Aerosols Could Be Responsible For Arctic Warming

by Nancy Atkinson on April 9, 2009

Researchers used an electron microscope to capture these images of black carbon attached to sulfate particles. The spherical structures in image A are sulfates; the arrows point to smaller chains of black carbon. Black carbon is shown in detail in image B. Image C shows fly ash, a product of coal-combustion, that's often found in association with black carbon. While black carbon absorbs radiation and contributes to warming, sulfates reflect it and tend to cool Earth. Credit: Peter Buseck, Arizona State University

Researchers used an electron microscope to capture these images of black carbon attached to sulfate particles. The spherical structures in image A are sulfates; the arrows point to smaller chains of black carbon. Black carbon is shown in detail in image B. Image C shows fly ash, a product of coal-combustion, that's often found in association with black carbon. While black carbon absorbs radiation and contributes to warming, sulfates reflect it and tend to cool Earth. Credit: Peter Buseck, Arizona State University


Since the 1890s, surface temperatures on Earth have risen faster in the Arctic than in other regions of the world. Usually, discussions on global warming tend to focus on greenhouse gases as the culprit for the trend. But new NASA research suggests about half the atmospheric warming measured in the Arctic is due to airborne particles called aerosols.

Aerosols are emitted by both natural and human sources. They can influence cli­mate by reflecting or absorbing sunlight. The particles also affect climate by changing cloud properties, such as reflectivity. There is one type of aerosol that, according to the study, reductions rather than increases in its emissions seem to have promoted warming.

The research team, led by climate scientist Drew Shindell of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies used a computer model to investigate how sensitive different regional climates are to changes in levels of carbon dioxide, ozone, and aerosols.

They found that Earth’s middle and high latitudes are particularly responsive to changes in aerosol levels. The model suggests aerosols likely account for 45 % or more of the warming measured in the Arctic since 1976.

Though there are several types of aerosols, previous research indicates two in particular, sulfates and black carbon, play leading roles in climate. Both are products of human activity. Sulfates, which come mainly from the burning of coal and oil, scatter sun­light and cool the air. Over the past three decades, the Un­ited States and European countries have passed clean-air laws that have halved sulfate emis­sions.

Since the 1890s, surface temperatures have risen faster in the Arctic than in other regions of the world. In part, these rapid changes could be due to changes in aerosol levels. Clean air regulations passed in the 1970s, for example, have likely accelerated warming by diminishing the cooling effect of sulfates. Credit: Drew Shindell, Goddard Institute for Space Studies

Since the 1890s, surface temperatures have risen faster in the Arctic than in other regions of the world. In part, these rapid changes could be due to changes in aerosol levels. Clean air regulations passed in the 1970s, for example, have likely accelerated warming by diminishing the cooling effect of sulfates. Credit: Drew Shindell, Goddard Institute for Space Studies


The models showed that regions of Earth that showed the strongest responses to aerosols in the model are the same regions that have witnessed the greatest actual temperature increases since 1976, specifically the Arctic. However in the Antarctic, aerosols play less of a role.

Researchers with the NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported in the April 3 issue of the jour­nal Geophysical Research Letters that Arctic summers may be ice-free in as few as 30 years.

The Arctic region has seen its surface air temperatures rise by 1.5 C (2.7 F) since the mid-1970s. In the Antarctic, sur­face air temperature has in­creased about 0.35 C (0.6 F). That makes sense, Shin­dell said, be­cause the Arctic is near North America and Europe, highly industrialized regions that produce most of the world’s aerosols.

“In the mid-latitudes of the Northern Hemi­sphere and in the Arctic, the impact of aerosols is just as strong as that of the greenhouse gases,” said Shindell. “We will have very little leverage over climate in the next couple of decades if we’re just looking at carbon dioxide. If we want to try to stop the Arctic summer sea ice from melting completely over the next few decades, we’re much better off looking at aerosols and ozone.”

Aerosols tend to be short lived, staying in the atmosphere for just days or weeks, whereas greenhouses gases can persist for centuries. Atmospheric chem­ists thus think the climate may respond most quickly to changes in aerosol levels.

NASA’s upcoming Glory satellite is de­signed to enhance current aerosol measurement capabilities to help scientists reduce uncertainties about aerosols by measuring the distribution and properties of the particles.

Source: NASA


  • archon

    @omnivorr

    Nova on PBS had a documentary a couple years back about Global Dimming, or less radiation reaching lower levels in the atmosphere, from aerosols and soot that block the sun. That would explain the drop in temps between ’39 and ’69 after the Clean Air Act which the show alluded to. Without the aerosols and soot we have now, we’d have appreciably higher temps from CO2.

    @Duae Quartunciae

    Were at closer to 388 ppm C02 right now, from recent readings (can’t find citation).
    Also, CO2 is rising close to 3 ppm per year recently.
    There was also recent research about super fine pollution particles all over the Arctic
    snow and ice, which could explain away two effects: increased melting from higher radiation absorption and a drop in albedo.

    Hey, and I am all for the Precautionary Principle when it comes to Global Warming/Climate Change. Its also a good excuse to develop new tech, cutting down on fossil fuels, and leaving a little goop for the next couple generations. The Earth can handle the yearly 6-7 Billion tons of CO2 et al, but only after a couple millenia.

  • star grazer

    Very interesting posts. I do have to agree with this part of @Duae Quartunciae ‘a good excuse to develop new tech, cutting down on fossil fuels’. For the US, this must be done in slow stages without drastically affecting other areas of the economy- the US car makers, there are many other industries dependent on the car makers, fuel economy must get better and there is much improvements that can be made with new tech-my country imports nearly 70% of petroleum, this is ruining the US economy and this figure must be dropped. very much, and this major drop can be done with new tech for autos. Autos in the US accounts for over 90% of our imported petroleum!!! Again, this must be done in stages without drastically affecting the welfare of other industries dependent on the automobile.
    The US power grid to develop electricity for consumers can be improved greatly by better technology and importantly, more intelligent use of outdoor lighting to cut down on light pollution
    which causes over 2/3 or the population to not know what the night sky really looks like.
    I get too many conflicting reports about CO2 ,
    so I have no say about that . I do have to thank the posters, so far, no one has gone crazy pro or con
    about C02

  • star grazer

    Jon Hanford Says:
    I believe the host server, or the server for this site
    is overwhelmed by much traffic during certain times because I switch between IE8 and Firefox and I also have this problem so I just wait awhile then get back into this site.

  • omnivorr

    @ Archon
    you miss my point.
    so-called aerosols ( largely micro particulate matter) has been poring into the atmosphere from the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. The graph clearly shows rising temps that, with the ’39-’69 period removed from the graph, is almost a linear rate of change. Between ’39 and ’69 went against the trend. Post ’70 merely resumes the trend.

    My observation pushes no barrow, I only ask ‘What happened during those years to buck the trend?” Are you suggesting that those years were abnormally high in producing ‘aerosols’, and that ‘clean air acts’ had an instantaneous impact on setting temp rises back to the trend ?

  • http://duoquartuncia.blogspot.com/ Duae Quartunciae

    Omnivorr, your questions are addressed directly in the paper being discussed. See page 297, the section “Comparison with historical emissions”.

    The answers are not definitive, as the historical emissions data is uncertain. But from 1931 to the present, Shindell and Faluvegi consider that their inferred forcings are broadly consistent with historical emissions.

    1931-1975 is listed in the paper as a band of negative forcings in the north. This is a time of large sulphate increases (cooling effect increasing) and constant black carbon (warming effect constant). After 1975, this reverses. You have decreasing sulphates (clean air act) and increasing black carbon (largely from Asia).

    Prior to 1930 you have the increasing trend, but here the emissions data is less clear. Shindell and Faluvegi speculate about a strong black carbon emission from biomass burning.

    The clean air act probably did have an instantaneous effect on trends, which is what we are measuring. An increasing trend in sulphates suddenly becomes a negative trend in sulphates.

  • omnivorr

    Thanks Duae Q , for some reason I cannot acces the first page of replies so may have missed something, and not being in the US don’t see PBS. Neither would I know where to find the paper in question.
    Based only on the article and the graph therein I sought clarifaction.

    In short then, we could grossly simplify the larger trend as “dirty coal” (or wood-burning, etc) the intervening cooling period as “dirty oil”, and post ’70 as “clean oil”, sofar as “aerosols” are concerned…. ?

  • http://duoquartuncia.blogspot.com/ Duae Quartunciae

    I guess so. Maybe. I’m just reading the paper; I have no other qualification to give suggestions on my own behalf!

    I didn’t realize the paper was not fully referenced here, and on checking I see that even the NASA press release only names the journal. But try this:

    Shindell, Drew, and Faluvegi, Greg. Climate response to regional radiative forcing during the twentieth century, in Nature Geoscience 2, 294 – 300 (2009). Published online: 22 March 2009 | doi:10.1038/ngeo473.

    Link: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n4/full/ngeo473.html

    There’s also a commentary article by Noel Keenlyside in the same issue.

  • Feenixx

    John Hanford,
    I don’t believe the server problem has anything to do with the traffic. It’s _one_ feature of the site, it suddenly broke, and it remains broken.
    It happened before, and somebody fixed it in two stages: first, all responses became accessible in a single page – next, it all went back to “normal”.
    “Murphy’s Law” dictated that this current error happened just before the extra long weekend, resulting in a Big Bummer With Extra Impact (TM)

  • Jon Hanford

    Feenixx, I think you got it right. I had identical problems (and experiences, like the single page responses that were there a few days then vanished) and numerous work-no work sessions at this site. I’m with you here – a Big Bummer With Extra Impact.

  • star grazer

    Feenixx Says
    Yes, you’re right-this site is unstable. There are times I can’t even access the site and it does go into a single page numberous responses . I hope the site administrator can fix this site.

Previous post:

Next post: