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?w=640&resize=640%2C596)
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?resize=529%2C399&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).
Let’s see if I’ve got this right, or is it wrong? Since they are failing to eliminate oil, coal, and natural gas as the big evil because the carbon dioxide emissions aren’t doing the job on the climate they want, they are now trying to eliminate oil, coal, and natural gas because black carbon is now a player? Is this new insanity or just the same old insanity wrapped in different wrapping paper? How about if we remember what warms the planet and what doesn’t? I don’t know how it is in your house, but when I turn the furnace down, the house cools. When I turn it up, the house warms. Looks to me with this “that’s more like it, they’ve finally found something worth talking about” attitude, most seem ready to jump into bed with them and forget about the fact that AGW is bogus to start with, aimed at depopulation by natural causes, and I’m pretty sure that the powers that be won’t plan on keeping people that won’t play their game around as nature purges the poor, the old, and poor folks that never even had a chance.
Ah yes, the science is settled eh.
Judging by the annual vast bush fires across Africa and Indonesia I would say that attacking diesel may just be the equivalent of the drunk looking for his keys under the lampost because it’s too dark anywhere else.
Looks like another agenda driven “discovery” to me.
One has to look on the bright side of a report like this. Cast your minds back or look at some old films and see the soot trails of early jet aircraft, look at the smoke stacks of the early semi’s blowing black as coal. The developed world has already sorted the carbon black emissions, starting in the sixties and seventies to clean our skies. Thus we are not the guilty party, so the UN and IPCC now must point the finger else where, with the American EPA now under siege for past transgressions they also may remain silent for they blame CO2 as an endangerment. Idiots.
Engineers often say that “If it looks right, it is right” and at first glance I am inclined to accept that the authors’ conclusion about BC may be largely correct. However, the sceptic in me also asks is this the next bogey man needed to keep the grant money flowing now that CO2 is just about a busted flush? I will reserve final judgement until after reading the full paper; quite some task! http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgrd.50171/pdf.
Meanwhile kudos to the publishers – Wiley – for making this freely available to all.
One thing that does immediately strike me is that, even with strict emissions controls in the EU and N America, total global emissions are increasing, while temps over the past ~16yrs are not. Does this mean that BC et al are canceling out an underlying natural cooling? A cooling that is past due, according to some. If this is the case, elimination of BC et al might expedite a far greater catastrophe than the doomsday warming the alarmists keep trotting out. I for one will then be grateful that the pie in the sky idea that all open fire cooking can be regulated – the usual big government BS dished out by leftist control freaks – is doomed to failure.
So, what is the proportion of airborne black carbon from anthropogenic sources to natural sources from, say, lightning started forest fires?
I have to say Roger, that the bulk of bush fires in Africa are man made. The fires are often started as a hunting method. The fire drives animals out of their lairs and are then despatched using spears and dogs.
Also in Africa burning the bush is seen as a cheap way of applying fertiliser, at least for the first growing season. If you look at satellite pictures of Mozambique and Zimbabwe in October you will get an idea of just how huge these fires can be. In 2010 the smoke plumes stretched from the East coast all the way to the Okavango, about 1500km.
The cure, in Africa at least, lies in the availability of cheap and ubiquitous energy and modern farming methods. Irrespective of the benefits to air quality and black carbon reduction energy will also result in the saving of much of the natural environment.
tallbloke says:
January 15, 2013 at 11:14 pm
“So, what is the proportion of airborne black carbon from anthropogenic sources to natural sources from, say, lightning started forest fires?”
——————————————————————————————————————-
Whatever the IPCC says it is. Do try to keep up 😉
Taken from the IGBP site
Well, they got that right. Now all they need to do is stop pretending that they understand it well enough to make useful quantitative descriptions of the climatic effects. How many of those same authors previously thought they understood the, probably less complex, effects of carbon dioxide?
From my science class, proved by experiment – black things absorb more radiated heat from an external hot body than white shiny things. They also radiate more heat in the absence of the hot body. Will the soot covered snow/ ice absorb more heat during the day / arctic summer than it loses heat during night / arctic winter.
Jeremy Das:
re the question in your post at January 15, 2013 at 5:47 pm.
Yes, the 1.1 Watts per square meter (W/m2) is the revised value of radiative forcing (RF) for black carbon (i.e. particles of soot combined with sulphate).
A comparison with RF values for CO2, methane and nitrous oxide is in my post above at January 15, 2013 at 11:31 am.
Richard
I’m not going to get all excited about how great this is until it can be demonstrated real.
As it stands, it just looks like more of the same to me. More grasping after reasons to force an agenda.
