Print 50 comment(s) - last by ZachDontScare.. on Aug 2 at 1:54 PM

  (Source: Civilianism)
But reducing soot will lower the Arctic climate more quickly than CO2

Stanford researcher has proven that reducing soot emissions rather than carbon emissions will slow the melting of Arctic sea ice faster. 

Stanford researcher Mark Z. Jacobson developed a special computer model of air pollution, weather and global climate that has atmospheric processes that do not appear in other models. With this, he observed the effects of soot from both fossil fuels like gasoline, coal and diesel, and from solid biofuels like dung, wood and manure. According to his findings, both types of soot combined together is the "second-leading cause of global warming after carbon dioxide."

Climate models previous to Jacobson's have misread the effects of soot in the atmosphere, hence, it has been ignored when it comes to national and international global warming policy legislation. Soot is now second place in the global warming contribution ranks, putting itself above methane. Soot also "prematurely" claims the lives of more than 1.5 million people each year, and causes respiratory illnesses in millions more worldwide. 

While decreasing carbon emissions is important and at the top of the list, reducing soot emissions from fossil fuels and solid biofuels could slow the progression of global warming almost instantly. Jacobson came to this conclusion because soot only lingers in the atmosphere for a few weeks, and then it is washed out. Contrarily, carbon emissions stay in the atmosphere up to a century, which is a large gap of time before visible results of emission cuts are available. 

"Controlling soot may be the only method of significantly slowing Arctic warming within the next two decades," said Jacobson. "We have to start taking its effects into account in planning our mitigation efforts and the sooner we start making changes, the better."

During the last century, the Arctic's net warming has been at 2.5 degrees Celsius, and will only get warmer if no action is taken. By reducing soot emissions, warming above the Arctic Circle will decrease over the next 15 years by as much as 1.7 degrees Celsius. 

While these two types of soots combined are largely contributing to global warming, the soots individually are just as dangerous. Soot caused by the burning of fossil fuels is more of a contributor to global warming while soot caused by the burning of solid biofuels is more dangerous to humans. Solid biofuel soot causes eight times more deaths as fossil fuel soot. 

The difference between the two types of soot is black carbon, which is found in the fossil fuel soot and has a significant effect on warming over the Arctic. Black carbon absorbs solar radiation, converts sunlight to heat and radiates it back to its surroundings (air). It is able to absorb light reflecting away from the Earth's surface as well. This is particularly threatening to the Arctic because the black carbon is in the air over ice or snow, sunlight hits the black carbon both while coming toward Earth and when it reflects off the ice and back into space. 

"There is 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," said Jacobson. "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."

Researchers have found that the best way to reduce soot emissions is to attach particle traps, which filter soot particles from exhaust, to vehicles like buses and diesel trucks. This is a cheap, effective and fast way of taking care of the issue. Another way to eliminate soot would be the use of electric vehicles, but automakers are just now releasing these cars onto the market, and it will take some time to push gasoline-powered vehicles completely out of the picture. 

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

China does nothing to their coal plants
By DoeBoy on 7/30/2010 12:38:04 PM , Rating: 5
The chinese have left it to europe and the united states to actually put pollution controls on their power plants. Clearly they dont give a **** about anything in the environment and should be yelled at. At least that would make me feel better.

RE: China does nothing to their coal plants
By winterwatchers on 7/30/10, Rating: 0
By sviola on 7/30/2010 1:17:27 PM , Rating: 2
They are also construction the world largest Solar Power plant in Gobi desert (an american comapny was hired to do it).

By SAmely on 7/30/2010 2:04:47 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't see his attitude as "holier than thou", how about "less aware than thou". I'm sure his opinion is different after the information you provided.

Although, I do agree the Chinese should be yelled at, maybe in regards to other things.

By DougF on 7/30/2010 5:46:43 PM , Rating: 1
A) We're talking about warming in the Arctic here, not bashing of Europeans and Americans over green technology investment, that's a different forum. From an article you can get here:
Of the three major causes for a stratospheric aerosol increase: volcanic emissions to the stratosphere, increased tropical upwelling, and an increase in anthropogenic sulfur gas emissions in the troposphere, it appears that a large increase in coal burning since 2002, mainly in China, is the likely source of sulfur dioxide that ultimately ends up as the sulfate aerosol responsible for the increased backscatter from the stratospheric aerosol layer. The results are consistent with 0.6–0.8% of tropospheric sulfur entering the stratosphere.”

So, his "holier than thou" attitude is correct.

B) BTW, of the 20 nations at the top of the energy usaage per capita list, there are 8 European, 5 Middle Eastern, 4 North American, and 3 Asian nations. There are even some European nations with lower per capita rates than China, along with most of South America and Africa. So, you can spread the bashing around a bit more, if you want.

By JediJeb on 7/31/2010 1:43:43 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe on a per capita basis the Chinese emit less, but on a per coal fired power plant basis they emit far more pollution than equivalent European or American plants. How many people in China and India that are calculated in the per captia values do not even have electricity in their homes? The more accurate assessment would be to rate pollution in terms of MW of electricity generated. If rated that way, what is the comparison of US, European, Indian, and Chinese pollution per MW electricity generated?

"I f***ing cannot play Halo 2 multiplayer. I cannot do it." -- Bungie Technical Lead Chris Butcher

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki