themselves, deserves real scepticism. But the vaunted skepticism of self-described sceptics disappears in such circumstances. Phut.
I am sceptical of the credibility of BAU boosters who deliberately focus on small parts of large, complex problems and large complex solutions. This is a well-known BAU boosting ruse from way back.
““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.”
<<<
First comes a set of desired actions to drive the agenda THEN the study to support propaganda to energize those actions, all worded so as to not interfere with other portions of the agenda. It telling that besides using the Marxist term "Policy Makers" they are applying it to a radical leftist propagandist organization!
"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."
<<<
Did you catch that? When the greenies shut off the electricity and embargo the oil, they do not want the common man to foil their plans by burning wood to stay warm.
I’m sure I am not the only one who is fed up with Climate Ace’s constantly posting ‘BAU’ — business as usual.
‘BAU’ is Climate Ace’s psychological projection. The true ‘business as usual’ is the mainstream media’s constant harping on catastrophic AGW. ‘BAU’ is the alarmist clique’s constant harping on catastrophic AGW. That is “business as usual”.
Scientific skeptics reject “business as usual”.
When Climate Ace posts ‘BAU’, he is no doubt looking in the mirror.
“By far the largest regional source of soot is brush fires and biomass burning in China, India and other parts of Asia, accounting for between 25 and 35 percent of global soot emissions”
Should be far more than that. Please note the logarithmic scale in Fig. 1a – Global distribution of BC sources
Review
Nature Geoscience 1, 221 – 227 (2008)
Published online: 23 March 2008
doi:10.1038/ngeo156
Global and regional climate changes due to black carbon
V. Ramanathan1 & G. Carmichael
Sam the First says:
January 15, 2013 at 10:58 am
“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”
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!
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.
Someone in Australia just got 17 years for fire setting. Penalties have been going up but around 40% of fires are started either deliberately or accidentally by humans. A signficant number of fires are lit by people with mental illnesses (often fire fighting volunteers). Penalties do not deter them at all, apparently. Sparks from farm machinery and control burns that get out of control are also important sources of fire.
Around 60% are started by nature usually in the form of lightning.
Replacing forests with grassland or bitumen is a major carbon source. Forests that burn and then grow recycle carbon but they make little difference to long term carbon distribution.
I await some noble BAU boosting story about the poor but noble Greek man who was recently busted for chopping down a tree for firewood. He had no other way of warming his family. He had his dignity, followed by a homily on the wickedness of trying to do something, anything to prevent AGW.
I am skeptical of BAU boosters who argue that the world’s remaining forests need to be cleared in order to fuel and feed the poor because the poor exist and that is the only useful way of addressing poverty. Pap adulterated with pseudo-economic schmaltz is still pap.
Matthew W says:
January 15, 2013 at 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 !!!
I am skeptical of your claim that some dust is not man-made. OTOH, I am not at all skeptical of your claim to be silly. You have demonstrated to a reasonable level of certainty already.
REPLY: I’m skeptical of your ability to continue to comment here when you waste everybody’s time like this “ace” – Anthony
Oh dear! Here in the UK it is trendy to install wood-burning stoves. I assume because they burn wood rather than fossil fuels so it is ‘green’. Do we now have to tell them they are evil people who are killing the planet?
Also, does it mean environmentalists will stop trying to prevent Africa building power stations and so reduce the use of wood and dung for cooking and heating?
BLACK PEARL says:
January 15, 2013 at 3:27 pm
I see a new BBQ tax coming and hateful looks from villagers with pitch forks as I pass by in my Diesel Jeep
I imagine that you meant the hate-filled looks from the villaters.
Climate Ace says:
January 15, 2013 at 3:57 pm
As usual the BAU boosters avoid the truth. Oh, they will talk about the negative impacts of doing something positive about AGW, but they go into instant denial about the impacts of AGW itself on poverty, and they completely ignore the costs of BAU fossil fuel burning when they wring their hands about poverty. They do the latter simply by externalising fossil fuel burning costs – whether these costs be AGW, or premature deaths or tens of millions of lives blighted by chronic respiratory diseases.
Those premature deaths are almost exclusively from domestic burning of fossil and bio- fuels in the developing world.
These deaths were almost completely eliminated in the developing world by coal fired power stations, (plus natural gas) and emissions controls on vehicles.
I assume we can conclude, you are in favour of building a few thousand coal fired power stations in the developing world.
Let’s put car owners on trial!/sarc What nerve to flog this old baloney as if it was steak!