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).
Is it kind of fitting that Beijing and Delhi are experiencing what-goes-round-comes-round a the moment?
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/thought-beijing-air-was-bad-delhi-among-worlds-most-polluted-cities/articleshow/18028753.cms
Philip Bradley says:
January 15, 2013 at 3:30 pm
Yes Philip – we can think back to coal power and domestic fires, London smog, etc and imagine that significant particulate matter was present at low levels in the atmosphere. Fine, it may well have produced the effects you describe but what about now? PM in the atmsophere is infinitely less(ok, that’s an exaggeration, but certainly much smaller than decades ago!) than today. As I said, per cubic metre, what amount of energy do you think the particulate or soot matter is physically capable of ‘holding’ ? compared to water vapour? (or other GHG for that matter). Hey, I don’t know actual figures – I am just thinking that it seems implausible that the sum of this BC and its potential to absorb and ‘hold’ (temporarily or otherwise) loads of energy can sum to the figures quoted.
I already said, that apart from white snow – I really can’t see BC affecting surface heat absorption significantly (Jeez, I’d think the heat absorbing effect of black asphalt covered roads and even red brick buildings must much larger! – which moves us into the realms of conflating warming from BC with warming from UHI, does it not? – and yet strangely, UHI is not mentioned as generating a significant global ‘forcing’!)
DesertYote says:
January 15, 2013 at 4:04 pm
I can see your point, and I tend to agree. This looks like another big juicy worm added onto the CAGW/AGW scams hook to make sure they have something else to reel (read: tax) us in with!
anticlimactic says:
January 15, 2013 at 4:40 pm
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?
Good questions. What are the appropriate policy responses to black soot or black carbon? In our town the local government worked assiduously at getting rid of wood burning stoves and fireplaces because we have a significant probability of temperature inversion layers, sometimes for days at a time, during exactly the same season as people really wanted to burn their wood.
Something about health costs.
As a general principle I suggest that planting wood lots, using the fuel, and then allowing wood lots to regrow is not such a bad thing as a fuel policy. It should probably be combined with advanced technology hot burning stoves with particulate catchers in chimneys. Just so that you don’t send the locals to hospitals.
It did not mean people were ‘evil’ or that they were ‘killing’ the planet. The latter would obviously take a far greater effort than a few suburbs full of wood stoves could ever hope to achieve.
They were injuring their own health, the health of their families, and that of their neighbours and there was no real political opposition to the wood fire reduction instruments.
As for African power stations, they are, IMHO, badly needed. In the absence of cheaper nuclear power I suggest that gas-fired power stations would be the way to go.
Philip Bradley says:
January 15, 2013 at 4:51 pm
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?
I see that you are dodging around the topic a bit.
My proposition was that BAU boosters do not include the true costs of fossil fuels when doing their calculations about so-called ‘cheap’ energy because they omit costs such as particulate-related premature deaths, the costs of tens of millions of chronic respiratory conditions and the costs of pulmonary lung diseases amongst miners, and so on and so forth.
These costs are simply excluded. I am skeptical, therefore, about any post that purports to show the overall costs and benefits of so-called ‘cheap’ fossil fuels. This purblind treatment of costs disappears when these same the full costs of AGW responses to the poor are treated in great detail. Then I get very, very skeptical when BAU boosters make a logical leap that responding to AGW can’t possibly be done because it has bad impacts on the poor. The sleight of hand is even more galling when these same posters ignore the differential impact AGW will have on those already in poverty.
Going to your substantive point, IMHO you provide a simple policy response to a complex problem.
I would suggest a mix of the following: firstly, provision of hot burning fuel-efficient wood-fired stoves at the family level. It should not be beyond the wit of the world’s great engineering brains to develop such a stove. I would combine this with provision for local woodlot establishment, provision of renewable energy at the grid level; and encouragement of the further development of, and implementation of, nuclear power. While some folk say that nuclear power is more expensive than gas or coal power, I say they are externalising well-known fossil fuel costs and ignoring the costs of AGW.
In the interim, I would also encourage the establishment of gas-fired rather than coal-fired stations to immediately address some of the drastic energy imbalances between energy use in poor countries and wealthy countries. Finally, I would set up a user-pays market price for CO2 that internalised the current and future costs of fossil fuels into our economies.
Where this imposes extra costs on those unable for reasons of poverty to pay, as will happen, I would direct wealth transfers from yachties and the like to those most in need.
