Track your comments!
[x]


When you register, comments on your articles and replies to your comments appear here. Register Now!

Sign in to your account
[x]

Not a Scientific Blogging member yet?

Register Now for a Free Scientificblogging.com Account

  • Customize your profile with pictures, banner, a blogroll and more.
  • Leave comments on articles, add other members to your friend lists, chat with people on the site.
  • Write blog posts that can be seen by hundreds of thousands of readers.

It's free and it only takes a minute!

Already a Scientific Blogging member?

Sign In Now

Banner
By Lee Rodgers | September 15th 2007 10:37 PM | 7 comments | Track Comments

Overturning the conventional theory that airborne soot emissions cause regional cooling it has been found that brown clouds of airborne soot can contribute up to a third of atmospheric warming anomalies in the tropics formerly ascribed to CO2 (50 percent of the atmospheric heating caused by CO2 emissions), with its effects ranging as far as the more-temperate American west coast and mountains ranges.

The lead researcher in this study, Prof. V. Ramanathan of the Scripps Institute commented, "The conventional thinking is that brown clouds have masked as much as 50 percent of the global warming .. through ... global dimming ... This study reveals that ... soot particles ... are intensifying the atmospheric warming ... by as much as 50 percent."

Generally speaking the vast Asian Brown Cloud phenomenon has been long suspected as the culprit in disrupting the Indian Ocean monsoon patterns and drought conditions further inland, in Northern China.

Prof. Ramanathan cites the deglaciation of the Himalayas as largely the result of the manifold effects of airborne soot in the region, with both soot-darkened snow melting faster due to lost albedo (reflectivity) and the middle tropospheric warming from airborne soot lying at the same altitude as the beleagured glaciers. Coupled with deforestation that reduces glacial recharge from windborne microclimate precipitation and the associated pall of soot from wood-burning cook fires and the Himalayas are functionally under assault. Ramanathan has also stated that the sooty brown clouds appear to inhibit the formation of low-altitude cumulus clouds that provide a true net cooling benefit in the form of increased cloud-top albedo and surface shading.

Other related studies have found that most airborne soot emissions are from industrial sources - particularly coal-powered industries - with 20-30 percent originating from cook fires and diesel-powered vehicles.

And although this new-found 50 percent heating effect is found only within thicker mid-atmospheric brown cloud, the problem persists - to a lesser degree - throughout the vast Pacific region, where up to 40 percent of the observed warming is caused by the westerly soot borne from Asia. With the Pacific accounting for 30% of the Earth's surface that may account for 12 percent of global warming, worldwide.

With soot being largely responsible for the Arctic melt-off that constitutes 25 percent of the observed global warming of the past century, we might readily account for 33 percent of all human-caused global warming being due to soot.

My comments:

Were another 5 - 10 percent of all global warming found to result from other sources of soot in the industrialized West and in the tropics and subtropics (wood burning, slash & burn agriculture), we might be looking at a net 35 - 40 percent of global warming thus far being due to readily-mitigated soot.

The upside of this is manifold: While these discoveries don't exculpate CO2, it may provide a solution for the short-term and give human civilization a phased approach to dealing with the long-term problem. Soot is not only easily scrubbed from industrial sources, it doesn't persist in the atmosphere for more than a few months at most (if not weeks). We could observe tangible, meaningful results in addressing climate change, with the Arctic and Greenland ice sheets regenerating and the monsoon cycles in Asia resuming their normal patterns.

See also: 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2189190.ece

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=brown-haze-from-cooking-fires-cooking-earth

 


Comments

Hank's picture
Hi Lee,

What is the composition of those brown clouds in Asia?

Soot, CO2, sulfates, all the usual pollutants.

 


This seem true. Soot not only increases the temperature it may also cause cloud bursts during rains. In Mumbai there was a heavy rain fall on 26th August, 2005. The difference in the rain fall in the city and its suburbs were many fold. They do not allow autorickshaw in the city and it is allowed only in the suburbs. I feel the cloud burst that we observed during the rain was due to high amount of soot in the atmosphere of Mumbai suburbs. Soots definitely play a major role in the climate change. Dr. John T. Eapen www.chaloglobal.com

Hi John,

The Asian Brown Cloud *does* indeed play a role in causing intensified storms in one locale & droughts elsewhere because it disrupts the normal weather patterns.

