From the AGU Weekly Highlights, something I’ve pointed out more than a few times. See this photo of a moulin in upper Greenland, where carbon soot has collected at the bottom:
Image from National Geographic online slide show – Photo: James Balog – click for more
The authors find that BC (black carbon) emitted within the Arctic has an almost five times larger Arctic surface temperature response (per unit of emitted mass) compared to emissions at midlatitudes.
The Arctic is especially sensitive to black carbon emissions from within the region
Black carbon, also known as soot, emitted from combustion of fuels and biomass burning, absorbs solar radiation in the atmosphere and is one of the major causes of global warming, after carbon dioxide emissions. When black carbon is deposited on snow and ice, the soot-covered snow or ice absorbs more sunlight, leading to surface warming. Due to the large amount of snow and ice in the Arctic—which has warmed twice as fast as the global average over the past century—the region is likely to be especially sensitive to black carbon.
To investigate how sensitive the Arctic is to black carbon emissions from within the Arctic compared to those transported from mid-latitudes, Sand et al. conducted experiments using a climate model that includes simulation of the effects of black carbon deposited on snow.
They find that most of the Arctic warming effect from black carbon is due to black carbon deposited on snow and ice, rather than in the atmosphere. Black carbon emitted within the Arctic is more likely to stay at low altitudes and thus to be deposited on the snow and ice there, whereas black carbon transported into the Arctic from mid-latitudes is more likely to remain at higher altitudes. Because of this, the Arctic surface temperature is almost 5 times more sensitive to black carbon emitted from within the Arctic than to emissions from mid-latitudes, the authors find.
They note that although there are currently few sources of black carbon emissions within the Arctic (the most dominant ones are oil and gas fields in northwestern Russia), that is likely to change as human activity in the region increases. Therefore, the authors believe there is a need to improve technologies for controlling black carbon emissions in the Arctic.
Source:
Geophysical Research Letters, doi: 10.1002/jgrd.50613, 2013
Title:
Arctic surface temperature change to emissions of black carbon within Arctic or mid-latitudes
Abstract
[1] In this study, we address the question of how sensitive the Arctic climate is to black carbon (BC) emitted within the Arctic compared to BC emitted at midlatitudes. We consider the emission-climate response spectrum and present a set of experiments using a global climate model. A new emission data set including BC emissions from flaring and a seasonal variation in the domestic sector has been used. The climate model includes a snow model to simulate the climate effect of BC deposited on snow. We find that BC emitted within the Arctic has an almost five times larger Arctic surface temperature response (per unit of emitted mass) compared to emissions at midlatitudes. Especially during winter, BC emitted in North-Eurasia is transported into the high Arctic at low altitudes. A large fraction of the surface temperature response from BC is due to increased absorption when BC is deposited on snow and sea ice with associated feedbacks. Today there are few within-Arctic sources of BC, but the emissions are expected to grow due to increased human activity in the Arctic. There is a great need to improve cleaner technologies if further development is to take place in the Arctic, especially since the Arctic has a significantly higher sensitivity to BC emitted within the Arctic compared to BC emitted at midlatitudes.
Wonder how much of that soot came from the Kuwait oil field fires. That might be a multi-year accumulation.
To William McClenney re today’s study on ClimateWire:
William, I wouldn’t say that the study wasn’t well done, but it has two significant flaws with regard to understanding effects of black carbon and warming.
First, it did not include reduction of emissions of black carbon from uncontrolled industrial coal burning, which is mostly in China, a bit in Russia. These are among the emissions closer to the Arctic. Had these been included, it is logical that reducing black carbon emissions would have produced more cooling.
Secondly, it mixed three sources of black carbon, one of which is co-emitted with large amounts of organic carbon which burned and thus cools the earth when burned (biomass burning). Two other sources of black carbon — residential coal burning, again mostly in China, and diesel emissions — are major sources of black carbon but don’t emit much of the other kind of carbon — organic carbon — when burned. Because these two sources, when reduced, cause reductions of mostly black carbon, their reduction also produces cooling.
Organic carbon (“white” carbon) reflects light back, and cools the earth. Biomass (wood, agricultural wastes) when burned emits 4 times as much organic carbon than black carbon. Thus reducing biomass burning doesn’t result in a cooler earth, but a warmer one, because you are reducing so much organic carbon.
This study suggests that reducing black carbon doesn’t reduce warming very much. But that is because the reductions of black carbon in this study are posited to come from reducing biomass burning in addition to reducing residential coal burning and diesel combustion. If you reduced only uncontrolled coal burning, and diesel emissions, you would reduce warming considerably. When you mix in biomass burning reductions, now you SAY you are reducing black carbon emissions, but you are mostly reducing organic carbon, with regard to biomass.