Conrad 2:13
“Great Western Spittle-Flecked Doom-Screecher”
I’m stealing that one.
In my mind’s eye I see a picture of Owl Gore on a perch screeching away, alongside a Double-Breasted Mattress-Thrasher.
Some cartoonist needs to pay attention, but maybe it’s too 2010-ish.
“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.”
I’m not a scientist, so apologies if I’m asking a stupid or meaningless question, but is this the radiative forcing rather than the warming effect? I thought the warming effect of carbon dioxide was supposed to be half a Watt per square metre…
Thank you, Mr Watts, for reigning in the troll, ” c.ace”.
Open burning is only savanna and forest fires? Obviously they didn’t take into account the millions of tons of coal that burn annually in natural coal seam fires.
http://www.sapient-horizons.com/Sapient/Underground_Fires.html
Speaking of stoves, here’s a low-tech solution, apparently reducing particulate emissions to little, beyond H20 – (steam). Out of the permaculture community. It’s fine to talk about “provision of hot burning fuel-efficient wood-fired stoves at the family level”, but folks who do so, claiming to be able to analyze the embodied energy (and to the degree, attendant negative consequences) within remedial solutions, in this instance certainly are not so able. Would I be far off the number to suggest we’d be talking about ~500 million “hot burning fuel-efficient wood-fired stoves”?
Much needed ‘economic stimulus’?
Anyway, there’s the permaculture thing, for consideration: – “rocket stove mass heaters”.
http://www.richsoil.com/rocket-stove-mass-heater.jsp
lots of video links re:construction and performance at bottom of page. from the looks of it, takes about a day, an old steel barrel, and some cob – exhaust nearly clean enough to vent inside when running properly (very hot gasses reburn)
Kev-in-Uk says:
January 15, 2013 at 4:55 pm
As I said, per cubic metre, what amount of energy do you think the particulate or soot matter is physically capable of ‘holding’ ? compared to water vapour?
This is about transport/direction of transport of energy. Atmospheric BC turns downward energy (solar irradiance) into energy going in all directions (absorbtion, re-emission and scattering). This is energy that would otherwise have reached the surface. Resulting in surface cooling, atmospheric warming and climate cooling, the latter because the BC intercepted energy has a shorter route to space and thus will reach space sooner than irradiance that reaches the ground. You see this over India, where BC levels have risen steadily over recent decades. Except during the Monsoon which washes all the BC out of the atmosphere.
BTW, cities generally have higher albedos than surrounding non-urban areas (all that concrete). Although, had the albedo of European cities been measured in the 1950s they would probably have found lower albedos (all those soot covered buildings).
I must say, I’m struck by the truth of the (now) adage that CAWG via the demon gas CO2, is, for some, a fanatical religion.
And tickled by learning on this thread that a cost effective way to reburn combustion soot (w/thermo-electric power boost benefits) from diesel engines is with an inexpensive exhaust addition, that leaves as principal by-product CO2! A so-very-tasty sandwich of irony and poetic justice!
It’s interesting that the effect of black carbon may be several times larger than they thought originally. But, it is also amazing that within error it could be 0.2 to 2.0 – so a factor of 10.
With any piece of ‘climate research’ you have to start by assuming it is just another piece of propaganda. Remember that propaganda has to have an element of truth in it, the problem is determining what part of this paper is actually true and how much is ‘conjecture’.
[I remember reading Karl Popper’s book about Hegel claiming he said ‘You need laws to protect your freedom [true], so the more laws there are the freer you become'[propaganda]]
To me much climate science seems like a return to the Dark Ages where belief is more important than knowledge or science. And of course the suggested punishment for disbelievers/blasphemers are along the same lines!
This is certainly worth a look about how space weather and a weakening magnetic field can affect climate…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xcm9qsVaf0o&list=UUTiL1q9YbrVam5nP2xzFTWQ&index=14
So… since there has been no significant warming for the last, oh, fifteen or sixteen years or so, does this new “revelation” mean that there would have been significant cooling over the same period – were it not for black carbon?
2.5 billion depending on open fires doesn’t mean there are that many open fires, since one fire feeds a family. Therefore, if 700,000 (say) propane burning stoves were made and given away, and propane canister exchange centers were set up, soot emission (and CO2 emission) could be cut, while reducing stress on the environment from firewood gathering, and cutting health problems from sooty air in dwellings. The stoves and lanterns could be manufactured cheaply in developing countries.
