Avatar of rosso

4 YEAR CLIMATE STUDY CLAIMS BURNING WOOD A MAJOR SOURCE FOR GLOBAL WARMING

4 rating, 6 votes4 rating, 6 votes (+4 rating, 6 votes, rated)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading ... Loading ...

January 16, 2013 in Science

by

Climate change:   Piers Forster@piersforster

Large climate warming from soot.

It was 4 years in the making but our assessment out http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21033078 … paper: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgrd.50171/abstract …

 

wood fire
 The burning of wood is a major source of black carbon the world over.

Black carbon, or soot, is making a much larger contribution to global warming than previously recognised, according to research.

Scientists say that particles from diesel engines and wood burning could be having twice as much warming effect as assessed in past estimates.

They say it ranks second only to carbon dioxide as the most important climate-warming agent.

The research is in the Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres.

Black carbon aerosols have been known to warm the atmosphere for many years by absorbing sunlight. They also speed the melting of ice and snow.

Half a degree

This new study concludes the dark particles are having a warming effect approximately two thirds that of carbon dioxide, and greater than methane.

 

“ If we did everything we could to reduce these emissions we could buy ourselves up to half a degree less warming” Prof Piers Forster University of Leeds

“The large conclusion is that forcing due to black carbon in the atmosphere is larger,”

“The value the IPCC gave in their 4th assessment report in 2007 is half of what we are presenting in this report – it’s a little bit shocking,”

The researchers say black carbon emissions in Europe and North America have been declining due to restrictions on emissions from diesel engines.

But they have been growing steadily in the developing world.

However as these type of particles don’t last very long in the atmosphere, cutting their number would have an immediate impact on temperatures.

diesel engine
 Cutting emissions from diesel engines could have a big effect

“Reducing emissions from diesel engines and domestic wood and coal fires is a no-brainer as there are tandem health and climate benefits,” said Professor Piers Forster from the University of Leeds.

“If we did everything we could to reduce these emissions we could buy ourselves up to half a degree less warming, or a couple of decades of respite,” he added.

The report warns that the role of black carbon is complex and can have cooling and warming effects.

“Mitigation is a complex issue because soot is typically emitted with other particles and gases that probably cool the climate,” said Prof Forster,

“For instance, organic matter in the atmosphere produced by open vegetation burning likely has a cooling effect.

Therefore the net effect of eliminating that source might not give us the desired cooling,” he added.

Black carbon is said to be a significant source of rapid warming in the northern United States, Canada, northern Europe and northern Asia.

The particles are also said to have an impact on rainfall patterns in the Asian monsoon.

Last year a six nation coalition of countries began a combined effort to curb the impact of short lived climate agents such as black carbon.

The authors say that while cutting back on soot is important, cutting carbon dioxide emissions is the best way to address climate change in the long term.

 

source:http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/jan/15/black-carbon-twice-global-warming

 

FOLLOWING  Reading  up  on the study report  it seems that

ClimateWorks Foundation as well as support for the organizations in the ClimateWorks Network supported  this study assessment

Catherine Witherspoon Consultant to the … – Cleanairinfo.Com

Grousbeck Family Foundation
Heising-Simons Foundation
Meher Pudumjee
Pirojsha Godrej Foundation
TomKat Trust
TOSA Foundation

 

This study assessment is a contribution of the IGBPIGAC/

WCRP-SPARC Atmospheric Chemistry and

Climate Initiative (AC&C). The authors acknowledge

financial and technical support from the International

Global Atmospheric Chemistry (IGAC) project

(http://igac.jisao.washington.edu/index.php), C.

Koblinsky of the Climate Program Office of the National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), H.

Maring of the Radiation Sciences Program of the

National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA),

Rose Kendall of CSC, and Beth Tully of Tully Graphics.

