Archive for the ‘aerosols’ Category

Warmists tilt at CO2 windmill while Asia chokes

01/08/2010

“Asia gasps in a brown cloud of real pollution like the smogs that smothered London and Pittsburgh in the 1950’s.

The Asian smog is not caused by carbon dioxide.

It comes from dirty combustion – uncontrolled peat and forest fires in Indonesia, open air cremations and cow dung cooking in India,  smoky mosquito repelling fires in SE Asia, rubbish dump fires, dust and ash from dirty old boilers and plants, and poor people everywhere scrounging dung, sticks, cardboard, coal, rags, waste oil and anything that burns for cooking and heating.

The London smog was cleared away with “coal by wire” – clean silent electric heating and lighting from distant steam generators.

Anyone concerned about Asian air pollution would be encouraging the construction of clean reliable modern power stations to replace a myriad of dirty open fires and old boilers.

Instead, fools try to ration and tax a life-supporting, non-polluting, invisible, will-o-the-wisp like carbon dioxide – fiddling while Asia burns.

Maybe the people promoting the war on carbon dioxide should set a good example and cease exhaling.”  “EPA Declares Mothers’ Breath Toxic”, Viv Forbes, Carbon Sense Coalition

Advertisements

Is soot from China responsible for long term arctic ice decline?

08/25/2009

“The Chinese aerosol, however, can have another effect on the climate. That is, a possible influence of soot on the Arctic ice. It seems to me that Hofmann et al.’s paper, together with other recent findings, gives evidence for this possibility as follows:

1) Hofmann et al’s paper shows that stratospheric haze became densest in 2007 and declined a little after that. According to their claim, this is associated with the changes in sulfate emissions from China. This fact reminds me that the ice extent in the Arctic sea was significantly reduced in the 2007 summer and recovered after that. Since the amount soot should be proportional to that of sulfate, also the amount soot transported to the Arctic may have a peak in 2007, and may explain the dramatic reduction of the sea ice extent; the soot deposited onto the ice surfaces absorbs sun light of Arctic summer, gives heat to the ice, and lets it melt. This process should be particularly effective during summer of the Arctic when the sun does not set.

2) About half of the recent temperature increase in the Arctic region is reportedly due to aerosols (combination effects of sulfate and soot) (D. Shindell and G. Faluvegi, Nature Geosci. 2, 294-300 (2009)); this result convinces one that the influence of soot on the Arctic environment does exist.

3) There are other recent papers on soot: e. g., “Atmospheric brown clouds: Hemispherical and regional variations in long-range transport, absorption, and radiative forcing,” V. Ramanathan et al., J. Geophys. Res. vol. 112, D22S21, doi:10.1029/2006JD008124, 2007.

From these results, I suspect that the soot from China is responsible for the recent reduction of sea ice in the Arctic summer. To verify this, detailed chemical analyses, such as carbon allotropes, should be made if the soot can be sampled from the ice (this may be an interesting project).” “Soot And The Arctic Ice – A Win-Win Policy Based On Chinese Coal Fired Power Plants

Is soot from China responsible for long term arctic ice decline?

08/25/2009

“The Chinese aerosol, however, can have another effect on the climate. That is, a possible influence of soot on the Arctic ice. It seems to me that Hofmann et al.’s paper, together with other recent findings, gives evidence for this possibility as follows:

1) Hofmann et al’s paper shows that stratospheric haze became densest in 2007 and declined a little after that. According to their claim, this is associated with the changes in sulfate emissions from China. This fact reminds me that the ice extent in the Arctic sea was significantly reduced in the 2007 summer and recovered after that. Since the amount soot should be proportional to that of sulfate, also the amount soot transported to the Arctic may have a peak in 2007, and may explain the dramatic reduction of the sea ice extent; the soot deposited onto the ice surfaces absorbs sun light of Arctic summer, gives heat to the ice, and lets it melt. This process should be particularly effective during summer of the Arctic when the sun does not set.

2) About half of the recent temperature increase in the Arctic region is reportedly due to aerosols (combination effects of sulfate and soot) (D. Shindell and G. Faluvegi, Nature Geosci. 2, 294-300 (2009)); this result convinces one that the influence of soot on the Arctic environment does exist.

