DOCSLIB.ORG

Implication of Strongly Increased Atmospheric Methane Concentrations for Chemistry–Climate Connections

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Implication of Strongly Increased Atmospheric Methane Concentrations for Chemistry–Climate Connections Atmos. Chem. Phys., 19, 7151–7163, 2019 https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-7151-2019 © Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Implication of strongly increased atmospheric methane concentrations for chemistry–climate connections Franziska Winterstein1, Fabian Tanalski1,a, Patrick Jöckel1, Martin Dameris1, and Michael Ponater1 1Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (DLR), Institut für Physik der Atmosphäre, Oberpfaffenhofen, Germany anow at: MERPH-IP Patentanwälte PartG mbB, Munich, Germany Correspondence: Franziska Winterstein ([email protected]) Received: 16 January 2019 – Discussion started: 18 January 2019 Revised: 6 May 2019 – Accepted: 13 May 2019 – Published: 29 May 2019 Abstract. Methane (CH4) is the second-most important di- 1 Introduction rectly emitted greenhouse gas, the atmospheric concentra- tion of which is influenced by human activities. In this study, Methane (CH4) is a potent greenhouse gas (GHG), subject to numerical simulations with the chemistry–climate model strong anthropogenic emissions that contribute substantially (CCM) EMAC are performed, aiming to assess possible con- to global warming. It is not just a radiatively active gas by sequences of significantly enhanced CH4 concentrations in itself but is chemically active as well, strongly influencing the Earth’s atmosphere for the climate. the chemical composition of the atmosphere. Beyond that, We analyse experiments with 2×CH4 and 5×CH4 present- its sources are prone to temperature changes and it is gen- day (2010) mixing ratio and its quasi-instantaneous chem- erally expected that climate change (i.e. surface warming) ical impact on the atmosphere. The massive increase in will lead to enhanced CH4 emissions, accelerating the tem- CH4 strongly influences the tropospheric chemistry by re- perature rise. For instance, additional CH4 emissions are ex- ducing the OH abundance and thereby extending the CH4 pected from wetlands due to climate-driven changes (Gedney lifetime as well as the residence time of other chemical et al., 2004; Zhang et al., 2017; Ma et al., 2017). Moreover, substances. The region above the tropopause is impacted a large quantity of CH4 is stored as methane hydrate, not by a substantial rise in stratospheric water vapour (SWV). only in permafrost soil but also in the seafloor. Permafrost The stratospheric ozone (O3) column increases overall, but soil stores about a 100-fold of the current CH4 burden in SWV-induced stratospheric cooling also leads to a enhanced the atmosphere, and oceanic methane hydrates store even ozone depletion in the Antarctic lower stratosphere. Regional a 1000-fold (IPCC, 2013). Current estimates indicate that patterns of ozone change are affected by modification of GHG emissions from thawing permafrost soils could repre- stratospheric dynamics, i.e. increased tropical upwelling and sent a major terrestrial biogeochemical feedback to climate stronger meridional transport towards the polar regions. We change over the coming decades (Comyn-Platt et al., 2018). calculate the net radiative impact (RI) of the 2 × CH4 exper- At the same time, it is under debate whether a possible −2 iment to be 0.69 W m , and for the 5 × CH4 experiment to strong release of CH4 from thawing permafrost in the Arctic be 1.79 W m−2. A substantial part of the RH is contributed region could potentially force an abrupt climate change (as by chemically induced O3 and SWV changes, in line with discussed by O’Connor et al., 2010). At present, the release previous radiative forcing estimates. of methane hydrate from reservoirs is highly uncertain as To our knowledge this is the first numerical study using a well as the magnitude of future natural and anthropogenic CCM with respect to 2- and 5-fold CH4 concentrations and emissions of methane. Increasing surface temperatures it is therefore an overdue analysis as it emphasizes the im- cause enhanced CH4 emissions from thawing permafrost pact of possible strong future CH4 emissions on atmospheric soils to the atmosphere, but the amount is currently poorly chemistry and its feedback on climate. constrained (Hayes et al., 2014; Schaefer et al., 2014; Koven et al., 2015; Schuur et al., 2015). For instance, Dean et al.(2018) stated that there is basically no significant Published by Copernicus Publications on behalf of the European Geosciences Union. 