Epic survey finds regional patterns of soot and dirt on North American snow

From the University of Washington

Dark snow Greenland
Dark deposits on icefields in Greenland, which absorb more sunlight and lead to faster glacial melting. Photograph: Henrik Egede Lassen/Alpha Film

Snow is not as white as it looks. Mixed in with the reflective flakes are tiny, dark particles of pollution. University of Washington scientists recently published the first large-scale survey of impurities in North American snow to see whether they might absorb enough sunlight to speed melt rates and influence climate.

The results, published in the Journal of Geophysical Research, show that North American snow away from cities is similar to Arctic snow in many places, with more pollution in the U.S. Great Plains. They also show that agricultural practices, not just smokestacks and tailpipes, may have a big impact on snow purity.

During their almost 10,000-mile trek across North American snowfields, the researchers were particularly interested in the Bakken oil fields of northwest North Dakota.

“With all this oil exploration, diesel trucks and new oil wells, people wondered: Is there a huge amount of air pollution making the snowpack darker?” said lead author Sarah Doherty, a research scientist at the UW’s Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean.

What they found was that these activities do appear to be adding extra soot to the snow, but perhaps just as important is the dirt. Disturbance from clearing oil pads, new housing sites and all the extra truck traffic on unpaved roads means dirtier snow. But even away from the oil fields, soil is disturbed by agriculture.

“Our work suggests that land use and farming practices might matter as much as diesel emissions in many parts of the Great Plains,” Doherty said.

Doherty was part of a team of UW atmospheric scientists who spent the winter of 2013 driving across northwestern U.S. states and some Canadian provinces to get a firsthand look at the continent’s snow.

The project involved collecting hundreds of snow samples from 67 sites away from any cities or major roads. The trip took the researchers from Seattle to North Dakota to Churchill, Manitoba. Every few days they melted and filtered the snow in their motel rooms, then back at their UW lab they shone light through a filter to see how much light was blocked, and did chemical analyses to determine what particles were responsible. (Read more about the group’s adventures on the road at http://www.bitly.com/snowsurveymethods)

Their main focus was black carbon, a very light-absorbing particle emitted by burning diesel, coal or wood. Many countries have regulated black carbon because of its effects on air quality and human health, but more recently climate scientists also have become interested because the tiny particles darken the snow and hasten melting. The cleanest samples they collected were from northern Canada, with overall levels of black carbon, or soot, similar to that of Arctic snowpack. The Pacific Northwest and Rocky Mountain states had levels slightly higher. The Great Plains readings were more variable and sometimes two to three or more times higher than in other parts of the country, typically 15 to 70 nanograms of soot per gram of snow.

Doherty previously worked with co-author Stephen Warren, a UW emeritus professor of atmospheric sciences, on a 2006-2010 survey he led of snow in the Arctic. Warren and Doherty also worked with Chinese collaborators in 2010 surveys of snow in northern China, all using the same techniques so the combined results can provide a first-ever global map of snow cleanliness.

Results from China showed rates of pollution tens to hundreds of times greater than in North America, with the highest rate in northeast China of 1,220 nanograms of soot per gram of snow, likely because of industrial activity and other emissions in the Beijing area. But dirt and desert dust also were prevalent in central North China snow.

“For a lot of the central U.S. and north China Great Plains the snow is not very deep. In the U.S., almost the whole area is agricultural fields and in China there is a lot of animal grazing,” Doherty said. “When the wind blows the dirt gets lofted, maybe just 10 feet off the ground, and gets mixed in with the snow.” North Dakota locals refer to the mixture as “snirt.”

The new paper documents how much light is blocked, and at which wavelengths, by filtered snow samples. Other co-authors and snow collectors were research professor Dean Hegg and graduate students Cheng Dang and Rudong Zhang, all in UW atmospheric sciences.

A companion paper by Dang and Hegg involved a chemical analysis of the North American samples to pinpoint exactly which compounds are contained in the snow.

“A lot of the focus in climate models has been on black carbon, because it’s a pollutant and it’s very dark,” Doherty said. “But the snow is darkened by other things as well, like organics, and also by dust and soil that can get in the snowpack.”

In fact, they found that in the Great Plains states up to half of light absorption is due to organic matter, or “brown carbon” from burning fossil fuels and from soil that mixes in with falling snow.

