Soot does climate change’s dirty work

Soot, in addition to CO2, is alleged to be the culprit of the day that drives climate change.

Although mentioned on occasion during the past few years, the remarkable thing now is that there have been two study reports lately that almost coincided with their release dates in identifying a neglected cause of alarm about climate change.  The first one of those was a University of Iowa News Release, July 27, 2010, announcing research published in the July 25 issue of the journal Nature Geoscience.

The second one was on research into the effects of soot on climate change by Stanford University’s Mark Jacobson, published in the Journal of Geophysical Research, July 29, 2010.

Especially the second one of those studies, the one by Mark Jacobson, has been picked up by the media, who are now in another feeding frenzy worrying over another cause of man-made “climate change”, soot that causes global warming, of course.

It seems to me that Mark Jacobson’s concerns, apparently based in part on the output of computer models, given that he previously voiced concerns that fit in well with many other Green causes, may not be entirely objective but possibly at least somewhat tainted by the agenda he helps to promote.  It appears that the computer models he used for his research were helpful in creating the evidence he needed to support his hypothesis.

According to Wikipedia, Mark Jacobson’s ideas on what is prim and proper in relation to mankind’s relationship with nature were expressed in and include the following:

• A Path to Sustainable Energy by 2030, Scientific American, November 2009, p. 42;
• Nuclear power is too risky CNN.com, February 22, 2010;
• His group’s development of the world’s first wind map based on data at the height of modern wind turbines has served as a scientific justification for the wind component of the Repower America and Pickens Plan energy proposals.

The article by Mark Jacobson is not as of yet available to normal mortals.  The views expressed in the Journal of Geophysical Research are hidden behind a pay wall.  However, a number of journalists who write on environmental issues had something to write about; and they obviously loved what they read.  The Edmonton Journal, chiming in with the escalating onslaught on our climate sensibilities, blessed us with one particular interpretation by Randy Boswell, writing for Postmedia News.

The Edmonton Journal, 2010 08 02, page A3

Soot does climate change’s dirty work

Controlling black carbon best way to stop Arctic warming — study

By Randy Boswell, Postmedia News August 2, 2010

From reading the article, it is not always clear whether the views expressed are those of Marc Jacobson or the opinions of Randy Boswell.  For that reason I will largely ignore who said anything and focus my comments on the assertions presented in the article published in the Edmonton Journal.

Given that the effects of soot estimated by Mark Jacobson concern “the visible residue of burned wood, crops, oil, biomass and other fuels”, it is difficult to understand how the soot emitted by the burning of wood, crops and dung in, for example millions of cooking fires in India, can be affordably controlled when most of the operators of those cooking fires can’t even afford proper chimneys, let alone any means of scrubbing soot from the smoke of their fires.

Nevertheless, it would be interesting to see a demonstration of how soot from India, with a residence time in the atmosphere of about a week, winds up in the Arctic, let alone in the Canadian portion of it.

Still, never daunted by such practical considerations, Mark Jacobson stated about soot that,

“We have to start taking its effects into account in planning our mitigation efforts, and the sooner we start making changes, the better.”

It is not clear whether it was Mark Jacobson or Randy Boswell who is the source of this:

As of mid-July, the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center showed Arctic sea ice is retreating at about the same pace it did in 2007, when an unprecedented summer meltdown sparked alarm among scientists and governments.

There is no run-away melting of the Arctic sea ice.  Arctic sea-ice extent is presently substantially above what it was at this time of the year in 2007, about the same what it was in 2008 and 2009, and somewhat below the monthly average for the 1979-2006 interval at this time of year.  If soot is a major reason why Arctic sea ice is melting, its effects cannot be discerned in the observable trends of sea-ice extent, and neither can those of CO2.

The article states that “Previous research has identified soot as a significant factor compounding the recent, record-setting Arctic meltdown.”  It fails to identify the research that did so, but it asserts that “Jacobson’s research not only accounts for the warming effect of soot as it settles on snow and ice, but also the atmospheric impact as black-carbon particles suspended in the air absorb the sun’s heat and create higher ambient temperatures.”  Alright, I’ll bite, what is the evidence?  The article offers none.

The subsequent loss of sea ice only reinforces warming by replacing frozen ocean with dark stretches of open water, Jacobson notes.

Really?  Dark stretches of open water caused by soot?  If that were undisputably so, then why do the dark stretches of open water for August 1, 2010 cover a far smaller area than they did on August 1, 2007?

Arctic sea-ice extent Aug 1, 2010

Arctic sea-ice extent Aug 1, 2007

The article asserts that,

“There is a big concern that if the Arctic melts, it will be a tipping point for the Earth’s climate because the reflective sea ice will be replaced by a much darker, heat-absorbing, ocean below,” he states. “Once the sea ice is gone, it is really hard to regenerate because there is not an efficient mechanism to cool the ocean down in the short term,”

that “the impact of soot on worldwide warming has been seriously underestimated,…” and that,

“In 2007, the U.S. scientists behind another study of soot’s climate impact — also published in the Journal of Geophysical Research — identified Canada as key to any global effort to reduce the effect of black carbon emissions.”

Nevertheless, the article fails to identify what portions of soot affecting the Arctic meltdown stem from the various contributors, such as China, Russia and European nations, and how Canada’s curbing of its relatively insignificant contribution will have a significant impact on slowing down the alleged and apparently non-existent melting of the Arctic sea-ice due to soot.

“One of the co-authors, University of California researcher Charlie Zender, said in 2007 that fallen soot had the effect of “placing tiny toaster ovens into the snow pack.”

Still, the article asserts that, in referring to an earlier article on the impact of soot,

“Zender said at the time that although all nations contribute to the problem of snow impurity through the long-range transport of pollutants, Canada bears particular responsibility to push for cleaner-burning fuels and reduced industrial emissions of soot,”

and that,

“Just as Brazil is the custodian of the Amazon, a world resource whose deforestation has all sorts of negative consequences, so is Canada a custodian of an important swath of snow-covered land that helps to cool the planet,” he stated.

So, it is not quite obvious what Canada can do to save the globe, but I suppose that having Canadians pay more taxes to provide for more funding to enable the search for novel ways to raise alarm about a global meltdown would be a good start for keeping alarmist researchers well employed.
(Full Edmonton Journal Story)

Other than that, the Danish Meteorological Institute identifies that for virtually all of the summer this year the arctic temperatures were well below the average for the 1958-2002 interval:

(Click to see full size)

Clearly, notwithstanding any of the modelling used for raising alarm about climate change, the real world shows no obvious evidence that the growing production of man-made soot causes increasing arctic temperature trends. Moreover, while the arctic sea-ice extent experiences its annual reduction, the antarctic sea-ice extent is one of the largest it has been for as long as satellite measurement of that were made.

(Click to see full size)

This entry was posted on August 2, 2010 at 10:30 am and is filed under Climate Change, Emission Incidents & Issues. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site.

| Print