7152 F. Winterstein et al.: Implication of strongly increased atmospheric methane concentrations increase in Arctic methane emissions at the moment, though ment resulted in a value near zero. This example even more they may increase towards the end of the 21st century. motivates an assessment of simulations that include chemi- Nevertheless, permafrost thaw could potentially release cally driven atmospheric adjustments to increases in CH4. trapped CH4 and transform frozen soil to wetland areas, To our knowledge, studies using data derived from which would then add to Arctic CH4 emissions. Moreover, chemistry–climate model (CCM) simulations, including ex- ongoing heating of the Arctic sea surface temperature (SST) treme CH4 emissions (i.e. beyond current and near-future will also enhance future CH4 production in the ocean, and amounts), are not available so far. A CCM is an atmospheric a reduction in sea ice concentration (SIC) may increase the global circulation model that is interactively coupled to a de- direct transfer of CH4 from the ocean to the atmosphere. tailed chemistry module. In contrast to CTMs, in CCMs the In particular, enhanced SST can increase the production of simulated concentrations of the radiatively active gases are CH4, as permafrost underlying the continental shelf begins used for the calculations of net heating rates. Changes in the to thaw (Miller et al., 2018). How a changing climate will abundance of these gases due to chemistry and advection in- impact future CH4 emissions remains a topic of debate in fluence heating rates and, consequently, variables describing atmospheric science, since emissions from the most climate- atmospheric dynamics. This creates a dynamical–chemical sensitive CH4 sources, i.e. wetlands, are difficult to quantify coupling in which the chemistry influences the dynamics and precisely. vice versa. Since CH4 influences other trace gases due to its Although there remain important knowledge gaps about oxidation products as well as the removal of the hydroxyl the magnitude of CH4 emissions, it is important to improve radical (OH), a comprehensive chemistry module is neces- our understanding of how strongly future CH4 emissions sary. In simulations with doubled carbon dioxide (CO2), in may impact our atmosphere and the environment. About contrast, the feedback on climate and chemistry is induced 90 % of the emitted CH4 is removed in the troposphere. A only by its radiative impact. Apart from accounting for the change in tropospheric CH4 concentration affects the oxidiz- direct radiative impact of CH4, the use of a CCM is strongly ing capacity of the atmosphere, modifies ozone in the tropo- desired, since the atmospheric CH4 chemical feedback is a sphere and influences the CH4 lifetime itself (e.g. Saunois key process for understanding the variations in atmospheric et al., 2016; Frank, 2018; Holmes, 2018). Additionally, it CH4 and its effects on other chemical constituents of the at- affects the stratosphere. For example, enhanced CH4 emis- mosphere (Holmes, 2018). sions will lead to an abundance of stratospheric water vapour The present work is the first study investigating atmo- (SWV) and, as a consequence, will strongly influence strato- spheric effects due to strong CH4 emissions with such a spheric ozone (O3)(Stenke and Grewe, 2005; Revell et al., CCM. Idealized simulations of significantly enhanced CH4 2016). concentrations are performed, i.e. 2-fold (2 × CH4) and To assess the direct and indirect effects of strongly en- 5-fold (5 × CH4) enhanced CH4 concentrations compared hanced CH4 emissions on atmospheric composition and to present-day condition, allowing possible future conse- Earth’s climate, numerical model studies are able to sup- quences for atmospheric composition to be assessed while port investigations such as identifying potential signatures considering chemical feedback processes. In a first step, we impacting climate change. So far only a limited amount of conducted CCM simulations without interactive ocean cou- numerical studies are available concerning the impact of very pling, i.e. the surface conditions regarding SST and SIC strong CH4 emissions. Exemplary, the effect of 2-fold CH4 are prescribed (suppressed surface temperature feedback). was investigated in a 1-D radiative–convective climate model Equivalent to the work of Smith et al.(2018), the results by Owens et al.(1982) and by MacKay and Khalil(1991). can be interpreted as rapid adjustments to a sudden CH4 en- Shang et al.