We’ve had several essays here at WUWT on the role of Black Carbon soot and its role in affecting surface albedo. Anyone who has ever witnessed “dirty snow” knows that it tends to melt faster than white snow under sunlight because the black carbon on top absorbs more solar energy than the base white snow does. There’s even been some simple citizen science demonstrating this effect in your own back yard. Most of the western world’s industrialization has shifted to China due to environmental regulation, and as we know, China hasn’t paid much attention to pollution control as seen by the satellite photo at right and the many photos we’ve seen from the ground showing air pollution in China, for example, in Beijing.
While this paper is based on a modeling of black carbon interaction with the atmosphere and albedo, the premise is fairly straightforward, and wouldn’t likely have as many variables as many long term climate models. I think it is worth considering because unlike some long term climate models, we also have observational feedback that suggests black carbon is a real problem. The good news is that is a much easier problem to solve as conventional pollution control is a mature technology.
In the recently published Fahey et al, from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) where they did atmospheric sampling over a four year period, the lead author said, “This study confirms and goes beyond other research that suggested black carbon has a strong warming effect on climate, just ahead of methane.”
Then there was Lau et al from NASA, another modeling study which suggests that Soot is having a big impact on Himalyan temperature – as much or more than GHG’s
This new paper from Lee and Kim says similar things using different methods.
Radiative effect of black carbon aerosol on seasonal variation in snow depth in the Northern-Hemisphere
Abstract
In this research, we studied the effects of black carbon (BC) aerosol radiative forcing on seasonal variation in the Northern Hemisphere (NH) using numerical simulations with the NASA finite-volume General Circulation Model (fvGCM) forced with monthly varying three-dimensional aerosol distributions from the Goddard Ozone Chemistry Aerosol Radiation and Transport Model (GOCART). The results show that atmospheric warming due to black carbon aerosols subsequently warm the atmosphere and land surfaces, especially those over Eurasia. As a result, the snow depth in Eurasia was greatly reduced in late winter and spring, and the reduction in snow cover decreased the surface albedo. Our surface energy balance analysis shows that the surface warming due to aerosol absorption causes early snow melting and further increases surface-atmosphere warming through snow/ice albedo feedback. Therefore, BC aerosol forcing may be an important factor affecting the snow/ice albedo in the NH.
DOI 10.1007/s13143-013-0021-2
================================================================
Indeed, spring snow cover in Eurasia seems to be down markedly according to this plot from Rutgers Snow Lab:
Source: http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=0&ui_region=eurasia&ui_month=2
I don’t have access to the new Lee and Kim paper, but I do have access to some stunning examples of black carbon existing where it should not, in Greenland:
Meltwater stream flowing into a large moulin in the ablation zone (area below the equilibrium line) of the Greenland ice sheet. (Image courtesy Roger J. Braithwaite, The University of Manchester, UK via GISS)
Of course images like this one at left showing water tumbling down a huge moulin are being held up with gloom and doom scenarios that say Greenland’s Ice is melting “faster than expected” and we’ll get six feet of sea level rise from it along with a 10-15°F temperature rise by the year 2100.
Perhaps. But, moulins have existed since Greenland had ice, they are just part of the natural landscape and processes. They aren’t “new” to our time.
One of the photos we don’t often get to see was also circulated in the email, by somebody who lives in Greenland and knows what this is really all about.
It’s a real eye opener:
Image from National Geographic online slide show – Photo: James Balog – click for moreHe writes:
In the winter a huge among of snow are accumulated on the Ice (2-3 meters, sometimes more) and we are not talking about 1 or 2 square-miles, it’s about 100.000′s of square miles (up to 1 million) on the Westside of the Ice cap and a similar picture on the Eastside… when the melting season starts in april-sep… the meltwater has to go somewhere, and for sure it goes downhill in huge meltwater rivers.
The black stuff on the bottom of the lakes is carbon dust and pollution in general… but not from one year, but several decades (the topographical conditions don’t change from year to year). On a flight over the Ice Cap a sky clear day, you can see hundreds of huge lakes with the black spot on the bottom.
Here in Kangerlussuaq, on the edge of the Ice Cap, we have several burst from edge-lake, all the water (millions of tonnes) in the river passing through the settlement in a day or two.