We’ve had massive forest fires in the past, huge amounts of smoke and soot. I’m not seeing where the cars in Sacramento make more soot than when Yosemite burned, nor more particulates than when Mt. St. Helens bbq’d some square miles of trees.
Until there are real measurable numbers on things, it’s just more “stuff” from the same “stuff peddlers” in service to the same agenda.
tallbloke:
At January 15, 2013 at 11:14 pm you ask
I remind – and repeat for emphasis – that in my above post at January 15, 2013 at 1:00 pm I wrote
Richard
“Over the last decade, “wildland fires” across Canada have consumed an average of 1.9 million hectares a year.”
http://cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/pages/153
The perpetual climate machine continues along. Not sure how many man-made or man-generated compounds there are. Pick a number, say 15,000, and discover how much forcing it adds to an area. Mulitple the number you pick by the square miles on the surface and you can have an article like this created each day until you retire. Oh, and be sure to focus on areas where neither humans nor animals nor plants live. Can’t have verification.
Eventually they’ll derive how much forcing is needed from all those man-made things to account for all this cold weather we’re having of late.
This paper has the ability to break up the church of co2 gas. This should be are hard stance paper to follow to rid every country of a co2 gas tax and put in place what should have always been fought for and that is a reduction in black carbon.
If you are going to factor in soot, you have to change some views about CO2 as well, because the two are hand-in-hand in the era when cooking was done over wood fires and that goes back a long way, many centuries. As do volcanos and forest fires and Indian cremations and coal fired steam engines. If you accept that soot should be high centuries ago, possibly global population related, you might accept that CO2 was also higher centuries ago and so the meaning of climate sensitivity takes a new course as doubling starts from a higher base further back in time. We would have to kiss goodbye to those models that have CO2 as a sudden increase in living memory, from a surge in industry, unless our ancestors ate cold salads more often than we think. It’s time to re-read Ross McKitrick on land use changes and global temperature estimates.
Climate Ace says:
January 15, 2013 at 4:31 pm
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
========================================================================
Hey Ace, I never said that some dust is not man made.
Eco-trolls on blogs are entertaining for the first few posts, then it turns into the same kind of discomfort one would get from chewing on aluminum foil.
I commend Anthony for having so much patience with your ilk.
So this is what “Science” has dumbed down to.
They Estimate this and they estimate that, it is called guessing.
Where the hell are the Empirical Measurements????
Where are the Trends, who did any actual measuring.
Another Bombshell, this time about the Stratospheric temperature measurements calaculated by the UK Met Office.
See
http://www.thegwpf.org/met-office-botch-climate-scientists-stratosphere-wrong/
at the G W P F .
In re woodlot heating/power source; my new less expensive insurance company *demanded* the removal of my wood stove, sited on 6 acres of second growth.
Check out this site’s article and comments for an excellent illustrated how-to on building a rocket stove that’s portable and heats up the room quickly–no thermal mass is involved.
http://www.iwilltry.org/b/build-a-rocket-stove-for-home-heating/
Emissions are vented through dryer-duct pipe into a hole in the fireplace’s doors (one glass panel has been replaced by a non-glass panel in which a circle has been cut). Its top could be used as a stovetop for cooking if an oil drum were used instead of an old water heater. It’s intended use is as supplemental heating in the winter. The economics are good. Yankee ingenuity!
Too bad no off-the-shelf models are being sold. Liability concerns, I guess, and/or permitting worries.
In Thailand and elsewhere this stove could be used for smokeless burning of stubble, brush, etc. Only steam and CO2 are emitted after it heats up, which takes five or ten minutes. Maybe such biomass could even be stored and dried in sheds for use in winter. Possibly the stove could be used for burning of certain types of trash as well (the type whose fumes aren’t noxious if burned at a high temperature), cutting down on garbage disposal landfills and the problem garbage getting into the ecosystem.
The UN & environmental groups should get on top of this pronto!
In 2001 George Bush called Kyoto fatally flawed because of absence of black carbon from it
PS: For cooking and trash-disposal, a rocket stove would be overkill for a house in most developing countries. No room for one anyway. Probably there should be a single village-owned incinerator + communal cook-stove, if the village is fairly compact.
PPS: A tree-chipper could cut down on the volume of the brush for compact storage. I had some trees trimmed recently and the chipper turned the cut-down limbs into sawdust in a trice. A region could own such a chipper and travel around villages in its region for periodic chipping of its accumulated biomass.
PPPS: Here’s a website for an organization that wants to build and distribute rocket stoves in the third world:
http://www.rocketstove.org/
PPPPS: Here’s a testimonial on the site above from a builder of a rocket stove: