Reply With Quote
why is everything bad called "black?" It can't be plain, old carbon. Nooooooo, you gotta call it black carbon. Racist cracka.
Black Carbon rather than CO2 I will claim to be the major anthropogenic warming on the Earth.
Black Carbon is simply soot. It is expelled into the atmosphere by the incomplete burning of fuels. In small quan ies, we see it in the USA from older cars tailpipes, and from diesel trucks when they accelerate hard. It’s the black smoke we see. Since the 70’s, here in the USA we have regulated pollution to the point that we generate very little of it in the global picture. The real culprit is Asia. They have been building and using coal power plants, without implementing the pollution controls we do. We are seeing the jet streams carry this soot to both the Arctic region, and causing occasional smog in the Pacific Northwest, which otherwise would have no smog. A few articles and some info contained within:
Wiki: Black Carbon:
OK, for those of you who error on the side of caution. The first paragraph says “reducing black carbon emissions may be the fastest means of slowing climate change in the near-term.” The second paragraph has the IPCC increasing it’s estimated impact from 0.3 to 0.55 watts of warming to 1 to 1.2 watts. Shouldn’t this most easily controlled measure be attempted first before regulation CO2 emission levels?Black carbon contribution to global warming
Black carbon is a potent climate forcing agent, estimated to be the second largest contributor to global warming after carbon dioxide (CO2). Because black carbon remains in the atmosphere only for a few weeks, reducing black carbon emissions may be the fastest means of slowing climate change in the near-term.
Estimates of black carbon’s climate forcing (combining both direct and indirect forcings) vary from the IPCC’s conservative estimate of + 0.3 watts per square meter (W/m2) + 0.25, to the most recent estimate of 1.0-1.2 W/m2 (see Table 1), which is “as much as 55% of the CO2 forcing and is larger than the forcing due to the other greenhouse gasses (GHGs) such as CH4, CFCs, N2O, or tropospheric ozone.”
In some regions, such as the Himalayas, the impact of black carbon on melting snowpack and glaciers may be equal to that of CO2. Black carbon emissions also significantly contribute to Arctic ice-melt, which is critical because “nothing in climate is more aptly described as a ‘tipping point’ than the 0°C boundary that separates frozen from liquid water—the bright, reflective snow and ice from the dark, heat-absorbing ocean.” Hence, reducing such emissions may be “the most efficient way to mitigate Arctic warming that we know of.”
If warming from soot increases, then what did they say before is decreasing… I’ll bet they don’t, but I’d say they are seeing CO2 isn’t the culprit they claim it is. Considering on the below graph, they gave CO2 something like a 1.5 to a 1.8 watt range, that would now be reduced to maybe 0.8 to 1.5 watts! However, the below graph must be older yet. It shows soot at 0 to 0.2 watts. Correcting to the higher soot figure drops CO2 to even more. Because of the way the range these, I won’t attempt to quantify a valid change. Just that it’s even farther. Along with the truth that solar irradiance changes should be higher than the approximate 0.1 to 0.3 watts the give, you can see that CO2 can easily be getting smaller. Solar irradiance by official NASA and other agencies than monitor the sun clearly increase by at least 0.3 watts.
Second article, by MSNBC; Soot may speed up melting of Arctic ice:
Funny thing is that CO2 doesn’t produce the right calculation to be the primary reason for warming that has been observed. Climate models have been made since the 80’s on the assumption greenhouse gasses were the primary cause of warming. What almost any article I see on the subject fails to do is acknowledge that if we are seeing other factors contributing to warming, then CO2 must not be warming the earth as much as first assumed. They refuse to see past the Flat Earth mentality.Using computer models and information from NASA satellites, scientists located significant ac ulations of black carbon soot in the Arctic region. This soot may contribute to the warming of a region that has already seen rapidly increasing temperatures in recent years.
"This research offers additional evidence black carbon, generated through the process of incomplete combustion, may have a significant warming impact on the Arctic," said Dorothy Koch of Columbia University and NASA’s Goddard Ins ute for Space Studies.
Is soot, not CO2, to blame for the loss of Arctic ice?:
From ABC News; Can We Save the Polar Bears?:The Arctic is especially vulnerable to pollution. In recent years the Arctic has significantly warmed, and sea-ice cover and glaciers have diminished. Likely causes for these trends include changing weather patterns and the effects of pollution. Airborne soot also warms the air and affects weather patterns and clouds.
Black carbon has already been implicated as playing a role in melting ice and snow. Basically, when soot falls on ice, it darkens the surface and accelerates melting by absorbing more sunlight than ice would, just as wearing a black shirt in the summertime makes you feel hotter than if you wore a lighter color. Dark colors absorb heat and light, and lighter colors reflect it keeping surfaces cooler.
A few more links:Scientists are discovering that what appears to be pristine, white snow may be more polluted than it seems. They're finding tiny particles of black carbon — too small for the naked eye to see — from forest fires and human pollution.
Under a microscope, scientists can see black carbon particles by the trillions. Those black carbon particles cause the snow to melt faster.
"Black carbon absorbs sunlight and it causes warming," said Stephen Warren, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Washington.
Scientists have traced soot blown into the Arctic region to industrial sources in North America, Europe and now Asia, but there's still hope.
"I think we can still save the Arctic," said NASA's James Hansen. "Our calculations are that we could keep the sea ice in the Arctic from melting much more than it has already."
That can only happen if emissions cuts include greatly decreasing black carbon from smokestacks and tailpipes, according to Hansen and other scientists. That's an effort everyone has to strive for, from China to the United States.
Soot Could Hasten Melting of Arctic Ice
IGSD/INECE Climate Briefing Note: 9 June 2008, A must read. Nice data. Has the most recent BC estimates of forcing at 1.0 to 1.2 watts.
Study: Black Carbon Pollution Major Factor in Global Warming, 23 March 2008
Global Warming Hoax:
Notice how out closest source of Black Carbon emissions at high levels is Mexico City? I know that from a better map of this I've seen. Somewhere, I have a few NASA links that cover the BC levels better. I think I covered enough here. Threads getting a bit big already.
why is everything bad called "black?" It can't be plain, old carbon. Nooooooo, you gotta call it black carbon. Racist cracka.
that's quite the emotional rollercoaster ride you're on, gtown. good to see you out btw.
Did you forget that there is a troll forum?
Please go away from here if you are incapable of discussing the topic.
Here are some interesting links, and snippets from them:
Black Soot And Snow: A Warmer Combination:
Soot in areas with snow and ice may play an important role in climate change. Also, if snow- and ice-covered areas begin melting, the warming effect increases, as the soot becomes more concentrated on the snow surface. "This provides a positive feedback (i.e. warming); as glaciers and ice sheets melt, they tend to get even dirtier," said Dr. James Hansen, a researcher at NASA's Goddard Ins ute for Space Studies, New York.
Hansen and Larissa Nazarenko, both of the Goddard Ins ute and Columbia University's Earth Ins ute, found soot's effect on snow albedo (solar energy reflected back to space), which has been neglected in previous studies, may be contributing to trends toward early springs in the Northern Hemisphere, thinning Arctic sea ice, melting glaciers and permafrost. Soot also is believed to play a role in changes in the atmosphere above the oceans and land.
"Black carbon reduces the amount of energy reflected by snow back into space, thus heating the snow surface more than if there were no black carbon," Hansen said.
Soot's increased absorption of solar energy is especially effective in warming the world's climate. "This forcing is unusually effective, causing twice as much global warming as a carbon-dioxide forcing of the same magnitude," Hansen noted.NASA Finds Soot Has Impact On Global Climate:Hansen and Nazarenko used a leading worldwide-climate computer model to simulate effects of greenhouse gases and other factors on world climate. The model incorporated data from NASA spacecraft that monitor the Earth's surface, vegetation, oceans and atmospheric qualities. The calculated global warming from soot in snow and ice, by itself in an 1880-2000 simulation, accounted for 25 percent of observed global warming. NASA's Terra and Aqua satellites are observing snow cover and reflectivity at multiple wavelengths, which allows quan ative monitoring of changing snow cover and effects of soot on snow.
The researchers found the amount of sunlight absorbed by soot was two-to-four times larger than previously assumed. This larger absorption is due in part to the way the tiny carbon particles are incorporated inside other larger particles: absorption is increased by light rays bouncing around inside the larger particle.Soot climate forcing via snow and ice albedos:"There is a pitfall, however, in reducing sulfate emissions without simultaneously reducing black carbon emissions," Hansen said. Since soot is black, it absorbs heat and causes warming. Sulfate aerosols are white, reflect sunlight, and cause cooling. At present, the warming and cooling effects of the dark and light particles partially balance.
Our estimate for the mean soot effect on spectrally integrated albedos in the Arctic (1.5%) and Northern Hemisphere land areas (3%) yields a Northern Hemisphere forcing of 0.3 W/m2 or an effective hemispheric forcing of 0.6 W/m2. The calculated global warming in an 1880–2000 simulation is about one quarter of observed global warming.Also see:Melting Ice. We suggest that soot contributes to near worldwide melting of ice that is usually attributed solely to global warming. Measurements in the Alps reveal BC concentrations as large as 100 ppbw, enough to reduce the visible albedo by ~10% and double absorption of sunlight. However, much smaller BC amounts perturb snowmelt because of positive feedbacks.
The ultimate flux perturbation at the snow surface due to BC is larger than the product of incident solar flux and the direct BC-induced snow albedo change. The BC-caused warming of the snow speeds snow “aging,” i.e., the growth of grain size. More important, the warmer air causes the melt season, with its much lower albedo, to begin earlier and to last longer on sea ice and land ice. In our climate model, as illustrated in Fig. 5, which is published as supporting information on the PNAS web site, these feedbacks more than double the direct soot flux perturbation in permafrost, sea ice, and ice sheet regions, where there is little or no shielding of snow by vegetation. This effect may be important on glaciers and the lower reaches of ice sheets, where the added mel er not only reduces the albedo but also lubricates nonlinear dynamic processes of glacier disintegration.
Black and White: Soot on Ice
Aren't any of you antropogenic greenhouse gas believers going to say anything to dispute this?
So you admit CO2 is warming the earth and now you claim even greater negative impacts from fossil fuels. Very good, nice to see you have left the denier camp.
Your statement is only partially correct, and CO2 does come from fossil fuels. So does black carbon. There is nothing changed about my position. I have brought up black carbon before. Most places that burn coal in the USA use clean burning technology. We are not the problem. Asia is because of their proximity to the Arctic, and it depositing on the northern ice by the winds.
I have never disputed that anthropogenic global warming exists. I have always disputed the alarmist numbers. They attribute so much to CO2 when it is almost nothing, and black carbon has a larger effect.
Now CO2 and black carbon are two different things, and I have maintained that black carbon is mans largest contributor to global warming. You get black carbon from poor combustion of coal and hydrocarbons. Modern methods of burning these fossil fuels have virtually zero black carbon emission.
WC, why don't you use non-prejudiced sources as science references? I checked a couple of your links and they were just someone pushing agendas.
Does the IPCC have an agenda?
No. In fact, some of the later links were good ones. I am interested in seeing where WC is going on this. I am always receptive to a valid position backed with unspun data.
I have never disputed that anthropogenic global warming exists. I have always disputed the alarmist numbers. They attribute so much to CO2 when it is almost nothing, and black carbon has a larger effect.That's the main difference between CO2 and black carbon. Our CO2 emissions ac ulate on the atmosphera and even if we reduce our emissions to zero now the amount of it on the atmosphera will remain the same for centuries. On the other hand black carbon remains on the atmosphera only a few weeks so it is only the last month emissions that are affecting climate.Because black carbon remains in the atmosphere only for a few weeks, reducing black carbon emissions may be the fastest means of slowing climate change in the near-term.
Of course, this doesn't mean that we shouldn't reduce it too as eliminating it will reduce our impact on climate.
I see. It's OK for you to listen to all the alarmists, all of who have agendas, but not deniers who have agendas?
Did you look at the NASA links? If anything, NASA is primarily on the band wagon of CO2 and warming. However, they have links about the sun and soot that they don't use as part of their alarmist friendly agenda, yet the facts are there!
Who would you call unbiased that has done any work in the field?
You know, I love nature. If you want to claim I have an agenda, then know this. I am all for the truth on the subject. If I believed CO2 was a threat, I would say so. The only man made threat I see is black carbon. I can punch holes in all the alarmists work. They lie and ignore pertinate facts.
I wish I had more to go on with the black carbon. There is really little research on the subject. I did this thread along with CO2 Global Warming and Solar Global Warming because I believe nearly all the warming we have observed is by solar intensity changes and black carbon absorbing more heat, and that CO2 have a very small effect. I am very confident that 85% to 95% of the warming we have observed is by soot and solar changes. Not CO2. Put that on a 0.6 C to 0.8 C increase since industrialization, and that leaves CO2 with a 0.03 C to 0.12 C range.
Read the other links. I’ll be more than happy to discuss questions, but please place them in the appropriate thread. I made the three to separate the three topics as each can get rather large.
From the research I have seen, the arctic ice normally reflects about 90% of the sun. What happens when the soot leaves a fine even particle trail is that area then absorbs about 90% of the solar radiation rather than reflecting it. That’s a 800% increase in heat absorption by the ice, and it simply starts to melt. The alarmists try to say CO2 is causing the melting, but think logically about this. The ice is melting top down, not water up, in an environment that is always below zero. If CO2 causes a 0.6 C to 0.8 C increase, that is only a 0.21% to 0.28% increase, when you consider that 0 C is 273.15 degrees above absolute zero. More understandable is that you would have to agree the ice is always on the verge of melting anyway, that it would have to be normally about 1 C rather than well below freezing. Then again, it should melt by the water. Not the surface, if it maintains a temperature just above freezing.
Back to the reflection. Look at if as a change from 10% absorption to 90%. Like I said, an 800% increase. Doesn’t it seem logical that the dark surface from the soot is heating the ice more than what they say CO2 is doing?
Bump
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