(2015) used a chemistry transport model (CTM) hancement before the ocean reacts to the perturbation, which but doubled CH4 emission over China only. Other CTM stud- would occur on a far larger timescale. ies have focused on recent changes and fluctuations in the In this study we will use the ECHAM/MESSy Atmo- atmospheric CH4 concentration (e.g. Dalsøren et al., 2016) spheric Chemistry (EMAC) CCM (Jöckel et al., 2016), as- or have tried to explain CH4 trends, which is a challenge be- sessing the range of atmospheric responses by abrupt in- cause of important uncertainties in the global CH4 budget, creases in CH4 concentrations. A short description of EMAC i.e. the balance of surface sources and atmospheric and sur- is given in Sect.2, as well as an explanation of the simula- face sinks (Saunois et al., 2016). Furthermore, CTMs are lim- tion strategy. In Sect.3 the reference simulation representing ited in assessing climate-change-related issues, because they near-present-day condition is briefly evaluated with obser- do not include the feedback between chemistry and dynam- vations (Sect. 3.1) and a discussion of the impact of 2-fold ics. Smith et al.(2018) investigated the fast radiative feed- and 5-fold increased CH4 concentrations in respective sce- backs (adjustments) in a model intercomparison using simu- nario simulations is presented in Sect.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Ozonedisinfection.Pdf
    ETI - Environmental Technology Initiative Project funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under Assistance Agreement No. CX824652 What is disinfection? Human exposure to wastewater discharged into the environment has increased in the last 15 to 20 years with the rise in population and the greater demand for water resources for recreation and other purposes. Disinfection of wastewater is done to prevent infectious diseases from being spread and to ensure that water is safe for human contact and the environment. There is no perfect disinfectant. However, there are certain characteristics to look for when choosing the most suitable disinfectant: • Ability to penetrate and destroy infectious agents under normal operating conditions; • Lack of characteristics that could be harmful to people and the environment; • Safe and easy handling, shipping, and storage; • Absence of toxic residuals, such as cancer-causing compounds, after disinfection; and • Affordable capital and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs. What is ozone disinfection? One common method of disinfecting wastewater is ozonation (also known as ozone disinfection). Ozone is an unstable gas that can destroy bacteria and viruses. It is formed when oxygen molecules (O2) collide with oxygen atoms to produce ozone (O3). Ozone is generated by an electrical discharge through dry air or pure oxygen and is generated onsite because it decomposes to elemental oxygen in a short amount of time. After generation, ozone is fed into a down-flow contact chamber containing the wastewater to be disinfected. From the bottom of the contact chamber, ozone is diffused into fine bubbles that mix with the downward flowing wastewater. See Figure 1 on page 2 for a schematic of the ozonation process.
    [Show full text]
  • Minimal Geological Methane Emissions During the Younger Dryas-Preboreal Abrupt Warming Event
    UC San Diego UC San Diego Previously Published Works Title Minimal geological methane emissions during the Younger Dryas-Preboreal abrupt warming event. Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1j0249ms Journal Nature, 548(7668) ISSN 0028-0836 Authors Petrenko, Vasilii V Smith, Andrew M Schaefer, Hinrich et al. Publication Date 2017-08-01 DOI 10.1038/nature23316 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California LETTER doi:10.1038/nature23316 Minimal geological methane emissions during the Younger Dryas–Preboreal abrupt warming event Vasilii V. Petrenko1, Andrew M. Smith2, Hinrich Schaefer3, Katja Riedel3, Edward Brook4, Daniel Baggenstos5,6, Christina Harth5, Quan Hua2, Christo Buizert4, Adrian Schilt4, Xavier Fain7, Logan Mitchell4,8, Thomas Bauska4,9, Anais Orsi5,10, Ray F. Weiss5 & Jeffrey P. Severinghaus5 Methane (CH4) is a powerful greenhouse gas and plays a key part atmosphere can only produce combined estimates of natural geological in global atmospheric chemistry. Natural geological emissions and anthropogenic fossil CH4 emissions (refs 2, 12). (fossil methane vented naturally from marine and terrestrial Polar ice contains samples of the preindustrial atmosphere and seeps and mud volcanoes) are thought to contribute around offers the opportunity to quantify geological CH4 in the absence of 52 teragrams of methane per year to the global methane source, anthropogenic fossil CH4. A recent study used a combination of revised 13 13 about 10 per cent of the total, but both bottom-up methods source δ C isotopic signatures and published ice core δ CH4 data to 1 −1 2 (measuring emissions) and top-down approaches (measuring estimate natural geological CH4 at 51 ±​ 20 Tg CH4 yr (1σ range) , atmospheric mole fractions and isotopes)2 for constraining these in agreement with the bottom-up assessment of ref.