Apples and oranges, in other words.
We consider the emission-climate response spectrum and present a set of experiments using a global climate model.
That’s not an experiment. That’s a computer game. There’s isn’t even a reference to validation of their model.
It’s models all the way down…
John says:
August 13, 2013 at 9:14 pm
“If you reduced only uncontrolled coal burning, and diesel emissions, you would reduce warming considerably.”
Which, if we are in it for the species, or the genus, would be a good thing, right? Here at the presently half-precession cycle old Holocene.
One might presume.
There is a 12.5% chance that the Holocene will go-long, like MIS-11 did, based on 7 of the last 8 interglacials, each lasting about half a precession cycle. But MIS-11 occurred at a 400kyr eccentricity minimum like MIS-19 did, and as we are now. MIS-11 did go long. MIS-19 did not.
So 50:50.
In considering the Precautionary Principle, one might very well contemplate what the “right thing to do” actually is, at the half-precession cycle old Holocene. Would you disagree?
The companion question might consist of why would anyone even consider “reduce[ing] warming considerably” at such a potentially (50:50) climate time?
There are only three possible answers to such a question (only one of which is also a question):
1) You are willing to “bet the farm” on the 12.5% (1 out of 8) chance that the Holocene will mimic MIS-11, the Holsteinian interglacial. The only post-MPT interglacial to ignore the half-precession cycle age. (This presumes, of course, that you are possessed of information which assures us that the Holocene will indeed “go long”, like MIS-11 did and MIS-19 did not.)
2) You are aware of an as yet undisclosed reason why we have somehow broken free from the 100kyr eccentricity-paced climate oscillations we have been stuck in since the Mid Pleistocene Transition. By definition, such a thing would augur against leaving soot/CO2 et al in the late Holocene atmosphere, because leaving it/them up there would not only prevent onset of the next glacial, but might overheat us, since the next glacial is somehow quite obviously obviated.
3) Put your bad/good ju-ju cap on, then look around you. What hominid gene-pool do you envision making it through to the next interglacial?
At the possible end-Holocene, we extend it with GHGs, it runs along like MIS-11 did for a few more tens of thousands of years regardless of GHGs (which MIS-11 did do, MIS-19 did not), or the next chapter in hominid evolution will record our desire to speciate, once again, but at an eccentricity minima, not traditionally at an eccentricity maxima:
“An examination of the fossil record indicates
that the key junctures in hominin evolution reported nowadays at
2.6, 1.8 and 1 Ma coincide with 400 kyr eccentricity maxima, which
suggests that periods with enhanced speciation and extinction
events coincided with periods of maximum climate variability on
high moisture levels.”
as Trauth et al (2009) sum-up in http://www.manfredmudelsee.com/publ/pdf/Trends-rhythms-and-events-in-Plio-Pleistocene-African-climate.pdf
As difficult as that might be to cogitate, the possibility exists that this is where/when we are, climate-wise, as a sentient species. Perhaps the first moment in evolutionary time where we may have the opportunity to do the first thing ever as regards:
“…. Insolation will remain at this level slightly above the {glacial) inception for the next 4,000 years before it then increases again.”
http://www.particle-analysis.info/LEAP_Nature__Sirocko+Seelos.pdf
It just might be that much of an extended interglacial margin call…..
What would you do?
Jarrett Jones wrote: “On a (far) side note there is negligible black soot in the Antarctic and no reduction in ice extent.”
The clearest diagram of Antarctic isolation by wind currents I’ve seen is here:
http://www.goes-r.gov/users/comet/tropical/textbook_2nd_edition/navmenu.php_tab_4_page_2.3.0.htm
I don’t think black carbon has much effect on the climate overall. And as previously mentioned, organic carbon and aerosols decline along with BC. Declining OC and aerosols (through declining aerosol seeded clouds) likely have a substantially larger warming effect.
The operative statement from Sirocko et al might be the final sentence in their (2005) submission:
“However, the Earth will be in a fragile state for the whole
of the next 4000 years, and one can only hope that the expected
climate extremes of the Anthropocene will not lead to conditions that
cross the threshold to glaciation.”
Note, on the right hand side of the moulin in Anthony’s picture, the dark indented bands above the water line. These are bands of surface concentrated black carbon from periods of greater than normal summer melt. Melting of one of the bands, I estimate roughly 100 years old, has bled black carbon down the side of the ice.
