Science Journal Now Admits Soot’s Major Role In Warming – CO2 Getting Cut Down To Size

Der Spiegel reports today that scientists have identified soot (black carbon) as one of the major global warmers out there.

According to Science Journal here, a team of 24 experts led by NASA scientist Drew Shindell looked at 400 emission control measures and identified 14 measures targeting methane and black carbon (BC) emissions that would reduce projected global mean warming.

Source: http://atmoz.org/blog/2007/06/12/global-melting-big-thaw/

Recently scientists and activists have been frustrated by the slow progress and dogged reluctance by countries to cap CO2 emissions, which are thought to be causing global warming. So Shindell looked for alternative ways to avert warming. Suddenly, lo and behold, soot (BC) and methane have emerged as major global warming factors. The amount they admit soot and methane contribute to warming is in my view astonishing.  The abstract states (emphasis added):

We considered ~400 emission control measures to reduce these pollutants by using current technology and experience. We identified 14 measures targeting methane and BC emissions that reduce projected global mean warming ~0.5°C by 2050.”

This equals the total amount of warming we’ve seen in the last 40 years!

Now scientists are telling us that soot and methane will have the same effect that CO2 is claimed to have had over the last 40 years? Whatever happened to the assertion that man-made CO2 has caused 95% of the warming over the last decades? Obviously CO2 as a driver is seriously getting cut down to size. Throw in the emerging solar effects and there isn’t much left for poor old CO2.

The abstract continues:

This strategy avoids 0.7 to 4.7 million annual premature deaths from outdoor air pollution and increases annual crop yields by 30 to 135 million metric tons due to ozone reductions in 2030 and beyond. Benefits of methane emissions reductions are valued at $700 to $5000 per metric ton, which is well above typical marginal abatement costs (less than $250). The selected controls target different sources and influence climate on shorter time scales than those of carbon dioxide–reduction measures. Implementing both substantially reduces the risks of crossing the 2°C threshold.”

No need to worry any longer about a doubling of CO2 concentrations. Indeed CO2 as a driver and its hypothesized positive feedbacks simply aren’t materializing. We haven’t seen any warming in 15 years. Now scientists are realizing that soot is a big league player.

Der Spiegel writes:

About 3 billion people prepare their meals over open fires that burn wood, dung or coal, and thus emit huge amounts of soot. However attempts to get people in Africa and Asia to get interested in other cooking devices have often proven to be difficult.

Of course it has been difficult. When idiot bureaucrats attempt (and are successful) to slow down progress, people remain poor and all they have left to burn is wood. But if they promote growth, free markets and development so that poor countries can attain western standards of living, then they will be able to afford to burn cleaner fuels like gas and oil. And if someday they should get really rich, they too will be able to afford wind and solar energy.

Ed Caryl told us about soot – months ago! Read here!

14 responses to “Science Journal Now Admits Soot’s Major Role In Warming – CO2 Getting Cut Down To Size”

  1. Bruce

    “However attempts to get people in Africa and Asia to get interested in other cooking devices have often proven to be difficult.”

    Shale Gas is turning out to be cheap, plentiful and all over. Why environmentalists are fighting it when it would be a good, clean, portable cooking fuel is beyond me.

  2. Harry Dale Huffman

    Rather obviously, they don’t know what they are talking about. People shouldn’t take their guesses seriously, about CO2 or black carbon (and that is what your comment “Whatever happened to the assertion that man-made CO2 has caused 95% of the warming over the last decades?” boils down to: they are just guessing, and poorly, in running their naive models). There is no such thing as an expert climate scientist, or the false consensus would never have been allowed to become dominant in the science community.

    1. Ed Caryl

      Just note that all the “expert climate scientists”are self proclaimed. The false consensus has always been about defining who is qualified to speak. Those of us in the pews should not have the temerity to call into question those at the pulpit.