The Vikings (Eric the Red) is about Medieval warm period…. the Hockey-stick mystery!!!
Med venlig hilsen
Svend Erik Hendriksen
And in that same Nat Geo collection that the photo above came from, you can see this photo also:
From National Geographic: At the bottom of an ice canyon, cryoconite—fine brown and black dust carried by wind—spatters the edges of sutured crevasses, places where meltwater flooded massive cracks in the ice and then froze. Photo: James Balog
h/t to Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. for the Lee and Kim paper.
[UPDATE] I trust that Anthony won’t mind if I add some more information about black carbon, from the EPA.
The figure above shows the location of the sources of BC emissions globally.
Note the large differences between US and global sources. Domestic/residential, from the use of coal and wood for heating and cooking, is only 3.6% of the US emissions, but it is a full quarter of the global emissions. Going the other way, transport (mainly diesel vehicles) is more than half the US total, while it’s about a fifth of the global total.
Regards to all,
w.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I’ve been a ‘soot guy’ for a very long time. My dad managed a ski area 40miles down wind from Pittsburgh in the 50’s early 60’s. We lived in an apartment above the lodge; lodge at the top of the mountain. I remember the snow color in Spring. It is that which lead me to know that CO2 was not the driver the kooks were claiming.
This information is crucial, although i suspect this comment will be censored.
Dane Wigington’s Censored Interview on Geoengineering
http://aircrap.org/dane-wigingtons-censored-interview-geoengineering/336826/
In addition to radiative warming, the albedo effect of black carbon on snow and ice is estimated at 0.13 W/m2 (Bond et al 2012).
http://www.igbp.net/images/18.4910f0f013c20ff8a5f8000200/black-carbon-Fig9.jpg
However, the effect on arctic multiyear ice should be much higher.
1. Black carbon is almost entirely concentrated in the northern hemisphere
2. Black carbon concentration is much higher on multi year ice than on younger ice or snow.
3. “Soot deposition increases surface melt on ice masses, and the meltwater spurs multiple radiative and dynamical feedback processes that accelerate ice disintegration,” according to NASA scientists Dr. James Hansen and Dr. Larissa Nazarenko.[76] As a result of this feedback process, “BC on snow warms the planet about three times more than an equal forcing of CO2.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_carbon
-> Multiply 0.13 W/m2 by a factor of about 2 (due to 1.). by a factor of perhaps 3-10 (due to 2.) and by factor of 3 (due to 3.) and add about 0.97 W/m2 for the radiative effect:
and you get an effective forcing of 3.3-8.8 W/m2 for the albedo effect on multi year ice, by far the highest anthropogenic forcing.
What about dust particles….
Need to worry anymore, they will be gone anyway says the ever so trustworthy Geophysical Research Letters http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50214/abstract
Irriversible loss. Gone forever. Never to return. Not ever. They know this for sure. So let it soot away 🙂
Someone should start looking at the periodic changes in Arctic ice coverage, and using ALL the data not just one day per year.
The following plot shows rate of change. It has a promentent cycle that I estimated by eye to be 5.42 years, as a single cycle.
http://climategrog.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/ddt_arctic_ice.png
When I did a full spectral density analysis it’s humming with cyclic peaks.
http://climategrog.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/nh_ice_area_anom_chirp.png
my estimate of 5.4 would be nearer 5.5.
The 4.38 and 5.5 peaks are a resonant pair that would result from an interaction of the 2.44 peak with 21 years, so not surprises that the amount of ice is realted to solar activity.
The rest of the peaks are worth a full article, so I’ll get to write that up.
Manfred.
1. Black carbon is almost entirely concentrated in the northern hemisphere.
__________________________________
Is that why ice is expanding in Antarctica, and not in the Arctic?
.
Well there is one thing right; we can control this real pollution with current technology,not pixie dust and unicorn farts.But then I guess actual solutions don’t get the biggie grants :):).
“frank says:
March 7, 2013 at 9:45 am
This information is crucial, although i suspect this comment will be censored.
If you want something censored,Frank,try SkS.
black carbon comes from humans. everybody knows that the amount is just a trace.
Also, the climate is so complex and giant that humans cannot have any effect whatsoever.
