Soot warming 'maybe bigger than greenhouse gases' - NASA

[FarCenter]

By Lewis Page

Researchers from NASA's Goddard Space Flight Centre, also the home of famous carbopocalypse doom-prophet James Hansen, have repeated earlier assertions that atmospheric soot may be as important as greenhouse gases in driving global warming.

This could be good news for humanity, as atmospheric soot levels would be much easier to reduce. Filtering soot out of exhausts from diesel engines and coal burners is simple compared to removing and sequestering CO2, and as an added benefit the effects would be rapid: soot doesn't persist in the atmosphere for long periods the way greenhouse gases do, as it is washed out by rain or snow. However, many environmental campaigners would resist the idea of soot taking centre stage, fearing that this could lead to a reduced emphasis on greenhouse-gas emissions reductions.

Earlier investigations including the effect of soot had focused on the Arctic, where Goddard scientists have previously suggested (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/09/arctic_aerosols_goddard_institute/) that "the impact of aerosols is just as strong as that of the greenhouse gases". Aerosols include soot, which tends to heat the atmosphere, plus sulphates and others which cool it. Unfortunately sulphates also cause acid rain, and clean-air regs in the US and Europe have seen them massively reduced - and the Arctic warm up.

<SNIP>

But according (http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/himalayan-warming.html) to NASA this week:

The new research, by NASA’s William Lau and collaborators, reinforces with detailed numerical analysis what earlier studies suggest: that soot and dust contribute as much (or more) to atmospheric warming in the Himalayas as greenhouse gases.
"We need to add another topic to the climate dialogue," says Lau.

Hal Maring of NASA headquarters goes further, though he cautions that more field results from the "roof of the world" are necessary to validate Lau's modelling.

"Even at this stage we should be compelled to take notice," says Maring. “Airborne particles have a much shorter atmospheric lifespan than greenhouse gases, so reducing particle emissions can have much more rapid impact on warming.”

<SNIP>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/15/soot_bigger_than_co2/print.html

[Warren DeMontague]

1. Blimey!

[drm604]

2. Lewis Page is misrepresenting what that NASA article says.

That article talks about local effects in the Himalayas, it does not state that soot warming is bigger than CO2 worldwide.

I guess I shouldn't expect better from an author who uses goofy terms like "carbopocalypse".

[FarCenter]

3. Goddard previous paper dealt more broadly with the artic

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/09/arctic_aerosols_goddard_institute/page2.html