3) There are other recent papers on soot: e. g., “Atmospheric brown clouds: Hemispherical and regional variations in long-range transport, absorption, and radiative forcing,” V. Ramanathan et al., J. Geophys. Res. vol. 112, D22S21, doi:10.1029/2006JD008124, 2007.

From these results, I suspect that the soot from China is responsible for the recent reduction of sea ice in the Arctic summer. To verify this, detailed chemical analyses, such as carbon allotropes, should be made if the soot can be sampled from the ice (this may be an interesting project).” “Soot And The Arctic Ice – A Win-Win Policy Based On Chinese Coal Fired Power Plants

Black carbon — a real anthropogenic effect

04/09/2009

The article below does not discuss the relative contribution of black carbon from humans and from natural sources such as wildfires, burning subsurface coal seams, etc. I’d be interested to know how much is natural and how much is anthropogenic:

“An article published this week in Nature Geoscience shows that black carbon is responsible for 50 percent, or almost 1°C of the total 1.9°C increased Arctic warming from 1890 to 2007. The paper by Drew Shindell of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space (GISS) and Greg Faluvegi of Columbia University also notes that most of the Arctic warming – 1.48°C of the 1.9°C – occurred from 1976 to 2007. The study is the first to quantify the Arctic’s sensitivity to black carbon emissions from various latitudes, and concludes that the Arctic responds strongly to black carbon emissions from the Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes, where the emissions and the forcing are greatest.

Black carbon is an aerosol produced from the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels and biomass and is estimated to be the second or third largest contributor to climate change. Its emissions cause damage in two ways: while in the atmosphere, the dark particulates absorb sunlight and emit it as heat; when it falls back to earth it can darken snow and ice, reducing their reflectivity and accelerating melting.” “New Study: Black Carbon Responsible for Half of Arctic Warming

Black carbon — a real anthropogenic effect

04/09/2009

The article below does not discuss the relative contribution of black carbon from humans and from natural sources such as wildfires, burning subsurface coal seams, etc. I’d be interested to know how much is natural and how much is anthropogenic:

“An article published this week in Nature Geoscience shows that black carbon is responsible for 50 percent, or almost 1°C of the total 1.9°C increased Arctic warming from 1890 to 2007. The paper by Drew Shindell of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space (GISS) and Greg Faluvegi of Columbia University also notes that most of the Arctic warming – 1.48°C of the 1.9°C – occurred from 1976 to 2007. The study is the first to quantify the Arctic’s sensitivity to black carbon emissions from various latitudes, and concludes that the Arctic responds strongly to black carbon emissions from the Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes, where the emissions and the forcing are greatest.

Black carbon is an aerosol produced from the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels and biomass and is estimated to be the second or third largest contributor to climate change. Its emissions cause damage in two ways: while in the atmosphere, the dark particulates absorb sunlight and emit it as heat; when it falls back to earth it can darken snow and ice, reducing their reflectivity and accelerating melting.” “New Study: Black Carbon Responsible for Half of Arctic Warming

"Remain" accurate? Give me a break!

02/11/2009

“This could impact on climate theories because atmospheric dust is a significant source of uncertainty for scientists trying to model the climate. ‘If it’s proven the dust is affected by electric fields, elements of current climate models may have to be re-worked with this new information, to remain accurate’, explains Joseph Ulanowski, Centre for Atmospheric and Instrumentation Research (CAIR) at the University of Hertfordshire.” “Unexpected Discovery Could Impact On Future Climate Models

"Remain" accurate? Give me a break!

02/11/2009

“This could impact on climate theories because atmospheric dust is a significant source of uncertainty for scientists trying to model the climate. ‘If it’s proven the dust is affected by electric fields, elements of current climate models may have to be re-worked with this new information, to remain accurate’, explains Joseph Ulanowski, Centre for Atmospheric and Instrumentation Research (CAIR) at the University of Hertfordshire.” “Unexpected Discovery Could Impact On Future Climate Models

"Amazon doomed by too much clean air"

05/07/2008

The lungs of the planet – the Amazon – could be wiped out within half a century as a result of too much clean air, writes Roger Highfield

Rehashes the old “aerosols cooled the planet prior to 1975 masking AGW” bit of the catechism.

"Amazon doomed by too much clean air"

05/07/2008

The lungs of the planet – the Amazon – could be wiped out within half a century as a result of too much clean air, writes Roger Highfield

Rehashes the old “aerosols cooled the planet prior to 1975 masking AGW” bit of the catechism.