The deposits affect both global and local climates. Pollution on the Himalayan glaciers, for instance, is raising concerns that it will speed melt rates and harm water supplies. For U.S. farmers, changes in the snow’s reflectivity could affect when the spring melt will occur and when meltwater will drain out.

Whether the pollution the researchers found in North Dakota is enough to change snow melt timing will have to be answered by region-specific climate models, Doherty said.

“But first the models have to do a more accurate job of representing the amount of dirt that’s in the snowpack,” she added.

###

The work was funded by the Environmental Protection Agency and the China Scholarship Fund.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

181 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Bruce Cobb
January 8, 2015 1:54 pm

They are obsessed with anything man does that “might” have an effect on climate. It’s insane. Air quality is what matters, since cleaner is healthier to breathe. But that is strictly a regional issue.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
January 8, 2015 2:08 pm

More correctly, they are obsessed with anything that might lend support to their agenda. As Bjørn Lomborg pointed out in The Skeptical Environmentalist by any sane measure, we have cleaned up our act immensely during The Git’s lifetime. And his reward for that endeavour was to be roundly criticised.

Peter Roach
January 8, 2015 2:07 pm

Soot is not about climate change but it is very bad for our respiratory systems, and circulation. These particle get stuck in our lung and in aveloli of the arteries.

rogerthesurf
January 8, 2015 2:09 pm

“Their main focus was black carbon, a very light-absorbing particle emitted by burning diesel, coal or wood”
Read this blog very carefully, this is not CO2 “pollution”, this is the real thing such as soot and other particulates.
This constitutes in my mind that “scientists” are looking for another excuse to ban the use of energy.
Soot while a problem in itself, is not CO2 and is not a greenhouse gas and cannot have a “positive feed back ” on heat in the atmosphere.
Seeing as CO2 is getting increasing bad press as doubt about its unproven role in “Global Warming” increases – maybe attacking with actual pollutants may appear to be a good way out.
Especially as the only way to restore untouched pristine snow is to devoid the world of 1. People, 2. volcanos, 3. Forest Fires, 4. Desert Dust, 5. Farming, 6 Mining and 7. wind
What ever happened with Acid Rain?
Cheers
Roger
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

Latitude
January 8, 2015 2:18 pm

“In fact, they found that in the Great Plains states up to half of light absorption is due to organic matter, or “brown carbon” from burning fossil fuels and from soil that mixes in with falling snow.”
It’s call dust…and most of it is dust

Alx
January 8, 2015 2:35 pm

Well no problem, we’ll just create a tax to fund research into turning dirt, soot, blacktop, trees, just about anything on the planet into lighter colors. This has the side effect of creating permanent employment for many scientists and a pastel colored earth which after all could be very attractive.
A backup plan would put blinds similar to what you have on your home windows that orbits around the planet keeping it on the sun side. Then when you need the heat you open the blinds; too hot and you close the blinds. A very practical solution with some serious bang for your tax dollar. Not to mention NASA really does need a decent project with some impact to work on.

Paul Courtney
Reply to  Alx
January 8, 2015 4:39 pm

Alx: Your backup plan is plainly absurd. Those strings would get all tangled, and would need to have giant warning tags re: choking hazard permanently affixed. In space. Sorry, must I really /s?

Owen in GA
January 8, 2015 2:45 pm

So they have done exactly one incomplete survey and draw conclusions that it is worse than we thought.
A couple of questions:
Worse compared to what – what is the baseline survey when you only collect ONE point in time with incomplete geographic sampling?
How will this help to improve the almighty models when I see no quantification of sources – just assertions that it is “Man-Made”?