    [Show full text]
  • Greenhouse Carbon Balance of Wetlands: Methane Emission Versus Carbon Sequestration
    T ellus (2001), 53B, 521–528 Copyright © Munksgaard, 2001 Printed in UK. All rights reserved TELLUS ISSN 0280–6509 Greenhouse carbon balance of wetlands: methane emission versus carbon sequestration By GARY J. WHITING1* and JEFFREY P. CHANTON2, 1Department of Biology, Chemistry, and Environmental Science, Christopher Newport University, Newport News, V irginia 23606, USA; 2Department of Oceanography, Florida State University, T allahassee, Florida 32306, USA (Manuscript received 1 August 2000; in final form 18 April 2001) ABSTRACT Carbon fixation under wetland anaerobic soil conditions provides unique conditions for long- term storage of carbon into histosols. However, this carbon sequestration process is intimately linked to methane emission from wetlands. The potential contribution of this emitted methane ff to the greenhouse e ect can be mitigated by the removal of atmospheric CO2 and storage into peat. The balance of CH4 and CO2 exchange can provide an index of a wetland’s greenhouse gas (carbon) contribution to the atmosphere. Here, we relate the atmospheric global warming potential of methane (GWPM) with annual methane emission/carbon dioxide exchange ratio of wetlands ranging from the boreal zone to the near-subtropics. This relationship permits one to determine the greenhouse carbon balance of wetlands by their contribution to or attenuation ff of the greenhouse e ect via CH4 emission or CO2 sink, respectively. We report annual measure- ments of the relationship between methane emission and net carbon fixation in three wetland ecosystems. The ratio of methane released to annual net carbon fixed varies from 0.05 to 0.20 on a molar basis. Although these wetlands function as a sink for CO2, the 21.8-fold greater infrared absorptivity of CH4 relative to CO2 (GWPM) over a relatively short time horizon (20 years) would indicate that the release of methane still contributes to the overall greenhouse ff e ect.
    [Show full text]
  • The Interplay Between Sources of Methane And
    THE INTERPLAY BETWEEN SOURCES OF METHANE AND BIOGENIC VOCS IN GLACIAL-INTERGLACIAL FLUCTUATIONS IN ATMOSPHERIC GREENHOUSE GAS CONCENTRATIONS AND THE GLOBAL CARBON CYCLE Jed O. Kaplan1, Gerd Folberth2, and Didier A. Hauglustaine3 1Institute of Plant Sciences, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland; [email protected] 2School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of Victoria, Victoria BC, Canada; [email protected] 3Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’Environnement, Gif-sur-Yvette, France ; [email protected] ABSTRACT Recent analyses of ice core methane concentrations have suggested that methane emissions from wetlands were the primary driver for prehistoric changes in atmospheric methane. However, these data conflict as to the location of wetlands, magnitude of emissions, and the environmental controls on methane oxidation. The flux of other reactive trace gases to the atmosphere also controls apparent atmospheric methane concentrations because these compounds compete for the hydroxyl radical (OH), which is the primary atmospheric sink for methane. In a series of coupled biosphere-atmosphere chemistry-climate modelling experiments, we simulate the methane and biogenic volatile organic compound emissions from the terrestrial biosphere from the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) to present. Using an atmospheric chemistry-climate model, we simulate the atmospheric concentrations of methane, the hydroxyl radical, and numerous other reactive trace gas species. Over the past 21,000 years methane emissions from wetlands increased slightly to the end of the Pleistocene, but then decreased again, reaching levels at the preindustrial Holocene that were similar to the LGM. Global wetland area decreased by 14% from LGM to preindustrial. However, emissions of biogenic volatile organic compounds (BVOCs) nearly doubled over the same period of time.
    [Show full text]
  • Ethanol Purification with Ozonation, Activated Carbon Adsorption, and Gas Stripping Shinnosuke Onuki Iowa State University
    Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering Publications 9-4-2015 Ethanol purification with ozonation, activated carbon adsorption, and gas stripping Shinnosuke Onuki Iowa State University Jacek A. Koziel Iowa State University, [email protected] William S. Jenks Iowa State University, [email protected] Lingshuang Cai Iowa State University Somchai Rice Iowa State University SeFoe nelloxtw pa thige fors aaddndition addal aitutionhorsal works at: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/abe_eng_pubs Part of the Agriculture Commons, Bioresource and Agricultural Engineering Commons, and the Organic Chemistry Commons The ompc lete bibliographic information for this item can be found at https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/ abe_eng_pubs/909. For information on how to cite this item, please visit http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/ howtocite.html. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering Publications by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Ethanol purification with ozonation, activated carbon adsorption, and gas stripping Abstract Fermentation of sugar to produce ethanol also produces volatile byproducts. This study was aimed at purifying corn-based ethanol for industrial and pharmaceutical use. The er search was on treatment for 10 impurities removal after distillation. The the anol headspace was sampled with solid-phase microextraction and analyzed with gas chromatography–mass spectrometry. A 40 mg/L ozone treatment resulted in >56% and >36% removal of styrene and 2-pentylfuran, respectively, without significant generation of byproducts.