Propane canisters could also power efficient lanterns that could replace sooty oil lamps. The money could come from shuttered renewables-subsidy programs in the West.
Nearly everyone here is in favor of some form of (improved) nuclear power, partly because of the considerations you mentioned. Stick around.
PS: In another thread you attacked our side for appropriating the word “skeptic.” I object to that word too, and have been repeatedly advocating and using “contrarian” instead, for three reasons. 1) It’s more accurate–we’re not mere doubters, we’re dissenters. 2) It’s more acceptable to the other side, because it’s more neutral. 3) “Skeptic” has been tarnished by its appropriation by groups of “scoffers,” or pseudo-skeptics, whom I call scoftics.
I’m pleased to see that one warmist sociologist surveying the field has come to the same conclusion I have, and that “contrarian” is finding increasing use in the media.
rogerknights
I appreciate the term ‘contrarians’ and think the term ‘scoftic’ is excellent.
Rogerknights
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.
Having travelled through central and northern Thailand during the burning season it seemed to me that every single patch of scrub was either on fire, or had already been burnt. There were no attempts to put the fires out and I was told that they were deliberately lit. I did not find out the purpose of the fires but I did see various herds of cattle grazing in the scrub and, even when they were not visible, cowbells could over be heard. The fires burned day and night. It was the cool season so the fires were not necessarily hot burns, and burned especially slowly at night.
The smoke was horrendous.
Last fall a lightening storm set multiple fires (100+) in central WA State and several merged into a complex called the Table Mountain Fire. First link below. Context, second link. Round up all the usual suspects.
http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/424685_10151094943463440_1680541527_n.jpg
http://phys.org/news/2012-09-image-wildfires-washington-state.html
An analogy to the US Govt. is warranted. The Table Mountain Fire needed and consumed oxygen. The government needs dollars and will take and consume them. Any excuse that can be used to extract money from the economy will be justified. Soot, CO2, sin taxes, fees, sales tax, value added tax, and others will be considered. Changes are underway by entities throughout the country to protect from this onslaught. Check with any small local health clinic to see when they merged (or how soon they will) with a large hospital. Then ask why. At least the fires stopped when blanketed by snow.
With regards to atmospheric warming by BC :
All atoms are constantly shedding heat and trying to reach absolute zero [-273C]. The only reason they don’t is that they usually receive about the same amount of heat as they transmit. Their temperature will always move towards equilibrium where the heat transmitted and received is the same.
If carbon in the upper atmosphere absorbs heat it will be immediately re-radiated. The radiation is isotropic so 50% will go towards space and the rest will go earthwards. As most heat is from the Sun the effect will be cooling for the Earth’s surface.
Some heat may be transmitted to surrounding molecules by collision, but the carbon would have to be in quantity to have any measurable effect. Also this effect would diminish as the Sun sinks in the sky so by nightfall the effect would be zero.
At best you could say that carbon in the upper atmosphere may cause a tiny amount of heating for a fraction of the day.
Note that this, and many other claims by climate science, could be tested in the lab. You are only talking about air, soot and sunlight. Any effects could be measured to a thousandth of a degree or less. The concentration of carbon could be altered to find out the range of possible effects. I have never heard of any experiments like this to put the claims on a firm scientific footing. I think there is a good reason for this – the answers would be ‘wrong’. You would also need confidence that the people conducting the experiments are capable and after the truth.
” Reducing diesel engine emissions would reduce warming”
Mostly because of the unreliability of the emissions reductions equipment presently installed on diesel engines is why I am no longer an owner operator. I doubt seriously that engineers will come up with reliable emissions control systems in the rest of my lifetime, it has taken them a damn century just to place the mug/cup holder far enough away from the stereo to keep the coffee from splashing and shorting it out.
But they sure are a boon to diesel mechanics, these ‘parts changers’ certainly are in high demand.
anticlimactic says:
January 15, 2013 at 8:42 pm
” If carbon in the upper atmosphere absorbs heat it will be immediately re-radiated. The radiation is isotropic so 50% will go towards space and the rest will go earthwards. As most heat is from the Sun the effect will be cooling for the Earth’s surface.”
Just how does energy flow from a region of lower energy to a region of higher energy?
I have taken several classes in thermodynamics. Somehow I missed this concept.
I am glad I bailed on the Electrical Engineering degree. Taking a semester class on electromagnetic radiation just drive me to drink.
[snip – off topic – and not your concern -mod]