THIS IS AN ARCHIVE OF LAKE TAHOE NEWS, WHICH WAS OPERATIONAL FROM 2009-2018. IT IS FREELY AVAILABLE FOR RESEARCH. THE WEBSITE IS NO LONGER UPDATED WITH NEW ARTICLES.

Study: Wildfires have role in global warming


image_pdfimage_print

By Geoffrey Mohan, Los Angeles Times

Wildfires such as the Yarnell Hill blaze in Arizona may be warming Earth’s atmosphere far more than previously thought, according to a study by Los Alamos National Laboratory.

Researchers at the Department of Energy facility normally chase fires throughout the western U.S., to measure their atmospheric effects. But in 2011, they took advantage of a conflagration that came to their doorstep – the Las Conchas fire that burned more than 150,000 acres and briefly caused the evacuation of the sprawling facility in the New Mexico desert.

“This was just an opportunity in our backyard,” said Manvendra Dubey, a senior atmospheric scientist at the laboratory. “It was a freebie for me, so I couldn’t miss that opportunity.”

After the brief evacuation ended, Dubey’s team set up monitoring devices while the fire continued to rage across the desert scrubland. Their analysis, which included painstaking counting and classification of thousands of particles, revealed components that had not been considered in climate models, most of which have suggested that cooling and warming effects of two kinds of aerosols tended to cancel each other out.

The Los Alamos team identified tar balls – spherical, carbon-based particles – that are 10 times more prevalent than soot particles, and can boost the heating effect of wildfire emissions, according to the study, published last week in the journal Nature Communications.

“We provided the data that shows that current estimates, which are close to zero or show a very slight warming, are incorrect and the warming will be higher,” Dubey said. “We are confident this will change the results and show that fire emissions will have a tendency to warm.”

Close examination of soot also showed these particles were sheathed by organic coatings that “act like a lens to focus sunlight and amplify the sunlight that soot absorbs,” Dubey said.

Wildfires have increased in number, intensity and acreage throughout the southwestern U.S. over the last three decades, driven by climate change and forest management decisions to suppress fires instead of letting them take their natural course. That burning biomass pumps tons of aerosols into the atmosphere, directly changing how sunlight is absorbed, and indirectly affecting the process by influencing cloud formation.

“For a given amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, you could be condensing the water in many, many more small particles. So clouds could become brighter,” Dubey said. “These tar balls can get embedded, and soot can get embedded in clouds, and the clouds can then absorb more sunlight and evaporate faster.”

Climate scientists generally focus on the effects of two aerosols: soot, or black carbon, and smoke, known as organic carbon. Smoke tends to scatter solar radiation, for a net cooling effect. But black carbon absorbs it. Research in the last decade has increasingly suggested that black carbon may be the second strongest contributor to atmospheric warming, behind carbon dioxide, the most well-known greenhouse gas.

The Los Alamos researchers also attempted to simplify the complex chemistry and physics of aerosols. Climate models, they said, should consider aerosols as a combination of tar balls, soot and “other” particles, including smoke and irregularly shaped specks of dust and salt. Soot, they said, can be further classified by its degree of coating, enabling climate modelers to capture the nuanced effects of these particles.

The study results could push the U.S. back into the spotlight cast on emitters of black carbon, said Dubey, who recently spent several months in India. U.S. policymakers have increasingly pointed to the Indian subcontinent and China as major sources of emissions from burning biomass, largely from wood and charcoal fires.

“All these things emit the same; if you burn wood in your open stove or you have a fire, you have some similar emissions,” Dubey said. “I think this gives us all a common language to develop solutions to it.”

image_pdfimage_print

About author

This article was written by admin

Comments

Comments (6)
  1. David says - Posted: July 10, 2013

    With all the wildfires the last couple years I’m sure it’s a factor but kinda seems like a red herring.

  2. whattheheck says - Posted: July 11, 2013

    Do you remember when the global cooling craze was in full bloom a proposal to cover Antarctica with carbon- black or soot to absorb more or the sun’s radiation was made. That was only 40 or so years ago.
    I’m sure we got it right now, oh yeah.

  3. Garry Bowen says - Posted: July 11, 2013

    Having reviewed a couple of immense fires with the upper reaches of Forest Service management (750,000 & 500,000+ acres, respectively), I overheard a talk by the then-Director of Public Health at Harvard talking about (beyond the always-recognized danger of the fires themselves to life, property, and habitat) how many other pollutants are released into the atmosphere: lots of toxicities from building materials, asphalt, etc. become part of the air stream, so there are lots of ‘residual’ effects above and beyond just “fire”. . .

    Most materials, natural or man-made, normally include much in the way of embedded energy that is ‘part & parcel’ to the “invention of fire” – which we humans never take into account, never realize.

    To those two earliest commenters, I would also suggest they google (it is a verb now, right ?) Global Dimming – to further understand what sunlight has to do with Dubey’s contribution to this article. The most relevant part has to do with yet another “opportunity in our backyard” – namely, the first-ever closing of all the nations’ airports in the wake of 9/11; sunlight measurements that were never possible [due to the incredible number of flights criss-crossing the nation at any given time] were able to be done, revealing some frightening things about what is in the air and how it restricts the amount of sunlight actually hitting the ground now. . . (think crop productivity, or lack thereof) . . . people need to pay more attention, not less, to these types of inquiries. . .

    Add CO2 emissions to all of the above. . .

  4. LilPeter says - Posted: July 11, 2013

    There was no global cooling ‘craze’. Only a small percentage of scientists had these ideas that were easily debunked by the the vast majority. Only the few nutjobs, like today’s climate change deniers, supported such stupid ideas.

  5. Mama Bear says - Posted: July 11, 2013

    LilPeter (I still ponder the basis for this nickname ), back in the 70’s when gas lines went around the block to get 50 cent gas there was a ‘threat’ or a mini-ice age. This was the global cooling ‘craze’. I remember it well. IN San Francisco and the peninsula you would sit in a line at the gas station for over an hour to be told that you could only have 5 gallons of gas. The ‘science’ at the time was blaming the auto emissions for th hole in the ozone which, in turn, would cause the earth to cool.
    I did not understand it then and I don’t understand the idiocy going on now. I believe that we should do what we can to protect our environment but to say that everything is caused by man makes little to no sense.

  6. BijouBill says - Posted: July 11, 2013

    I agree that there were some crazy ideas put out by people in the 70’s gas-o-lines, I was there. The global cooling was a fabrication by a few in the science community and made into a “craze” by media pandering to the sheeple.
    Nobody in the reality based scientific community ever believed it, only those that didn’t understand it then, now, or ever will.
    Nobody ever said that everything involved in our climate changes has been caused by man, that is of course the idiocy of fake skeptic talking points.