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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
fossil fuel
is fuel origin : abiotique or biologique ?
is it possible to obtain fuel by a chemical process ??
db stealey
A couple of months ago I commented here about the BBC programme on the arctic that not only showed numerous carbon pools but also how dirty the ice/snow was as far as the eye could see in virtually every camera shot.
When I researched the Arctic ice melt of 1820 Scoresby’s first expedition also commented on the soot lying everywhere and blamed the industrialisation by America,.
We used to put soot from our fire on icy paths-it worked a treat!
It is an important effect which I am not sure has been fully quantified
tonyb
On this subject:
http://notrickszone.com/2012/08/27/arctic-ice-loss-temperature-or-soot/
It isn’t proof, but it is surely a strong indication.
“””””……Rhoda R says:
August 14, 2013 at 5:27 am
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…….””””””
That’s why I don’t eat organic foods. I love telling those pious vendors, that their organic foods have carbon in them; which the US Supremes said is poisonous.
“””””……dp says:
August 14, 2013 at 12:04 am
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………………..”””””
Well I live in Sunnyvale CA, and my car is parked outside. Every morning, when I look at the dew on the car, it is always infested with soot, which is all over the car, when the sun evaporates the dew.
At home burning isn’t allowed any more, and we have no nearby forest fires. I’m guessing, it is diesel engine exhaust mostly from trucks. Well it could be ordinary auto exhaust also. But if the car isn’t black from soot, it gets yellow from pollen in the dew.
“””””……dbstealey says:
August 14, 2013 at 8:13 am
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…….””””””
db Can’t tell exackly where the sun is, but I would guess stage left. Also can’t see a cast shadow of the fairly sharp left edge of the hole, so sun could be in a cloud zone. But curved right edge of hole seems to demonstrate direct sun melting; or why else would that corner, be rounded off like that.
In any case, that right snow bank, is quite diffusely scattering, so some sunlight (attenuated) would be reaching the water surface, and ergo, the soot blob. As for downward LWIR from the CO2 laden atmosphere above the hole; “What soot ? I can’t see no crummy soot; there’s a water surface blocking my view !”
If soot is responsible for half the recent warming wouldn’t it indicate a lower sensitivity for CO2 ?
@Owen in GA
OK, do the satellites support that “arctic warming twice as fast” statement? or is it all based on the surface stations which do not for the most part exist there?
+++++++++++
How can you warm twice as fast as something that is not warming?
@DCA
If soot is responsible for half the recent warming wouldn’t it indicate a lower sensitivity for CO2 ?
++++++++++
That is the scary part for alarmists. Admitting it to be so is stabbing themselves in the back. So they tend to phrase things like this: “We have this massive CO2 problem and it is being made worse by this extra forcing.” It seems the ordinary person does not recognize this is a zero-sum game. There is only so much temperature change to dole out to its various contributing parties. So the tune has to be sung, “We now have a better understanding and it shows we still have to reduce and eventually eliminate all CO2 sources.” But that is the sophisticated response. The usual conclusion proffered is still, “It’s worse than we thought.”
“The authors find that BC (black carbon) emitted within the Arctic has an almost five times larger Arctic surface temperature response…”
–
How long will it be before the authors are accused of being racist for putting too much blame on carbon of color?
There are plenty of good reasons for reducing soot emmissions. Their effect on arctic ice, whatever it may be, isn’t among them. The worry about arctic ice is odd. I guess it has to do with the whole “death spiral” fantasy.
I would bet a lunch you are seeing rubber from tires, not soot. At least not only soot. There is certainly soot in the air, but there is also a lot of tire rubber in the air.
Do they have any recommendation on how they’d stop volcanoes spewing out “caaahhhhbn” other than rifling through our pockets?