Prof. Ramanathan also points out that these vast brown clouds also disrupt formation of low-lying cumulus clouds that actually do in fact *shade* the Earth, increasing the regional albedo (solar reflectivity) & cooling the surface.

All tolled I can account for 33% of observed human-caused global warming (anthropogenic global warming or AGW) being due to soot. With 25% AGW from the Arctic melt-off - mostly due to soot - and the 12% AGW over the Pacific from Asia's pollution & that's roughly 33% there. I also suspect we might be able to ballpark another 15% on top of that, including Western industrial sources and slash & burn agriculture in the subtropics and tropics. That brings me to 48% of the observed AGW being due to soot.

This doesn't exculpate CO2, but it might bring to light some of the problems we've been having with CO2-driven climate models , esp. since SOOT is a far more aggressive greenhouse agent than CO2. CO2 concentrations meet an effect cap - an inverse logarithmic asymptote - where additional CO2 has a smaller and smaller heating effect. Soot, OTOH, appears to have a far higher effect-cap as a heating agent.

"Clean Coal" may be the answer, between scrubbing (trapping soot, mercury, arsenic), coal liquification, coal gasification & associated cool-burn techs (mitigating NOx emissions), CO2 sequestration or cracking CO2 w/ photovoltaics - antecedent to the old Fischer-Tropsch method - *back* into usable fuel, I don't see that there's a need to wean civilization from coal or needing to supplant fossil fuels w/ renewables to any real signficant degree.

Africa will need to industrialize and I don't see that it's feasible or wise to encourage the use of nuclear power in the region. It's too unstable socially and politically for plutonium to be lying about. But clean coal, on the other hand, would be entirely feasible.

Best regards,

/lee 


I feel the trend is towards clean coal now. Some thermal plants are using clean coal now in our country. With regards Dr. John T. Eapen www.chaloglobal.com

We'll be seeing a great deal of new clean-coal techs coming out in the next decade. The value of clean coal technologies will present themselves because of the relative economy of coal-fueled power generation.

With the ability to use photovoltaics to crack CO2 into CO & O2 & then synthesize hydrocarbons via FT synthesis, the expense of CO2 mitigation will be drastically reduced, keeping coal cost-competitive.

There are other reasons to use clean coal ... it'll reduce price pressures on petrol so that kerosene & gasoline cook stoves are affordable in areas suffering from deforestation (thus mitigating slash & burn non-point souces of airborne soot). Likewise the price of natural gas can be stabilized, again to the benefit of tropical forests as modernized agricultural use of fertilizers (created using methane) can redress the current problem of slash & burn itinerant agriculture.

Soot is the easiest smoke-stack pollutant to abate, and with that comes some mitigation of mercury, arsenic and sulfurous compounds. The biggests obstacle at this point isn't technology but global politics.


HFarmer wrote:

This could really change the climate models. The first thing that occurs to me is that soot would not persist in the atmosphere as long as a gas would. The soot would settle out of the atmosphere and the warming it causes would stop. Much sooner than just CO2 alone. Another thing that comes to mind is the so called "snowball earth" theory. Where the earth froze over for millions of years Billions of years ago in the Archean epoch. It was thought that volcano's and their CO2 would melt the ice. I never heard anyone consider the effect of the soot from volcano's on the Albedo of the snowball earth.


LEEBERT REPLIES:
Different soot concentrations apparently have a variable shading vs. warming effects, dependent on distance from souce, diffusion across regions, etc. The surprising thing is how far aloft the soot rises away from its source. As the soot spreads out & disperses it attains a net warming effect as it separates into the mid- & upper-troposphere. Hence the surprise of this finding.


Add a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <sup> <sub> <a> <em> <strong> <center> <cite> <code> <TH><ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <br> <p> <blockquote> <strike> <object> <param> <embed> <del> <pre> <b> <i> <table> <tbody> <div> <tr> <td> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr> <iframe>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
If you register, you will never be bothered to prove you are human again.
Image CAPTCHA
Copy the characters (respecting upper/lower case) from the image.