Black Carbon rather than CO2 I will claim to be the major anthropogenic warming on the Earth.
Black Carbon is simply soot. It is expelled into the atmosphere by the incomplete burning of fuels. In small quan ies, we see it in the USA from older cars tailpipes, and from diesel trucks when they accelerate hard. It’s the black smoke we see. Since the 70’s, here in the USA we have regulated pollution to the point that we generate very little of it in the global picture. The real culprit is Asia. They have been building and using coal power plants, without implementing the pollution controls we do. We are seeing the jet streams carry this soot to both the Arctic region, and causing occasional smog in the Pacific Northwest, which otherwise would have no smog. A few articles and some info contained within:
Wiki:
Black Carbon:
Black carbon contribution to global warming
Black carbon is a potent climate forcing agent, estimated to be the second largest contributor to global warming after carbon dioxide (CO2). Because black carbon remains in the atmosphere only for a few weeks, reducing black carbon emissions may be the fastest means of slowing climate change in the near-term.
Estimates of black carbon’s climate forcing (combining both direct and indirect forcings) vary from the IPCC’s conservative estimate of + 0.3 watts per square meter (W/m2) + 0.25, to the most recent estimate of 1.0-1.2 W/m2 (see Table 1), which is “as much as 55% of the CO2 forcing and is larger than the forcing due to the other greenhouse gasses (GHGs) such as CH4, CFCs, N2O, or tropospheric ozone.”
In some regions, such as the Himalayas, the impact of black carbon on melting snowpack and glaciers may be equal to that of CO2. Black carbon emissions also significantly contribute to Arctic ice-melt, which is critical because “nothing in climate is more aptly described as a ‘tipping point’ than the 0°C boundary that separates frozen from liquid water—the bright, reflective snow and ice from the dark, heat-absorbing ocean.” Hence, reducing such emissions may be “the most efficient way to mitigate Arctic warming that we know of.”
OK, for those of you who error on the side of caution. The first paragraph says “reducing black carbon emissions may be the fastest means of slowing climate change in the near-term.” The second paragraph has the IPCC increasing it’s estimated impact from 0.3 to 0.55 watts of warming to 1 to 1.2 watts. Shouldn’t this most easily controlled measure be attempted first before regulation CO2 emission levels?
If warming from soot increases, then what did they say before is decreasing… I’ll bet they don’t, but I’d say they are seeing CO2 isn’t the culprit they claim it is. Considering on the below graph, they gave CO2 something like a 1.5 to a 1.8 watt range, that would now be reduced to maybe 0.8 to 1.5 watts! However, the below graph must be older yet. It shows soot at 0 to 0.2 watts. Correcting to the higher soot figure drops CO2 to even more. Because of the way the range these, I won’t attempt to quantify a valid change. Just that it’s even farther. Along with the truth that solar irradiance changes should be higher than the approximate 0.1 to 0.3 watts the give, you can see that CO2 can easily be getting smaller. Solar irradiance by official NASA and other agencies than monitor the sun clearly increase by at least 0.3 watts.
Second article, by MSNBC;
Soot may speed up melting of Arctic ice:
Using computer models and information from NASA satellites, scientists located significant ac ulations of black carbon soot in the Arctic region. This soot may contribute to the warming of a region that has already seen rapidly increasing temperatures in recent years.
"This research offers additional evidence black carbon, generated through the process of incomplete combustion, may have a significant warming impact on the Arctic," said Dorothy Koch of Columbia University and NASA’s Goddard Ins ute for Space Studies.
Funny thing is that CO2 doesn’t produce the right calculation to be the primary reason for warming that has been observed. Climate models have been made since the 80’s on the assumption greenhouse gasses were the primary cause of warming. What almost any article I see on the subject fails to do is acknowledge that if we are seeing other factors contributing to warming, then CO2 must not be warming the earth as much as first assumed. They refuse to see past the Flat Earth mentality.
Is soot, not CO2, to blame for the loss of Arctic ice?:
The Arctic is especially vulnerable to pollution. In recent years the Arctic has significantly warmed, and sea-ice cover and glaciers have diminished. Likely causes for these trends include changing weather patterns and the effects of pollution. Airborne soot also warms the air and affects weather patterns and clouds.
Black carbon has already been implicated as playing a role in melting ice and snow. Basically, when soot falls on ice, it darkens the surface and accelerates melting by absorbing more sunlight than ice would, just as wearing a black shirt in the summertime makes you feel hotter than if you wore a lighter color. Dark colors absorb heat and light, and lighter colors reflect it keeping surfaces cooler.
From ABC News;
Can We Save the Polar Bears?:
Scientists are discovering that what appears to be pristine, white snow may be more polluted than it seems. They're finding tiny particles of black carbon — too small for the naked eye to see — from forest fires and human pollution.
Under a microscope, scientists can see black carbon particles by the trillions. Those black carbon particles cause the snow to melt faster.
"Black carbon absorbs sunlight and it causes warming," said Stephen Warren, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Washington.
Scientists have traced soot blown into the Arctic region to industrial sources in North America, Europe and now Asia, but there's still hope.
"I think we can still save the Arctic," said NASA's James Hansen. "Our calculations are that we could keep the sea ice in the Arctic from melting much more than it has already."
That can only happen if emissions cuts include greatly decreasing black carbon from smokestacks and tailpipes, according to Hansen and other scientists. That's an effort everyone has to strive for, from China to the United States.
A few more links:
Soot Could Hasten Melting of Arctic Ice
IGSD/INECE Climate Briefing Note: 9 June 2008, A must read. Nice data. Has the most recent BC estimates of forcing at 1.0 to 1.2 watts.
Study: Black Carbon Pollution Major Factor in Global Warming, 23 March 2008
Global Warming Hoax:
Notice how out closest source of Black Carbon emissions at high levels is Mexico City? I know that from a better map of this I've seen. Somewhere, I have a few NASA links that cover the BC levels better. I think I covered enough here. Threads getting a bit big already.
Reply With Quote