Plus look at this study. They used Models! and anomalies! has to be bogus.
/sarc off
Mosher at 10:57 am
Gee Mosh, you really have turned into a smug commenter recently. You are starting to sound like Mann. Did you shave your head and grow a goatee since I saw you last?
If there is no statistical warming in at least 17 years and black carbon is leading to warming then should we conclude that the earth is actually cooling and only black carbon is keeping it in neutral?
Silver Ralph: “Is that why ice is expanding in Antarctica, and not in the Arctic?”
Hmmm, a better question might be: Is that why global warming isn’t global, but mostly the northern half of the northern hemisphere???
Enquiring minds want to know!
RSS’s Lower troposphere, Click on ‘history’,
also Region Global, North Pole, South Pole
http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_monthly.html?type=trend&channel=tlt
Well, duh?
While this paper is based on a modeling of black carbon interaction with the atmosphere and albedo
=======
are they sure this is all black carbon?
Most of the dust in Greenland comes from the Gobi, which is famous for it’s black dust…..
Black Snow Drifts
The black soils of Minnesota illustrate this ‘black carbon effect’ each winter. Minnesota has large farming areas with black soils, remnants of the original prairies. During the winter snow storms, wind sweeps parts of black soil fields clear of snow and carries some of the black soil dust along to the low pressure eddies behind accumulating snow drifts. The black soil falls out onto the down wind face of the snow drift, along with accumulating wind blown snow. During the spring melt(s), the melting snow drifts become nearly black on the surface as the snow/ice melts just below that layer. As the soil dust doesn’t ‘melt’, it gets more concentrated on the snow surface with each melt, until all of the underlying snow has melted and the soil dust is returned to the local soil.
MtK
“””””…..
Radiative effect of black carbon aerosol on seasonal variation in snow depth in the Northern-Hemisphere …..”””””
So an “aerosol” is some sort of goop in the atmosphere; right ? I can assure you, that all the black dust water droplets, all over my car sitting out there in my driveway, are NOT “aerosols”, and moreover they are not doing any radiative forcing of anything.
So why are we seeing all these pictures of soot on the snow/ice in a science paper about “aerosols” and “radiative forcing” What are the accepted SI units of “radiative forcing”.
One thing that is clearly visible in those Greenland photos, is that ice is definitely not as reflective as is fresh snow.
Everybody knows that when you are making surface irradiance calculations, if the sun is at an angular elevation (A) that the irradiated surface area increases as 1/sin(A) so the average surface irradiance is proportional to sin(A) , so at 30 degrees, sun elevation, the irradiance is half of the zenith value; well plus the increases air thickness attenuation of course; so the polar sun at low sun elevations can’t melt snow.
Well not quite so fast. We’ve all seen, at least in pictures, arrays of tilted solar collectors tilted up so their normal points at the sun, so they receive the normal TSI, less atmospheric attenuation dose of irradiance. And they space those tilted panels so they don’t cast shadows on each other.
Well you see, snow is not exactly flat, like ice is for example. Snow has multifacets pointing in all directions, and wouldn’t you know it, those facets that happen to be tilted up in the right direction can also get a full dose of normally incident solar radiation, head on. So for THAT facet of the snow surface, there is no obliquity factor to be applied, the facet gets it full 1362 W/m^2 less air mass and scattering losses, so in fact except at surface grazing angles, where the air thickness is very great, it is almost as good as the sun overhead, and that facet most assuredly will melt, and the water will trickle down into the snow, and refreeze. So it is like the moulin effect; on average the whole surface will not instantly melt; but some fraction of it will most certainly melt, and that captured solar energy, simply creates better optical situations for increased absorption of solar energy. which accelerates the melting.
So anyone who thinks that a snowball earth can persist indefinitely unless some massive GHG calamity comes along, just doesn’t have a good mental image of how direct sun radiation melts snow, and a snowball earth without open liquid water to evaporate, will not remain a snowball for very long , but will turn into an ice block earth, which is far less reflective.
OMG, our black carbon is heating the planet, and melting all the snow and ice! We know this because a model said so, and all models are correct and scientific. The climate is a delicate creature, and our eeevil ways have thrown it out of balance. Right Mosh?