IGAC funding for this project is via the Joint Institute for

the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean (JISAO) under

NOAA Cooperative Agreement NA10OAR4320148,

Contribution No. 2035. The authors are grateful to Ray

Minjares and the International Council on Clean

Transportation (ICCT) and Catherine Witherspoon of the

ClimateWorks Foundation for encouragement to

undertake this effort. The authors wish to thank the

AeroCom modeling community and the AERONET data

providers for their great help in providing basic data sets,

further analyzed here. Olivier Boucher is thanked for his

substantial contribution to section 8 and his careful

review and subsequent discussion with the author team

on the entire manuscript. We also thank N. Riemer of

the University of Illinois for particle-resolved simulation

results in Figure 2.5, N. Mahowald of Cornell University

for dust fields in Figure 4.1, and D. M. Winker of NASA

for providing the CALIPSO data in Figure 4.5. A. Heil

is thanked for providing information on biomass fuel

loads and M. O. Andreae for providing updates of his

biomass burning emission factor compilation. E. Baum,

J. Bachmann, R. Minjares, K. Ram, V. Ramanathan, and

D. Zaelke are thanked for reading and providing

comments that improved the document. T. C. Bond

acknowledges support for related work under U.S. EPA

RD-83503401, NASA RD-83503401, NSF ATM 08-

52775, and DOE DE-SC0006689. Piers Forster

acknowledges support from a Royal Society Wolfson

Research Merit award. N. Bellouin was supported by the

Joint DECC/Defra Met Office Hadley Centre Climate

Programme (GA01101). S. Ghan was supported by the

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Science,

Scientific Discovery through Advanced Computing

(SciDAC) program, and the DOE Decadal and Regional

Climate Prediction using Earth System Models (EaSM)

program. The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory is

operated for the DOE by Battelle Memorial Institute

under contract DE-AC06-76RLO 1830. Y. Kondo was

supported by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports,

Science, and Technology (MEXT), strategic

international cooperative program of Japan Science and

Technology Agency (JST), and the global environment

research fund of the Japanese Ministry of the

Environment (A-1101). For P. K. Quinn’s work, this is

NOAA PMEL contribution no. 3786. M. Schulz

received funding support through the EUCAARI project

(EU-FP6 Contract 34684). M. Z. Jacobson received

funding from the U.S. National Science Foundation. J.

W. Kaiser was supported by the European Union

Seventh Research Framework Programme (MACC

project, contract number 218793). S. G. Warren

acknowledges support from U.S. NSF grant ARC-06-

12636. The views expressed in this paper are those of

the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or

policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

 

 

 


Infowars.com Videos:

Comment on this article:

11 responses to 4 YEAR CLIMATE STUDY CLAIMS BURNING WOOD A MAJOR SOURCE FOR GLOBAL WARMING

  1. How soon until they try to tax us for keeping our house warm.

  2. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is valuable to this planet. Plants breath in CO2 therefor more of it means more plant growth. If you study Earths condition millions of years ago you will find much more CO2 in the atmosphere than today. Back then there was much more plant life and therefor much more(bigger) wildlife. Reducing CO2 is hurting this planet ability to support life. Also, soot is primarily carbon. Carbon is the basic building block of life on this planet. i.e. carbon based life forms.
    Bottom line: Global warming = NWO agenda.

  3. You know they say Venus became so desolate due to a runaway greenhouse effect. This is simply not the case. Truth is global warming distracts people from the true culprits, eugenicists and psychopaths. Those who detonated atomic bombs in the atmosphere, allowing nuclear power plants to rot, spraying chem trails, reckless oil spills, and those who intentionally poison mankind are the real problem. Their attempts to manipulate the weather will have unforeseen repercussions. The reason I brought up Venus at first is because it proves we cannot prevent such catastrophe, only God is capable of preserving Earth. Our climate has always changed so to blame human activity plays into their agenda of future mass murder. This planet was intentionally created in order to eventually facilitate human beings. Even though Earth is destined to become like Venus we should still take good care of the environment for future generations to enjoy. Yet it is senseless to fight something inevitable like the natural occurrence of climate change. God makes the laws of natural, if it be His will, God can preserve this planet under any circumstance. I trust in God’s capability to naturally resolve problems, not mankind’s whom intentions usually aren’t pure and follow forceful strategies.

