
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.
Noting the discoloration of the snow in Greenland in the picture at the beginning of the article, was that caused by the Diesel trucks from the fracking, etc.? I suspect that might be due in part to volcanic eruptions which spew lots of solids high into the atmosphere.
I view that this article has the agenda to stop energy production on private lands via some edict from the EPA which has not been slow to kill fossil fuels while taking credit for the oil and gas production and all the associated jobs.
After the coal mines are closed the next target will be oil and gas which the administration will be replace by imaginary energy sources such as biofuels, solar and wind.
Interesting that the EPA admits that actual air pollutants are down to almost nonexistent in the US.
http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/carbon.html
http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/sulfur.html
Just one last thought. Wouldn’t dust and soot help replenish the top soil after the snow melts?
See loess.
Still, dust and soot is not “top soil.”
John,think it through. First of I said “help”. Some of that “dust” maybe organic and “soot” contains carbon. Down in Yuma, AZ the farmers burn the what is left of the crop after harvest to incorporate carbon back in the soil.
They asked me how I knew
It wasn’t CO2
I of course replied
Without being snide
It cannot be denied
They said some day you’ll know
When there’s no more snow
You had to pay the price
For loading Hansen’s dice
Smoke gets in your ice
Someone showed that, by a farmer’s road
Snow’s not white, but dirty brown
So, in May, or sooner now they say
The sun will warm the ground
Post-modernists will state
That we shouldn’t wait
CO2 or not
Pollution isn’t nice
Smoke gets in your ice.
We’ve heard it more than twice.
Nnn-ice.
As good as Alan Sherman in my view!
This study is wrong in so many way, first and foremost running around and take snow samples randomly throughout a state for one winter, will tell you nothing. I have lived most of my adult live in North Dakota, I have driven and walked throughout North Dakota. It is a diverse prairie state going from tall grass prairie to short grass prairie. It has a diverse climate moist on the east, dry in the west. It is not hard to get a half mile off the roads, if you would only look at a map first and are willing to walk! Yes a good part of it is privately owned yet the are Nation Grasslands on both sides of the state, throw in a large number of Waterfowl Reproduction areas and several Nation Refuges and a Nation Park you have plenty of diverse areas to study with some of those areas you could be assure they will remain relatively undisturbed.
A study like this would be of value if you were to do it over the period of at least 30 years or longer, at that point you might have data of some value, not only would you have to collect that data over a long period of time you would have to pick you test spots carefully trying to cover the state well and having some very remote sites, and others right in the middle of farmer fields. Some close to roads other far away some starting at the road, running all the way across several sections at a set intervals. Some should run the same way in the absolute middle of nowhere, there are site where you could do both throughout North Dakota. You would also have to document land, agricultural and industrial changes. It would not hurt to have a test site one or more active strip mines that are in North Dakota. If you did that it might be revealing what you find.
Instead from what I read a so called study where a bunch of people running around taking samples for a single winter, looking to me as a rather random affair. Then to top it off they were thinking that they might learn something about dust in snow. If that not the height of stupidity they top it off by create a computer model based a what I would guess is a huge WAG and are astounded that the model does not tell them much. I would like to think science today has not devolved to such a moronic level, but with this study and many others it looks like it has. Keystone cops all over again, only this time they were not trying to be funny. On the surface this seem to like to waste money, if there plan is like what I have outlined above it may not be but if the are doing willy-nilly measurements and only for a short time it will be a waste of money I can only hope it was not tax payer money.
“On the surface this seem to like to waste money.”
On the surface, yes but if you wanted to have control you got to start somewhere.
OKLAHOMA CITY — The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is considering a crackdown on farm dust, so senators have signed a letter addressing their concerns on the possible regulations.
http://www.news9.com/Global/story.asp?S=12899662
U.S. farmers oppose EPA’s proposed dust regulation
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/08/19/us-epa-dust-regulation-idUSTRE67I5T120100819
Do you think the EPA has an agenda?
The EPA’s proposal could result in drastic reductions in productivity of any crop which is sensitive to planting/harvest time, as soil prep/planting/harvest dates could be missed if conditions are too dry and/or windy to work the soil under EPA guidelines. This would seem to fit with the overarching Green agenda of reducing human populations.
How come it is black in greenland , when it snows my way it is pristine white to the eye. Has that Greenland photo been photoshopped like the usual steam towers at power stations on every Guardian article about pollution.
‘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…”
‘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. …and all the extra truck traffic on unpaved roads means dirtier snow.’
My, my, my, me thinks the bias is showing. If one wants to consider the dirt all the extra truck traffic kicks up why stop with the Bakken oil fields? Certainly all the newly bulldozed dirt roads to accommodate the massive increase in truck traffic to construct the vast wind farms throughout the Great Plains should merit at least a wee mention? Shouldn’t it? Certainly the areas scraped, bulldozed, shoveled, leveled, and dug out from Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, and western Minnesota (to name just a few) for these windmills would have to exceed, by Godzilla sized bucketfulls, the land area kicked up by the Bakken oil fields. Why the omission? Does the EPA want its money back – or, did they get their money’s worth? Unfortunately the answer is yes.
How dirty was the snow back in the 1800’s? 1700’s? You know, has the amount of dirt really changed much? If so, how much? Just finding some soot and dirt is no great shakes without context.
The sooner the snow is gone and the soil is firm, the better is goes for this plowboy.
Here is my picture of a ‘dusted’ Eyjafjallajokull ice cap in Island: http://s1377.photobucket.com/user/TG3D/library/
In addition, the stratification of volcanic ash is beautifully visible on the northern edge of the ice cap: https://goo.gl/maps/Rmt3V