      Which makes me wonder if the rise of the Green religion is not clearly related to the decline of Theism. People have an instinct to believe in SOMETHING.

  3. DirkH

    How about holding a gun to their head until they give up burning wood and use some solar contraption? The UN would happily create the necessary bureaucracy for that, and an AK-47 is only 5 bucks. Make them an offer they can’t refuse… call it The War On Dung.

  4. DirkH

    My area (Brunsvick) becomes part of the latest taxpayer money destruction scheme; “Schaufenster Elektromobilität” (Showroom window electromobility). in which the local bureaucrats get VW electrocars for their travels, and some electric charging stations are paid for.
    120 million Euro will be destroyed with no use for the populace.
    http://www.mein-elektroauto.com/2012/01/braunschweig-hannover-und-wolfsburg-sollen-schaufenster-fur-elektroautos-werden/4366/

  5. mondo

    “Throw in the emerging solar effects and there isn’t much left for poor old CO2.”

    And don’t forget land-use factors that are affecting local and regional climate in many areas that are likely being mistaken for CAGW. Dr Roger Pielke Sr makes a compelling case that land-use factors (deforestation, urbanisation, draining of swamps, industrial agriculture, desertification processes) are an important factor.

    His viewpoint is supported by others like Peter Andrews in Australia (see http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/more-storms-on-the-way-unless-we-learn-to-manage-the-land-20120101-1ph66.html).

    1. Ed Caryl

      Yes, land use changes albedo, it also changes the seasonality of albedo changes. In the Great Plains of the U. S. the original plains grasslands were green in the spring. Now the fields are mostly brown in the spring and turn green later. Anywhere that desert has been “reclaimed” and irrigated with fossil or imported water, is now green where it was brown or grey. Whole states have been converted from forest cover to growing corn (maize). Some climatologists have claimed that land use changes due to the extirpation of the natives in the Americas caused the little ice age, but have not recognized that current fuel use and land use changes have anything to do with current warming.

      There are two reasons we are headed into global cooling: the sun going into a grand minimum, and reduction in fossil fuel use. The first is a truly global phenomenon, the second will be local; where the cities are. This will not be because of CO2, but from reduced UHI. (In the Arctic, it will be because of improved building insulation.)

      1. GoFigure

        “Land use during caused the Little Ice Age” ? Last I heard the claim was that land use caused warming, if anything.

        And also consider that a lot less land was being used by the planet’s inhabitants BEFORE the Little Ice Age.

  6. jerrymat

    There is no “current warming.” Read the following by a climate scientist geologist:

    http://westernfrontonline.net/news/14141-qaa-western-professor-doubts-global-warming

    1. Ed Caryl
      1. Paul Homewood

        Muller admits

        it is nonetheless possible to find long time series with both positive and negative trends from all portions of the United States.

        But fails to address why.

        http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2011/10/22/kansas-temperature-trend-updatemuller-confirms-there-is-a-problem/

      2. Paul Homewood

        I did an analysis of all USHCN stations in Kansas (so I can’t be accused of cherry picking!). The temperature from 1911 to 2010 varied from +1.82C at one station down to 0.13C at another, with a pretty fully distributed range in between. Of the 21 stations, only two could be called large towns.

        Clearly even small towns or even “rural” sites can exhibit UHI or other localised effects.

        http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2011/10/20/temperature-trends-in-kansas/

  7. GoFigure

    It’s been shown pretty conclusively that UHI is a local phenomenon. Invariably the surrounding rural areas show no impact.

    However, thermometer readings, most of which come from urban areas, are obviously higher, and if not correctly revised, will cetainly contribute to the perception that the planet has been warming.

  8. I. P. Freeley

    Global Dimming is supposed to be doing just the opposite in regards to the soot.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLfBXRPoHRc

    Some scientist found that on 12 September 2011 the atmosphere warmed by 1 degree C. It seems that the soot from jetliners is causing suppression of AGW.