  4. I think we must think outside the box here.
    1/. they say wood burning is causing warming.
    2/. they say dumping unknown massive quantities of aluminum oxides will stop the sun from heating the planet.Well have you noticed in the last few years how forest fires have been out of control.
    Aluminum oxide is used in military explosive and it can generate heat hot enough to melt steel. This is what they are dumping on the forest’s. This causes any forest fire to become an EXPLOSIVE FIRE, this is why fire fighters are no longer able to control these fires.So here you have two stories, one about burning wood , and one about checking the heat from the SUN. The forest’s are the natural carbon collector’s but what I think is
    is going on is they are DESTROYING the ability of “OUR” FORESTS to control carbon emissions in order to increase carbon in our atmosphere and make us pay for it.If there is an increase in carbon emissions the forest increases it’s growth to COMBAT this increase.
    3/. how many people have died or have lost property due to these NOW explosive forest fire’s.NOW you have someone to blame.CHEM TRAILS ARE REAL AND DEADLY. RESIST.peace and JUSTICE for ALL mylo

  5. Yeah wood smoke is increasingly being discussed, in the associated press newspapers anyways, up here in Alaska. I’m finally awake to the scam of global warming, CO2 results from any combustion at all, and they expect to tax people for that. Brilliant.

    The wood smoke here is a result of a very cheap way to heat any home, and of course it’s only done when it’s cold. Well, guess what? CO2 AND OTHER PARTICULATE DON’T RISE INTO THE UPPER ATMOSPHERE WHEN IT’S COLD!!! They cool down too quickly and settle, which is why the valley town of Fairbanks AK is the most polluted city in the US… in the winter.

    • Another thing that isn’t addressed often when talking about reducing co2 is that when you’re driving your car home you’re out on the open road, and sure your exhaust is warm, but it’s not super hot or super smokey and in fact disperses quite well on the roadside rather than shooting straight up into the upper atmosphere.

      It is a gas…

    • a quote from the scientist “One great candidate is soot from diesel engines,” said Forster. “It may also be possible to look at wood and coal burning in some kinds of industry and in small household burners. In these cases, soot makes up a large fraction of their emissions, so removing these sources would likely cool the climate.”
      ban ,coal and wood and 2 stroke engines

      Black carbon stays in the atmosphere for only several days to weeks, whereas carbon dioxide (CO2) has an atmospheric lifetime of more than 100 years.

      • If it gets to the atmosphere, remember these scientists are just parroting the warming theory. Most industry that could produce black soot are already scrubbing their exhaust because of the clean air act.
        Industrial CO2 emissions, and actual pollutants like black soot can easily get into the atmosphere because the exhaust is super hot and concentrated. Individuals with a car or wood stove have essentially no “carbon footprint” because their measly emissions are quickly cooled, dispersed, (it is a gas) and more likely breathed in by surrounding trees and foliage.
        Go ahead and scrutinize and tax those behemoth industries that have historically shown neglect for the environment, leave me, my car and my wood stove alone.

        You don’t actually believe this anthropogenic global warming from the benign molecule CO2 nonsense, do you? Say it isn’t so, rosso.

        • Banning coal or wood is not the way to go or to over tax it where other sources of energy has tax breaks ….I did ask the scientist about the study if it included the environmental impact of aviation …..Chemtrails…contrails …..

          http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/picture/2012/nov/20/which-countries-most-coal-power?CMP=twt_gu

          Most new coal-fired plants will be built by Chinese or Indian companies. But new plants have largely been financed by both commercial banks and development banks. JP Morgan Chase has provided more than $16.5bn (£10.3bn) for new coal plants over the past six years, followed by Citi ($13.8bn). Barclays ($11.5bn) comes in as the fifth biggest coal backer and the Royal Bank of Scotland ($10.9bn) as the seventh. The Japan Bank for International Co-operation was the biggest development bank ($8.1bn), with the World Bank ($5.3bn) second

Leave a reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.