Advertisement

Science Friday
Aerosols cloud the climate picture
New work suggests scientists and policy makers can't ignore interactions between greenhouse gases and light-scattering particles
font_down font_up Text Size
access
Aerosols cloud the climate pictureNew work reveals how greenhouse gases interact with aerosols, components of this haze over Los Angeles. steinphoto/istockphoto

Modeling the climate just got a little more complex. A new simulation that considers chemical interactions between various gases and atmospheric aerosols is giving scientists and policy makers better estimates of the climate-altering effects of those gases, scientists report.

Some atmospheric gases — known as greenhouse gases — trap heat and boost the planet’s surface temperature. This process keeps Earth habitable, but nowadays, many scientists say, the planet may be getting too much of a good thing. Though most climate simulations include the direct, heat-trapping effects of these atmospheric constituents, which can readily be measured in a lab, few account for how their presence either increases or decreases atmospheric concentrations of planet-cooling aerosols, says Drew Shindell, a climate scientist at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City. “These effects are generally understood but not well quantified,” he notes.

Aerosols, particles so small that they remain suspended in the air, come from natural sources such as volcanoes and sea spray, but also form in chemical reactions involving the gases spewing from tailpipes and smokestacks. Light-colored aerosols, such as sulfate droplets, scatter sunlight and reflect some of it back into space, cooling Earth’s surface just as natural clouds do.

access
Gases' warming potential by weightAdapted from D. Shindell et al./Science

Recently, Shindell and his colleagues modified a NASA climate model to consider chemical reactions among major atmospheric constituents and the resulting effect on aerosol concentration. Their report, in the Oct. 29 Science, reveals that some greenhouse gases have a substantially stronger warming effect than previously recognized because they take part in reactions that destroy aerosols, while others actually tend to boost concentrations of cooling aerosols.

The new study “shows that you can’t make efficient climate policy without considering the effects of air pollution,” says Almut Arneth, an ecosystem modeler at Lund University in Sweden.

New portions of the revised model consider the influence of methane, carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides on the atmospheric concentration of hydroxyl radicals, highly reactive molecules sometimes referred to as the atmosphere’s detergent. Hydroxyl concentrations can be depleted as these radicals react with gases in the atmosphere, and this slows the reactions that produce light-colored, light-scattering sulfate aerosols, Shindell says. “And a lower number of aerosols means a lower cooling effect,” he notes.

access
Back Story: Players in the troposphereA. Nandy

Analyses using the revised model suggest that the aerosol-stifling power of methane and carbon monoxide considerably boosts the planet-warming effect of these gases. Previous studies have shown that a kilogram of methane, over the course of a century, warms Earth about 25 times more effectively than a kilogram of carbon dioxide does. But add in methane’s hydroxyl-consuming effect, and its planet-warming potential jumps to 28 times that of CO2, an increase of 12 percent, Shindell says. (Scientists use carbon dioxide as a baseline largely because it is a common, long-lived greenhouse gas in the atmosphere and its warming effects are well known.)

Similarly, carbon monoxide’s greenhouse warming potential rises from 2.2 times to 3.3 times that of CO2 when its hydroxyl-consuming effect is considered. If the inhibiting influence of these two gases on the formation of planet-cooling clouds is also incorporated into the model, their greenhouse effect increases even further.

But the news isn’t all bad: The team’s model suggests that various nitrogen oxides produced by fossil-fuel burning tend to increase aerosol concentrations through a complex series of reactions, thereby tripling their cooling power. NOx emissions are increasing in developing countries, but still play a relatively minor role in the overall global greenhouse effect.

Shindell and his colleagues haven’t yet used these new values to make long-term climate predictions under various emissions scenarios. For now, however, the new model could give scientists insight into recent climatic trends. For instance, Shindell notes, “We’ll be able to learn how much greenhouse gas warming that aerosols have been masking.” Recent studies have found that as much as 20 percent of the warming in Europe since the 1970s stems from a decline in aerosols, such as fog and haze, during that period (SN: 2/14/09, p. 9).

Results of the new model will also enable policy makers to better determine the possible climatic effects of significantly reducing specific types of emissions, especially those that substantially affect pollutants and other aerosols.

Because many greenhouse gases also trim aerosol concentrations, Arneth says, people will have to cut emissions even further to keep Earth’s average temperature from increasing 2 degrees Celsius above pre–Industrial Revolution levels. “We not only have to think about greenhouse gases, but about pollution too,” she says.

