Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Spring Agricultural Fires Have Large Impact on Melting Arctic "outweighed…fossil fuels (emissions)"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 03:14 PM
Original message
Spring Agricultural Fires Have Large Impact on Melting Arctic "outweighed…fossil fuels (emissions)"
Edited on Tue May-26-09 03:18 PM by OKIsItJustMe
http://www.unh.edu/news/cj_nr/2009/may/ds26fire.cfm

Spring Agricultural Fires Have Large Impact on Melting Arctic

Media Contact: David Sims david.sims@unh.edu
603-862-5369
Science Writer
Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans, and Space

Ellen Baum ebaum@catf.us
207) 666-5676
Clean Air Task Force


Bill Burtis bburtis@cleanair-coolplanet.org
(603) 422-6464, ext. 105
Clean Air - Cool Planet
May 26, 2009


DURHAM, N.H. - Scientists from around the world will convene at the University of New Hampshire June 2-5, 2009, to discuss key findings from the most ambitious effort ever undertaken to measure "short-lived" airborne pollutants in the Arctic and determine how they contribute in the near term to the dramatic changes underway in the vast, climate-sensitive region.

The two-year international field campaign known as POLARCAT was conducted most intensively during two three-week periods last spring and summer and focused on the transport of pollutants into the Arctic from lower latitudes.

One surprise discovery was that large-scale agricultural burning in Russia, Kazakhstan, China, the U.S., Canada, and the Ukraine is having a much greater impact than previously thought.

A particular threat is posed by springtime burning - to remove crop residues for new planting or clear brush for grazing - because the black carbon or soot produced by the fires can lead to accelerated melting of snow and ice.

Soot, which is produced through incomplete combustion of biomass and fossil fuels, may account for as much as 30 percent of Arctic warming to date, according to recent estimates. Soot can warm the surrounding air and, when deposited on ice and snow, absorb solar energy and add to the melting process.

In addition to soot, other short-lived pollutants include ozone and methane. Although global warming is largely the result of excess accumulation of carbon dioxide, the Arctic is highly sensitive to short-lived pollutants. Forest fires, agricultural burning, primitive cookstoves, and diesel fuel are the primary sources of black carbon; oil and gas activities and landfills are major sources of methane.

During the UNH workshop, a report by the Clean Air Task Force detailing some of the campaign's findings on agricultural burning and transport to the Arctic will be officially released.

"Targeting these emissions offers a supplemental and parallel strategy to carbon dioxide reductions, with the advantage of a much faster temperature response, and the benefit of health risk reductions," says Ellen Baum, senior scientist of the Clean Air Task Force. "In addition, we have the know-how to control these pollutants today."

The report notes that during April, at the beginning portion of the field campaign in Northern Alaska, aircraft-based researchers were surprised to find 50 smoke plumes originating from fires in Eurasia more than 3,000 miles away. Analysis of the plumes, combined with satellite images, revealed the smoke came from agricultural fires in Northern Kazakhstan-Southern Russia and from forest fires in Southern Siberia.
The emissions from fires far outweighed those from fossil fuels, the report states.

"These fires weren't part of our standard predictions, they weren't in our models," says Daniel Jacob, a professor of atmospheric chemistry and environmental engineering at Harvard. Jacob participated in a portion of the campaign known as ARCTAS, which used NASA's DC-8 "flying laboratory" to sample plumes of air over Arctic regions in Alaska and Canada.

The international team of scientists used satellites, instrumented aircraft, ocean-going ships, and ground stations to track and analyze pollution transported into the region.

UNH atmospheric chemist Jack Dibb of the Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans, and Space was also on the DC-8. "We're in agreement that these short-lived pollutants are critical in the Arctic. This meeting is to discuss what we learned from this massive undertaking and what we as a scientific community can recommend to help address the problem," says Dibb.

The work presented at the POLARCAT meeting will benefit the eight-country Arctic Council, which recently voted to jointly undertake efforts to reduce emissions of black carbon, ozone precursors, and methane in order to slow climate change and ice melt in the Arctic. The data will provide more robust results for governments to use in the development of mitigation efforts with the highest likelihood of benefiting Arctic climate.

"Accelerated warming is unraveling the ecosystems of the Arctic region,"
says Brooks Yeager, executive vice president of Clean Air-Cool Planet.
"Pollutants carried into the region help drive this unprecedented warming and melting, which makes this new science so very valuable, pinpointing as it does the sources and the solutions."

For more information on POLARCAT visit www.polarcat.no .

The University of New Hampshire, founded in 1866, is a world-class public research university with the feel of a New England liberal arts college. A land, sea and space-grant university, UNH is the state's flagship public institution, enrolling 11,800 undergraduate and 2,400 graduate students.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Fotoware58 Donating Member (473 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-27-09 10:54 AM
Response to Original message
1. American fires
While it is good to research just how bad fires are for the environment, the American government is actively allowing more and bigger wildfires in our National Forests. Everyone seems to want to find a way to embrace these firestorms thinking that fires benefit our forests.

Once again, wildfires are ALWAYS bad for the environment. Always bad for the economy and always bad for living things. Except firefighters, bark beetles and black-backed woodpeckers.

The new millenium has brought a new and more destructive era of deforestation through unfought wildfires. A clearcut is even more "green" than a high-intensity wildfire. "Free range fire" is the right idea at the horrifically-wrong time, folks. Our forests need to be prepared (fuels reduced) to allow fire to work its magic.

Alas, America has to evolve some more in progressive thinking to save our forests. Anyone else have a solution for saving old growth, endangered species habitat and all the other great things that forests provide? We already know that strict preservation results in catastrophic fires in the west.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Apr 19th 2014, 12:03 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC