According to the journal Nature Geosciences, “increasing concentrations of black carbon have substantially contributed to rapid Arctic warming during the past three decades.”
A paper from that journal, “Climate response to regional radiative forcing during the twentieth century,” was authored by climate researchers Drew Shindell, at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and Greg Faluvegi of Columbia University. Shindell, Faluvegi, and many other climate scientists believe that limiting black carbon sources may “buy the world some time” in the race to control climate change as richer nations develop their climate change policies and begin taking the slow steps towards overhauling their carbon heavy energy sources.
The researchers assert that aerosols are responsible for “half or more” of Arctic warming. Unexpectedly, their paper’s claims and recommendations sparked a flurry of critical emails, perhaps due to confusion over the atmospheric roles of different aerosols.
A recent NY Times articles brings to fore the contribution of Soot, also known as Black Carbon, in the global warming. And how efforts are underway to reign in the global warming by replacing the mud-stoves in villages of India! On the Earth day, a legislation was introduced in US Senate for EPA to assess the options for reducing the black carbon pollution.
By Andrew Williams •
January 6, 2009
Nasa scientists have told government’s that a simple cut in worldwide emissions of soot could lead to a dramatic reduction in the effects of global warming, as well as preventing hundreds of thousands of deaths from air pollution.
Soot contains black carbon, thought to be the second largest cause of global warming after carbon dioxide. Whilst airborne, it it spread around the globe by wind, heating the atmosphere by absorbing and releasing warmth from the sun’s rays. When it falls to the surface it also darkens snow and ice in polar regions or high mountain ranges, further reducing the Earth’s ability to reflect solar radiation.
Cutting soot emissions has a virtually instantaneous effect since it disappears rapidly from the earth’s atmosphere, unlike CO2, which can linger for hundreds of years.
That smelly hog factory-farm or power plant down the road from your home might be doing more than offending your nasal passages and depressing neighborhood property values. A new report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) finds that short-lived, local pollution exerts greater-than-expected effects on the global climate.
It’s not just a little impact, either. The study says that, by 2050, projected growth in short-lived pollutants could be responsible for as much 20 percent of global warming.
This is National Public Health Week, and the focus is on the impact of climate change on our nation’s health. Knowing about the risks you face will help you better prepare for the dangers.
PHOTO CAPTION: An evacuated family driven from their San Diego home by the 2007 wildfires. Photo: Michael Raphael/FEMA
Do you have children?
Because they are still developing physically, breathe faster than adults and rely on adults for care, children are more vulnerable. Watch out for:
- Heat waves. Infants and children up to four years old are particularly sensitive to heat and also rely on a care-giver to keep them adequately hydrated.
- Smog and soot pollution. Because their lungs are still developing, children can suffer irreversible lung damage as adults from breathing unhealthy air when young.
- Food- and waterborne diseases. Small children and children living in poverty are at higher risk for falling ill from diseases that climate change will likely exacerbate.
- Stress, anxiety, depression or post-traumatic stress disorder after disastrous extreme weather events.