Les Hack
January 8, 2015 3:11 pm

Hmmm… I thought about a title of Simplicity and Simpletons….
these people obviously have not spent much time winter camping or hiking the snow-line woods in the early or late spring. Or if they did they were remarkably un-observant. Now if you are a thirsty hiker and you clear off that accumulated soot/dirt they talk about to scoop out some refreshing coolness – then go your way and comb back a day or two later – you will find your scooped out portion a big hollow hole while the high-albedo soot/dirt covered stuff is still pretty much how you left it. Strange – No?? While a marginally thin layer of soot/dirt/dust does without doubt speed the melt process, once it is thick enough other factors kick into gear which reverse the process… This is why in late spring the longest lasting sections of snow still lying around in the alpine are not the pure white ones, it is those covered with a layer of dust/dirt that all but hides the few bits of icy whiteness.
so how to explain the hiker’s mystery… It is my observation that pure white snow, when melting first crystalizes into ice crystals. The albedo of those crystals – whose surface layer demonstrates an orientaton that is anything but round or random – is different from snow. That surface is anything but flat. The more the crystalization the more profound the increase of surface area – my off-hand observation is anywhere from 5 to 50 times. The interior reflectance mentioned by george e smith above sky-rockets in such an environment. But all this is not true of soot/dirt covered snow. Why? When the snow-ice crystal pack melts, the melt water seeps downward, all the more quickly as the freeze thaw cycle crystalizes the snow layer. However, a thin but even layer of soot/dirt actually holds the moisture at the surface and at night re-freezes into a solid (relatively think) and rather smooth layer. As the hiker will tell you it is rather hard on the hands to break through this layer to find the white stuff underneath. This smooth and relatively thick layer reduces air-flow, dramatically reduces surface area, and when the soot/dust layer is thick enough actually forms a kind of radiative insulation layer. What thickness? I will leave that for someone with funding to find out…

Reply to  Les Hack
January 8, 2015 4:36 pm

The strong UV reflectance from snow is damn hard on the eyes and face skin too.

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
January 8, 2015 7:41 pm

Lakota and likely the other plains Indians used to call the period we call February the moon of the snowblind.
Grease and soot smeared under the eyes helped minimize the reflection off of the cheeks and nose.

Reply to  Les Hack
January 8, 2015 7:51 pm

Good practical observation and statement Les.
Even after topping off the crusty ice stuff, when melting the creamy white inside snow, there is still an amazing amount of particles and other stuff in one’s cup of water. Good for you, builds immune functions and adds texture to tea.
(Personally, I kick off the crust and then scrape to reach the clean snow. You are right, it hurts the hands which are darn cold already and can cut them.)

Ian H
January 8, 2015 3:19 pm

It would not be easy to model this accurately and determine an overall effect on albedo from soot. The soot and other material which darkens snow is not evenly distributed through the snow pack but accumulates in layers. The layering stucture changes as new snow puts down a fresh layer on top; as grime slowly accumulates on the surface on days when it does not snow; and as melting from both bottom and top accumulates the soot into darker bands. The darkness of a band is not going to be a linear function of how much soot there is in it – a law of diminishing returns sets in as the dark crust thickens. And the albedo is determined by the top few inches only so fresh snow can completely negate the effect of buried soot.
To get some kind of ‘forcing’ out of this, which is what climate scientists would seek to do, you would need to determine the effect on average albedo, which is a function of melt frequency and depth; snow frequency and depth; and the average rate of deposition of soot. All three will vary through the season and will be strongly influenced by location. Furthermore the pattern of snow deposition varies greatly from season to season as anyone who lives in snow country knows. No two seasons are alike. At best a model can give you an average of what migfht happen over a couple of decades of winters.
There are also some nasty feedbacks here. Local albedo and snow coverage changes the local weather. For example if nearby lakes are frozen over the lake effect will be diminished. Snow coverage will also change the rate of deposition of dust. Agricultural dust in particular is going to be an obvious function of snow coverage as dirt that is safely buried under a protective layer of snow will not be putting dust into the air. Some of that dust will be “regifted” from melting snow pack. And the amount of dust will depend also on the strength and direction of winds.
Finally, much of that dust has travelled a very long way. Some of it is no doubt volcanic dust or dust from big forest fires on another continent. So you have to consider a whole continent’s worth of weather between where it was emitted and the snow you are trying to study. And any assumptions you make about such sporadic events are likely to be at best a poor approximation of reality in any given season.
Not an easy problem to model at all. Lots of parameters to tweak to fit any elephant. Many ways to get the answer to ‘come out right’ and any model would be virtually impossible to falsify. These factors would cause most scientists to proceed only with a great degree of scientific caution. I don’t expect climate scientists to behave that way though. Scientific caution seems to have evaporated from this branch of science. I expect very soon we will be hearing that it is worse than we thought based on some simplistic and totally inadequate model of snow darkening, and some climate activist will be in the newspapers calling for massively expensive changes to agricultural practice as a result.

Reply to  Ian H
January 8, 2015 3:43 pm

…some climate activist will be in the newspapers calling for massively expensive changes to agricultural practice as a result.