Worse than we thought…
http://news.yahoo.com/canadas-arctic-glaciers-headed-unstoppable-thaw-study-190610158.html
“Dirty” snow shows up when significant melting or lublimation has occurred. Snow does not fall dirty except right by the source of pollution. Additonal snow covers up dirty snow and removes the forcing for additional melting/sublimation.
The albedo differences between dirty snow and clean snow WHEN THEY HAVE JUST FALLEN are much less than the albedo differences between cloud types and the additive effects of cloud frequenies. I doubt very much that we know the facts of these factors well enough to determine carbon soot effects …. except at a modeling level.
Snow fall frequency would be important in the effects of carbon-coloured snow. So would clear skies.
Any study that did not take these two factors into account will fail to estimate the impact carbon soot tainted snow will have on snow and ice melt.
I can see where anything dark on the snow/ice (soot, dust, etc.) will cause it to melt faster — it’s something we’ve all seen at one time or another but I don’t understand why this automatically assumed to be a warming factor. Seems that if an insulating ice/snow cover is removed that the substrate will cool off faster. What have I missed?
Before anyone crucifies the Chinese for producing soot, in addition to everything we use,
I must point out that China’s energy strategy is a whole lot more impressive than our own (South Carolina excepted). They are looking to put online over 600 nuclear reactors in the coming
decades and plan over 1600 by the turn of the century. And they can build those reactors themselves, thank you, with no assistance needed from the West. And build them far cheaper
than we can. The Chinese have outproduced the West in practically everything except
perhaps mindless arrogance. and will, in all likelihood, based on past experience, outperform the West in producing clean power as well.
I too am inclined to think that black carbon will impact the snow at and close to the poles. I’m open minded but skeptical of its role in global temperatures.
In any event, let’s assume black carbon is Really Bad Stuff and we need to reduce/mitigate it. My question is… what proportion of this particulate matter is man-made versus naturally occurring through volcanoes and such like?
We need a clear answer before we can evaluate the cost effectiveness of any proposed action.
Latitude says:
March 7, 2013 at 12:06 pm
While this paper is based on a modeling of black carbon interaction with the atmosphere and albedo
=======
are they sure this is all black carbon?
Most of the dust in Greenland comes from the Gobi, which is famous for it’s black dust…..
It has to be anthropogenic carbon – you cannot tax the Gobi desert
Mike Smith says:
March 7, 2013 at 12:32 pm
I’ve added an update with at least some of this information to the head post.
w.
Steven Mosher says:
March 7, 2013 at 10:57 am
black carbon comes from humans. everybody knows that the amount is just a trace.
Also, the climate is so complex and giant that humans cannot have any effect whatsoever.
From – Black carbon concentration in a Greenland Dye-3 Ice Core
We have determined the black carbon concentration in Greenland Dye-3 ice core samples covering the time period from about 3380 to 100 years before present. The average concentration found is 1.53 μg of black carbon per 1 kg of ice.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/92GL01904/abstract;jsessionid=88197218B524E29BAAFEB082CF064549.d01t02?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false
Looks like 1.53 ppb, a bit less than our present CO2 concentration. Yes would be considered a ‘trace’.
Also –
The researchers looked at ice cores covering the period 1788 to 2002. Ice cores from before about 1850 show most soot came from forest fires. They found that the older soot samples contained vanillic acid, an indicator of burning conifer trees. But since then, soot in the snow has increased several times over due mainly to industrial emissions. Soot concentrations peaked in 1906-1910 and remained high for decades.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6939633.stm
From the Scripps Institute: Saharan and Asian Dust, Biological Particles End Global Journey in California
Besides dust, aerosols can be composed of sea salt, bits of soot and other pollution, or biological material. Bacteria, viruses, pollen, and plants, of both terrestrial and marine origin, also add to the mix of aerosols making the transcontinental voyage.The researchers’ analysis of winter storms in 2011 found that dust and biological aerosols tend to enhance precipitation-forming processes in the Sierra Nevada.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/01/dusts-excellent-global-adventure-ends-in-californias-sierra-nevada/
Looks like our greatgrand parents did the most changing.
Do they include the fact that when the sea ice melts, the carbon is gone from that area. In other words, a significant portion of the carbon is only effective for one season. And, is the carbon added as a layer or embedded as it should be?