2013 Jan. 15: CSM: Soot is No. 2 global warming culprit (wood burning on the list)

2013 Jan. 15: CSM: Soot is No. 2 global warming culprit (wood burning on the list)
This is an important  study – because it identifies WOOD as one of the culprits that is adding to the soot problem.  Why is this important?  Because the people burning outdoor wood furnaces  – that puts out  22 times as much smoke as one indoor wood stove —  continue to claim their method of heating is good for the environment.  Now we know differently.
It is bad for health and bad for the environment all at the same time.
                        Nancy
The Christian Science Monitor
January 15, 2013
Soot is No. 2 global-warming culprit, study finds
A new study suggests that soot plays a major role in climate change – second only to carbon-dioxide emissions. Targeting soot could lead to quicker results in battling global warming.
The new study estimates that in 2000, humans injected soot into the air at a pace of about 7.5 trillion tons a year globally.
Researchers describe the warming effect in terms of the amount of energy deposited on a patch of Earth one meter square. As of 2005, study notes, the accumulated direct and indirect effects of carbon-dioxide emissions since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution amounted to about 1.56 watts per square meter. Methane was No. 2 at 0.86 watts per square meter.
The latest estimate for black-carbon soot now puts it’s contribution to the energy warming the planet at 1.1 watts per square meter and perhaps as much as 2.1 watts per square meter.
The effects vary by region as well. Eastern and southern Asia, major sources for the soot, can experience a warming effect from soot 10 times higher than the global average, the researchers estimate. Soot falling on ice and snow in the Arctic has accelerated warming there by speeding the pace at which snow and ice melt during the long hours of summer sun.
Indeed, the mid to high latitudes of the northern hemisphere have seen some of the most pronounced effects of warming from soot, the study notes, because that’s where most of the world’s population lives.
Scientists also have linked high soot levels to shifts in the regional distribution and intensity of rainfall during Asian monsoons.
Initially, calls from some climate scientists during the past decade to focus first on reducing emissions of shorter-lived but powerful warming agents, such as methane or soot, have been met with polite nods and a resumption of heated debates over CO2 emissions. But the increasing recognition of the adverse health effects of soot, as well as the experience from efforts to control soot, are changing that, some researchers say.
Indeed, “there are clear options” to cut soot emissions, Ramanathan says.
In California, for instance, black-carbon soot emissions fell by half between 1990 to 2008 in response to tighter air-quality regulations affecting diesel emissions, according to a study Ramanathan and colleagues from Scripps and Argonne National Laboratory published in early 2011.
The decline occurred even as “diesel consumption has increased significantly,” he adds. The soot pollution “has come down to almost nothing” statewide.
The study on global black-carbon soot released Tuesday notes that focusing initially on diesel sources “appears to offer the most confidence in reducing near-term” warming.
Another opportunity lies in supplying cook stoves that burn biofuels like wood or dung more efficiently, Ramanathan adds.
In the end, putting an immediate focus on short-lived warming agents such as black carbon also cuts into CO2 emissions, notes Brenda Ekwurzel, a climate scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington.
“Emitting black carbon also emits carbon dioxide, which has longer-term consequences,” she says. “So going after black carbon also helps with the carbon-dioxide emissions associated with incomplete combustion of an ancient tree or critter.”
A new study published last year suggested suggested that the use of kerosene lamps was also a significant source. Soot from the lamps contributes about 270 billion tons of soot a year to the atmosphere, representing about 7 percent of warming impact from all energy-related soot, according to the study published last November in the journal Environmental Science and Technology.
The new study estimates that in 2000, humans injected soot into the air at a pace of about 7.5 trillion tons a year globally.
Researchers describe the warming effect in terms of the amount of energy deposited on a patch of Earth one meter square. As of 2005, study notes, the accumulated direct and indirect effects of carbon-dioxide emissions since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution amounted to about 1.56 watts per square meter. Methane was No. 2 at 0.86 watts per square meter. The latest estimate for black-carbon soot now puts it’s contribution to the energy warming the planet at 1.1 watts per square meter and perhaps as much as 2.1 watts per square meter.
The effects vary by region as well. Eastern and southern Asia, major sources for the soot, can experience a warming effect from soot 10 times higher than the global average, the researchers estimate. Soot falling on ice and snow in the Arctic has accelerated warming there by speeding the pace at which snow and ice melt during the long hours of summer sun.
Indeed, the mid to high latitudes of the northern hemisphere have seen some of the most pronounced effects of warming from soot, the study notes, because that’s where most of the world’s population lives.
Scientists also have linked high soot levels to shifts in the regional distribution and intensity of rainfall during Asian monsoons.
Initially, calls from some climate scientists during the past decade to focus first on reducing emissions of shorter-lived but powerful warming agents, such as methane or soot, have been met with polite nods and a resumption of heated debates over CO2 emissions. But the increasing recognition of the adverse health effects of soot, as well as the experience from efforts to control soot, are changing that, some researchers say.
Indeed, “there are clear options” to cut soot emissions, Ramanathan says.
In California, for instance, black-carbon soot emissions fell by half between 1990 to 2008 in response to tighter air-quality regulations affecting diesel emissions, according to a study Ramanathan and colleagues from Scripps and Argonne National Laboratory published in early 2011.
The decline occurred even as “diesel consumption has increased significantly,” he adds. The soot pollution “has come down to almost nothing” statewide.
The study on global black-carbon soot released Tuesday notes that focusing initially on diesel sources “appears to offer the most confidence in reducing near-term” warming.
Another opportunity lies in supplying cook stoves that burn biofuels like wood or dung more efficiently, Ramanathan adds.
In the end, putting an immediate focus on short-lived warming agents such as black carbon also cuts into CO2 emissions, notes Brenda Ekwurzel, a climate scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington.
“Emitting black carbon also emits carbon dioxide, which has longer-term consequences,” she says. “So going after black carbon also helps with the carbon-dioxide emissions associated with incomplete combustion of an ancient tree or critter.”
--
Nancy Alderman, President Environment and Human Health, Inc. 1191 Ridge Road North Haven, CT   06473 (phone) 203-248-6582 (Fax)     203-288-7571 http://www.ehhi.org http://ehhijournal.org
Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s