That’s so much easier than observing modern farmers’ implementation of soil conservation practises.

January 8, 2015 3:38 pm

Louis you are correct, I did NOT see any dark ash.

pkatt
January 8, 2015 3:38 pm

I often find myself wondering if these scientists even bother to learn the history of the areas they make their studies on. Or their climate for that matter. Now forgive me if I am wrong but that entire area is part of the Great Plains, famous for Tornado, and howling winter storms and possibly being part of the great dust bowl…. soooo yah I bet their snow does have a lot of crap in it. SO WHAT!

January 8, 2015 3:41 pm

“The work was funded by the Environmental Protection Agency and the China Scholarship Fund.” I seriously don’t trust statistics from either one of those organizations.

Justthinkin
January 8, 2015 4:58 pm

“The work was funded by the Environmental Protection Agency and the China Scholarship Fund.” I seriously don’t trust statistics from either one of those organizations.” Even better, they want MODELS also. You just can’t make this stuff up. Oh wait

Bill Illis
January 8, 2015 5:02 pm

What I have noticed is that the LAST ice or snow to melt in the spring is the ice or snow covered by a layer of soot or dirt.
There is a point where the dark layer of material turns into an insulator and prevents the melting of the snow or ice rather than enhances it.
There is always a point where new snow falls on top and the Albedo goes back up to the 85% of fresh snow. Eventually, the front melting edge of many glaciers turns black. When the large ice age glaciers were retreating at the end of the ice age, they might have all been dark-colored with a layer of dust migrating to the top.
Obviously, this is a complex process. Our intuition is that will always make the front edge melt faster. But what if it is actually the opposite.

Reply to  Bill Illis
January 8, 2015 6:23 pm

That’s where of course careful real world observations, converted in raw data, converted in information aids the conceptualization of what really happens. Sort of like NASA’s fanciful CO2 simulations pre-OCO-2. Not even close.
But that’s okay. Now they have data to inform them of what really happens, and probably sadly for the modelers, it’s very non-linear and non-uniform unlike their modeled assumptions.
I would imagine snow albedo changes over the Spring melt season is similar. Very chaotic, non-linear and widely varying from year to year.
I disagree with your dark layer-insulator conjecture. That dirt or soot layer heats up under the vis-UV solar heating. During the spring, that heat flow will be to the colder snow-ice. At night it will act as a continued source of heat to the underlying snow layer.

mebbe
Reply to  Bill Illis
January 8, 2015 10:34 pm

Bill Illis
That is exactly my experience, too.
As a young man in the BC woods, I strewed ash from the stove on garden patches and trails, thinking it would accelerate spring melting. It did the first day of sun, then, as the individual clumps sank into the snow, they were lost until all the surrounding snow had melted and there were lines of wood ash lying atop a layer of ice.
It took me two or three years to figure it didn’t work and I was pretty indignant that it didn’t.

Bill Illis
Reply to  Bill Illis
January 9, 2015 4:56 pm

Also note that snow dumps can last into August because there soot/dirt/sand layer migrates to the top and then provides an insulating layer.

WhyItsNotCO2.com
January 8, 2015 5:23 pm

There is comprehensive evidence you all should read here on this new webpage.

Reply to  WhyItsNotCO2.com
January 8, 2015 6:23 pm

Well, that was a total waste of ten minutes. Not only do you make the claim that it’s all related to the angular momentum of the planets, you then only mention angular momentum twice, with no explanation at all of the graph in the post.
To top it off, there are no comments … don’t waste your time, folks. I did and I regret it. “Comprehensive evidence”? Don’t make me laugh …
w.

Neo
January 8, 2015 5:35 pm

If the only problem with climate on Earth were caused by soot and othe particulates changing the albedo of snow cover on the poles, exactly how would a”carbon tax” help remediate this problem ?

michael hart
January 8, 2015 5:38 pm

It will be interesting when they go back to the same sites in later years to take the same measurements to examine the reproducibility/variance of the results.
lol
As if.

steve mcdonald
January 8, 2015 5:45 pm

I haven’t seen snow but if I kicked dirt on some should I reel back in guilty horror and tell my little granddaughter
her dream of a long and happy life is now impossible.

January 8, 2015 6:02 pm

Could Global volcanism contribute? How inconvenient would that be?