You’ll have to magnify the image.
five times zero
I believe that most of the Arctic melt has been due to soot. I’ve been to China, the rate they have been burning coal for the past twenty plus years is unbelievable.
Anybody know why black soot carbon never shows up in California swimming pools? Don’t say filters because those disgusting mosquito ponds don’t always have pumps running, and soot is small enough to pass on through anyway. Regardless, for those who can’t afford clean swimming pools they look like necrotic skin at the end of the pool season. It’s a legit question. What I see in the images is identical to dead fungus/mildew. It starts out pink when alive and turns black when dead. I’d like a second opinion.
What about resent Islandic volcanoes? And I wonder if black sot could be sprayed on Nordic glaciers and make them go away again, like they did 8.000-5.300 years ago?
The whole subject of Arctic ice extent is far from simple, due to its complex layers of salinity, the result of several huge rivers emptying into this largely landlocked ocean, namely the Yenisey, Ob, Lena, Mackenzie and Yukon. So the near surface (for alarmists, that’s where the ice forms) salinity of the Arctic ocean is constantly changing seasonally, annually and locally.
The complex layers of salinity in the Arctic Ocean can be dramatically affected by currents, winds and large storms – when more saline water is brought closer to surface it is obviously more difficult to freeze.
Also, it should be remembered were it not for the fact the near surface salinity of the Arctic Ocean is significantly less than other oceans (fresh water is less dense than sea water), the Arctic Ocean would have much less ice
In comparison, the mechanics of the Antarctic ice extent are very simple and represent a much better proxy for supposed global warming.
What we have to realise is the Antarctic ice sheet (for alarmists, there are no big rivers in the Antarctic) is a far better better proxy for supposed global warming than the Arctic, as it is an open sea, pretty much impacted by the same factors year after year.
In polar latitudes, northern hemisphere soot levels are obviously much higher than than in the south and could well have an effect on Arctic ice extent, especially in late summer.
Yet there is another factor, which no one seems to have ever considered about the Arctic’s late summer ice extent and this may be the most important factor of all: The Arctic Ocean is underlain by two major, very long, seismically active, and therefore hydrothermally active, ‘spreading’ ridges: Gakkel and Lomonosov.
Hydrothermal activity along these spreading tectonic ridges not only bring massive amounts of superheated water into the frigid Arctic at irregular intervals, but it also causes major conduction currents bringing highly saline water up close to surface and disturbing the complex salinity layering of the upper Arctic Ocean.
I have no idea how big this factor is on the late summer Arctic sea extent, but I am sure of one thing and that is this would be a totally taboo/heretical subject in alarmist circles.
Grrrrrr.
In addition to the “experiments using a climate model” I want to see the results of an actual visit with in situ experiments and measurements.
It’s interesting to note that mean air temperature “north of the 80th northern parallel” has been at record lows (since 1958) this summer and still dropping.
Warmists have been aware for some time about the issue of soot on snow and ice. Nowadays they generally turn a blind eye to the issue and choose to focus on co2 gas [none] warming in the Arctic. Funny that.
what about HAARP project ?
“They find that most of the Arctic warming effect from black carbon is due to black carbon deposited on snow and ice, rather than in the atmosphere. Black carbon emitted within the Arctic is more likely to stay at low altitudes and thus to be deposited on the snow and ice there, whereas black carbon transported into the Arctic from mid-latitudes is more likely to remain at higher altitudes.”
What a bunch of trivial, self-evident nonsense. And they used a model for heaven’s sake. Why did they use a model? Here is the obvious reason. Had they had simply gone outside at lunch, sprinkled a bit of soot on a patch of snow, watched it melt, photographed it and took notes, what would people say? What kind of science it is that? – but a sophisticated model…now it’s PhD we’re talkin’.
I would have turned this down for a high school science project. Steve McIntyre was right that in an earlier time, the stars of climate science would have been high school teachers at best.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/04/quote-of-the-week-high-school-climate-science/
More soon-to-be-asterisked PhDs. Comon you guys, up your game, you’re foreclosing on things for high school students to do.
BLACK carbon? ORGANIC carbon? Is there any other kind? Isn’t the definition of ‘organic’ that it has a carbon atom in the molecule? Talk about redundant.
The Age of Oil will be documented in the glaciers for 100’s of thousands of years..
DocMartyn says:
August 13, 2013 at 6:01 pm
Then it was all SOx driven aid rain destroying European forests so everyone began building taller chimneys.
=========
only much later was it discovered that the evergreen forests themselves were the source of the acid rain. however, this discovery went largely unreported as human’s continued to take credit for the works of nature. thinking that they, not nature, created the acid rain.
what the average person worries about is air pollution. smog. they want it ended. they know most of it comes from burning fossil fuels, so they are on-board with anything that will help clean it up. this is where the support for AGW comes from. not from a belief in global warming, but from a desire for clean air.
the AGW movement has taken advantage of this, to try and make money by creating taxes and carbon trading programs. they have enlisted the aid of scientists interested in obtaining grant money, necessary to continue scientific research. those scientists that were not on-board have found themselves de-funded. they have enlisted the aid of politicians seeking political contributions. those politicians not on-board have found their campaigns de-funded.
so, for example, many people see coal powered electrical generation as bad, because it is more polluting than for example using natural gas. so they want to shut down the coal plants. AGW is the excuse given, but it is not the true motivation. Lots of cities still have relatively poor air quality.
The climate community continues to invent epicycles to explain the failure of their forecasts to match reality. Before we knew to look for bacteria and viruses as the cause of disease, disease was universally blamed on human action, or the retribution of god for human failings.
Climate science continues to blame human action for everything they don’t understand. the aerosols from fossil fuels were used to explain the 30 years of cooling from 1940-1970. fossil fuels without aerosols were used to explain the 30 years of warming from 1970-2000.
the 30 years of warming from 1910-1940 has never been explained, nor the 30 years of cooling from 1880-1910. this is an embarrassing subject for climate scientists, so they don’t talk about it in polite company. it is the climate science equivalent of a fart in an elevator. everyone knows about it, but noone says anything, otherwise they might get the blame.
so now that we are apparently headed for 30 years of cooling from 2000-2030, climate science needs a new explanation for why their forecasts have once again gone off the rails. black carbon to the rescue. this must be why the arctic is melting while temperatures everywhere else are generally unchanged or falling. no matter what, it must be due to fossil fuel burning.
here we are in a period of the most rapid change in the northern magnetic field in recorded history, and scientists are stubbornly insisting that fossil fuel burning is the cause of everything they see in nature. Could it be that the reason fossil fuels are blamed for everything is that scientists are only looking at fossil fuels?
medicine suffers from many of the same problems as climate science. doctors tend to blame their patients when the patients don’t respond to treatment. the treatment worked for 10 other patients, so why is it not working on this patient. the reason must be something this patient is doing or not doing.
ulcers – caused by patient response to stress
heart disease – caused by patient diet and exercise
diabetes – caused by patient diet
obesity – caused by patient diet
etc.
ulcers – caused by bacteria
heart disease – cause by a diet high in artificial fat (look at France)
diabetes – caused by low fat, high carbohydrate diet (recommended to solve heart disease)
obesity – caused by high carbohydrate diet coupled with lack of micro-nutrients from industrialized farming.
Medicine shows us that when we misdiagnose the underlying cause of the problem, the treatment we give may end up making the problem worse. In an effort to solve heart disease medicine created an epidemic of diabetes and obesity. yet a look at France tells us that high fat diets coupled with lack of exercise cannot be the cause of heart disease.
So if there is a connection between fats and heart disease, the French example tells us it must not be due to the quantity of fats but rather the quality, the type of fats being eaten. yet, in throwing out all fats to avoid heart disease, medicine has overlooked the role of fats in maintaining health, leading to an epidemic of diabetes and obesity.
Similar parallels can be seen in climate science. In a rush to throw out fossil fuels to protect us from CO2, climate science ignores the role of fossil fuels in maintaining a healthy economy, leading to an epidemic of high energy bills, unemployment and national debt. (look at Spain).
As several have commented, the effect of soot has been known for quite a while. The emphasis of this article is on the “5X” effect of soot emitted at high latitudes even though many more than 5X as much soot is emitted at lower latitudes.
I suspect the PURPOSE of this study is to give ammunition for defeating the contemplated drilling in the Arctic, especially ANWR. If one does not understand that these things are done with PURPOSE, then one does not understand much.
milodonharlani says:
August 13, 2013 at 6:11 pm
Meant “soot” for “carbon soot”.
Regarding the effect of carbon, Caleb says:
“It isn’t working.”
Looking at the picture of the moulon, we can see that the black carbon lake bottom is far below ground level, so not much sunlight is going to hit it. Even in the Arctic summer, the sun is never overhead, it is down closer to the horizon. In Arctic winter, spring and autumn, the sunlight would never even see the black lake bottom.
Therefore, any significant effect of sunlight hitting the black carbon lake bottom would seem to be nil. These black carbon lakes are not especially common. All of that seems to indicate that the effect from this particular source would be very small.