A commentary in the same issue of Science suggests that megacities, areas with more than 10 million residents (SN: 9/8/07, p. 152) are tempting targets for emissions controls. While those areas are large economic engines, they also can provide a source of funding to address issues of climate change and air quality, says David D. Parrish, an atmospheric scientist at NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colo. Megacities also have a sufficient population density to make energy-efficient buildings and cars, as well as mass transit systems, effective tools in the fight to reduce CO2 emissions, he and colleague Tong Zhu of Peking University in Beijing note.

The newly revised NASA model only begins to address the complexities of atmospheric chemistry, Shindell says. It doesn’t, for example, consider how pollutants such as ozone and acid rain suppress the uptake of carbon dioxide by trees and other plants. “What we’re doing is state-of-the-art, but we need to advance substantially,” he adds. However, he admits, “some of the effects we’re missing locally may not be important globally.”

Arneth agrees, “There’s quite a lot of work is left to be done.”


Found in: Chemistry, Climate Change, Earth, Earth Science and Environment

Comments 12
  • The scientific rhetoric advocating carrying a parasol to set off the catastrophe of aerosols is over.

    Time to change the policy of government from triage to a grasp of the reality that actually got here last decade.
    Dredd Blog Dredd Blog
    Oct. 30, 2009 at 12:09pm
  • Anybody with half a brain - and half a measure of honesty - and yes, maybe a sprinkling of that now rare ingredient of a knowledge and appreciation of what made this country a unique advance in the history of civilization..
    ..would have it immediately leap to mind that the alleged scientists who have been screaming (man-made) global warming based on their climate models should have, in the very first place, publicised - in addition to the (honest) scientific confidence levels of their so-called results and their margin of error (which they did give lip service to) - the "fitness" (technical term) of their models.

    How can anyone say - with a straight, non-red face - that although previously they had plenty of scientific warrant for taking the completely un-American actions limiting individual freedoms to pursue their own happiness..
    ..but now have even more?

    Environmentalism has always been nothing but a scam and a religion. Some of us are not fooled, and are not going to stand for it.
    P.Michael Hutchins P.Michael Hutchins
    Oct. 30, 2009 at 12:53pm
  • An interesting article that does a good job explaining. Thank you Science News for covering it.

    Although I'm not a climatologist, I get the impression that the atmosphere is one of the earth's most complex and poorly understood natural systems. And as we all know computer models are only as good as the assumptions you use to build them.
    Marty Marty
    Oct. 30, 2009 at 4:33pm
  • Marty;
    Especially when it all started off with guaranteed funding by the Thatcher government for models that "proved" burning coal caused global warming.
    Brian Hall Brian Hall
    Nov. 1, 2009 at 6:05am
  • Reread the fifth paragraph. There are two many words in this sentence. It better reads " can't make efficient climate policy" period. Climate change is ongoing, a natural process and has been co-opted for political leverage. It always gets down to how much is the US going to tax and handicap itself and how much more control are the leftist going to wrestle from the productive members of our society. Models are set up to add credence to pre-existing conclusions. Read Ian Plimers book Heaven and Earth to learn something about our planet and its climate. Flush the Snake Oil salesman Al Gore and use your brain!
    leolin brush leolin brush
    Nov. 1, 2009 at 9:53am
  • Nitrogen~ 78%, oxygen~ 21%, argon
    william cesarano william cesarano
    Nov. 2, 2009 at 5:32pm
  • The atmosphere should be thought of as a buffer soup. The ingredients are well known. The level of the common gases are Nitrogen-78%, Oxygen-21%, and Argon less than 1% followed by a greatly varying water vapor content. Carbon is way too small a factor to measure in percentages so it along with other gases are measured in PPM. To approach this non-sense by another perspective consider this. When is the last time anyone publicly exhibited a model demonstrating our present conditions (atmosphere vs temp)derived from the last 500, 300 or 100 years of known composition and temps to validate it's accuracy to any practical extent? Fact is, a few volcanoes spewing in unison will do what man could never imagine. Conversely, the lack of any volcanic activity will deplete
    william cesarano william cesarano
    Nov. 2, 2009 at 5:55pm
  • "...influence of these two gases on the formation of planet-
    cooling clouds..."

    Clouds cool the planet during the day, and trap heat at night. I've heard from scientists that the net effect is that clouds warm the earth. Is my information out of date?
    S Gruhn S Gruhn
    Nov. 3, 2009 at 7:29pm
  • I'm a little dismayed at the lack of simple fact checking in this thread. For instance:

    "Fact is, a few volcanoes spewing in unison will do what man could never imagine."

    Is simply flat out wrong. A simple back of the envelope estimate is sufficient to convince one of this. All of mankind's activity puts out less than one percent the annual average CO2 outgassing of volcanoes.

    Check out this graph of actual CO2 measurements from the south pole. The little bumps are annual fluctuations in line with the seasons. Now closely inspect the peroid around 1991 when the massive eruption of Mount Pinatubo happened. It was the second most powerful eruption of the 20th century. Does it register even a blip on the CO2 measurement graph? Well, take a look and decide.

    [Link was removed]
    Brad Hoehne Brad Hoehne
    Nov. 4, 2009 at 9:30am
  • Given the context of my above post, it should be obvious that I meant to say:

    "On average, all volcano activity puts out less than one percent the annual average CO2 outgassing of mankind."
    Brad Hoehne Brad Hoehne
    Nov. 4, 2009 at 9:41am
  • Unfettered capitalism. Such a lovely idea. As lovely as communism or Christianity, and every bit as doctrinaire. People create technology and people create societies in which technology may be used for good or ill. The choices we make, or more importantly, the choices we don't make will determine the future of this planet and our --as well as other-- species living on it.

    At the moment the odds are pretty good that we have reached, or are rapidly approaching a climatic tipping point that will result in enormous social and economic dislocation with a commensurate increase in human misery. Expecting technology to evolve as quickly as some believe is hopelessly optimistic. Expecting it to be applied in time to prevent these dislocations is even more so.

    Given the stubborn resistance of the developed world to act (rather than talk) to implement already existing technologies on the massive scale necessary for remediating the problems of global warming and it's effects; and given the inability (and in many cases the unwillingness) of the developing world even to consider seriously doing what needs doing means that the near future (50-100 years) will see, at the very least, inundation of low-lying parts of the world. An effect already in evidence in the Pacific.

    Redistribution and intensification of droughts and floods is already beginning to show itself. The thinning of the Arctic ice sheet and the faster-than-expected melting of the Greenland and West Antarctic glaciers are other indicators that things are happening more quickly than previously thought.

    All of this is happening now. And what are the unfettered capitalists doing to develop and apply new technologies? They are denying the problem, ignoring (or disputing) the facts and doing as little as possible. In almost every instance industries and their lobbying groups are resisting any changes to business as usual.

    Now why should this be? The problems that we see looming before us are obvious opportunities to create and apply new and existing technologies and to make great profits for stockholders in the process. Yet our businessmen, unfettered capitalists all, will resist actualizing these opportunities without government mandates --carrots and sticks-- to push them into it. Moreover, unless a critical mass of people demands that something be done, governments, responding to the influence of business, will fail to create either the necessary carrots or sticks to get things moving.

    Friends, industry will have to dragged kicking and screaming to change its methods, materials and goals. And even more problematic, our world-wide society will have to change its behaviors as will we as individuals. We are all stakeholders in our survival. Debates such as the one linked to above are sterile exercises unless they lead to real-world actions that increase the long-term profits (i.e., the survival)of all of us. I suggest that you don't hold your breath until your utopia comes. Instead I recommend investment in high elevation real estate.
    Jack Lass Jack Lass
    Nov. 8, 2009 at 2:03pm

  • [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed]
    m9bnat m9bnat m9bnat m9bnat
    Jan. 5, 2010 at 7:52pm
Post a comment (Please note: All links will be removed from comments.)

Please login or register to participate.

Advertisement
Suggested Reading :
seperator
  • Perkins, S. 2009. A source of haze. Science News 176(Aug. 29):15. [Go to]
  • Perkins, S. 2009. Clearing some air over warming in Europe. Science News 175(Feb. 14):9. [Go to]
  • Perkins, S. 2008. New Recipe for Pollution Stew: Another chemical culprit adds to ozone. Science News 173(Mar. 22):181. Available to subscribers [Go to]
  • Perkins, S. 2007. What Goes Up: Big-city air pollution moves to the burbs and beyond. Science News 172(Sept. 8):152. Available to subscribers [Go to]
Citations & References :
seperator
  • Arneth, A., et al. 2009. Clean the Air, Heat the Planet? Science 326(Oct. 30):672.
  • Parrish, D.D., and T. Zhou. 2009. Clean Air for Megacities. Science 326(Oct. 30):674.
  • Shindell, D.T., et al. 2009. Improved Attribution of Climate Forcing to Emissions. Science 326(Oct. 30):716.
Reader Favorites:
seperator
SN on the Web:
seperator