Reply to  tlarremore
January 8, 2015 6:31 pm

Ash layers do have rather low albedos. But usually they are limited in geographic extent and in time.

January 8, 2015 6:04 pm

Reblogged this on Head Space and commented:
Volcanic residue too….nah, that would be an “inconvenient truth.”

Mike the Morlock
January 8, 2015 7:04 pm

This is not a surpise to me. Nuclear war fallout maps, Pullution follows the same winds. It’s why the US northwest gets more pollution then it makes.
http://discovermagazine.com/2011/apr/18-made-in-china-our-toxic-imported-air-pollution
pollution is a problem CO2 is not. Fix the former enjoy the latter

January 8, 2015 7:10 pm

1. Since they only sampled up to 1/2 mile from the road, we don’t know how far the soot extends.
2. What we do know is that the road itself is a major contributor to early springtime melting. Anyone who grew up on the frigid prairies knows that springtime melting shows up earliest alongside exposed surfaces such as roads, buildings, even fence posts. This early melting exposes the earth which then promotes more melting in an ever widening positive feedback effect until the snow is gone. So, unless the soot extends WELL beyond the boundaries of human activity, I suspect that the roads and houses have a larger effect in the immediate area than does the soot itself.
3. I didn’t notice any measurements of snow brightness or albedo to go along with quantifying the levels of soot in the snow. So, without that data, what exactly are they going to put into the climate models? Without knowing what the difference between pristine snow and their samples was, they would first have to model the snow and the soot, with no data to start from. That would be one h*ll of a job, modelling snow like that. Yes, it would be a snow job….
4. The above having been said, I do have anecdotal evidence, compelling anecdotal evidence, that snow has in fact changed substantially over the past few decades. About 25 years ago, I threw a snow ball at one of my boys who was then about 5. Knocked him flat on his keester, and earned myself a scolding from the boy’s mother. 20 years later I repeated the experiment. I used the exact same boy, was careful to form a snowball of approximate same size, and hurled it from the same distance. It had nearly no effect on the boy. I had planned to cut the snow ball open in order to count its rings, but the boy considered it of more value in washing my face, eliciting howls of laughter from the aforementioned mother. This is proof positive that global warming is negatively affecting snowball efficacy.

Unmentionable
Reply to  davidmhoffer
January 8, 2015 7:40 pm

Car tires are continually making large volumes of black carbon dust, and the road way itself is continually deflating through microscopic wear.
Exercise:
Get a white car, wash it carefully, drive it literally all day through city streets, then wash it again at the end of the day and note the copious dark black fine dust coming off in the rivulets. That’s mat-black tire rubber dust and bitumen detritus that comes up of the road surface and sticks readily to any surface.
So yeah, if your samples are all 1/2 a mile from a road you’re going to get a whole lot of black carbon-rich sooty looking dust in the samples.
Clever.

highflight56433
January 8, 2015 7:16 pm

What a joke. U of W folks are clowns in gowns saving the planet from people dust. Maybe they should clean their own campus before striking out to rid the planet of evil humanity.

January 8, 2015 7:17 pm

Which country has warmed the least in the last 50 years? Bolivia, home of what’s left of the Chacaltaya glacier, which boasted an ice cave 20m deep 50 years ago. I’ve long contended that the road built in the 30’s to turn it into a ski resort hastened its decline. –AGF

Claude Harvey
January 8, 2015 7:32 pm

Back in the day, when most everyone in the cities burned soft coal to warm their abodes, London and others were giant smudge-pots in winter where I imagine snow turned black before it even hit the ground. I do not believe history records any great climate calamity resulted. Lots of “lungers” hacking and coughing, though.

January 8, 2015 8:43 pm

This is another transparent alternate attack on petroleum, and coal from the same people who have told us that CO2 is a pollutant… It is almost laughable, especially considering that rural weather recording stations in North America nearest the areas where the snow was sampled have been showing declining temperatures in winter and spring for over the last two decades.
Earlier snow melt could have a small effect on atmospheric temperatures in these regions, but the data that supports this theory is currently non-existent. Apparently the people conducting the study never bothered to check the historical records in the regions they were studying. It seems like a more rational approach would be to check the data from nearby recording stations FIRST to see if there has been earlier warming before going to the trouble of collecting snow samples. What are they trying to prove??? …that winter and spring temperatures in rural areas would be declining even faster without particulate??? I am sorry… I don’t get it.