    [Show full text]
  • Publication No. 17: Ozone Treatment of Private Drinking Water Systems
    PRIVATE DRINKING WATER IN CONNECTICUT Publication Date: April 2009 Publication No. 17: Ozone Treatment of Private Drinking Water Systems Effective Against: Pathogenic (disease-causing) organisms including bacteria and viruses, phenols (aromatic organic compounds), some color, taste and odor problems, iron, manganese, and turbidity. Not Effective Against: Large cysts and some other large organisms resulting from possible or probable sewage contamination, inorganic chemicals, and heavy metals. How Ozone (O3) Treatment Works Ozone is a chemical form of pure oxygen. Like chlorine, ozone is a strong oxidizing agent and is used in much the same way to kill disease-causing bacteria and viruses. It is effective against most amoebic cysts, and destroys bacteria and some aromatic organic compounds (such as phenols). Ozone may not kill large cysts and some other large organisms, so these should be eliminated by filtration or other procedures prior to ozone treatment. Ozone is effective in eliminating or controlling color, taste, and odor problems. It also oxidizes iron and manganese. Ozone treatment units are installed as point-of-use treatment systems. Raw water enters one opening and treated water emerges from another. Inside the treatment unit, ozone is produced by an electrical corona discharge or ultraviolet irradiation of dry air or oxygen. The ozone is mixed with the water whenever the water pump is running. Ozone generation units require a system to clean and remove the humidity from the air. For proper disinfection the water to be treated must have negligible color and turbidity levels. The system requires routine maintenance and an ozone treatment system can be very energy consumptive.
    [Show full text]
  • Interaction of Ozone and Hydrogen Peroxide in Water Implications For
    UC Irvine Faculty Publications Title Interaction of ozone and hydrogen peroxide in water: Implications for analysis of H 2 O 2 in air Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7j7454z7 Journal Geophysical Research Letters, 9(3) ISSN 00948276 Authors Zika, R. G Saltzman, E. S Publication Date 1982-03-01 DOI 10.1029/GL009i003p00231 License https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ 4.0 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California GEOPHYSICLARESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 9, NO. 3, PAGES231-234 , MARCH1982 INTERACTION OF OZONE AND HYDROGEN PEROXIDE IN WATER: IMPLICATIONSFORANALYSIS oFH20 2 IN AIR R.G. Zika and E.S. Saltzman Division of Marine and Atmospheric Chemistry, University of Miami, Miami, Florida 331#9 Abstract. We have attempted to measure gaseous Analytical Methods H202 in air usingan aqueoustrapping method. With continuousbubbling, H 20 2 levels in the traps reacheda a. Hydrogen Peroxide. Hydrogen peroxide in aqueous plateau, indicating that a state of dynamic equilibrium solution was measured using a modified fluorescence involving H202 destrbction was established. We decay technique [Perschke and Broda, 1976; Zika and attribute this behavior to the interaction of ozone and its Zelmer, 1982]. The method involved the addition of a decompositionproducts (OH, O[) withH 20 2 inacld:•ous known amot•at of scopoletin (6-methyl-7-hydroxyl-i,2- solution. This hypothesis was investigated by replacing benzopyrone)to a pH 7.0 phosphatebuffered. sample. the air stream with a mixture of N2, 02 and 0 3. The The sample was prepared bY diluting an aliquot of the results Of this experiment show that H O was both reaction solution to 20 mls with low contaminant producedand destroyedin the traps.
    [Show full text]
  • Ozone: Good up High, Bad Nearby
    actions you can take High-Altitude “Good” Ozone Ground-Level “Bad” Ozone •Protect yourself against sunburn. When the UV Index is •Check the air quality forecast in your area. At times when the Air “high” or “very high”: Limit outdoor activities between 10 Quality Index (AQI) is forecast to be unhealthy, limit physical exertion am and 4 pm, when the sun is most intense. Twenty minutes outdoors. In many places, ozone peaks in mid-afternoon to early before going outside, liberally apply a broad-spectrum evening. Change the time of day of strenuous outdoor activity to avoid sunscreen with a Sun Protection Factor (SPF) of at least 15. these hours, or reduce the intensity of the activity. For AQI forecasts, Reapply every two hours or after swimming or sweating. For check your local media reports or visit: www.epa.gov/airnow UV Index forecasts, check local media reports or visit: www.epa.gov/sunwise/uvindex.html •Help your local electric utilities reduce ozone air pollution by conserving energy at home and the office. Consider setting your •Use approved refrigerants in air conditioning and thermostat a little higher in the summer. Participate in your local refrigeration equipment. Make sure technicians that work on utilities’ load-sharing and energy conservation programs. your car or home air conditioners or refrigerator are certified to recover the refrigerant. Repair leaky air conditioning units •Reduce air pollution from cars, trucks, gas-powered lawn and garden before refilling them. equipment, boats and other engines by keeping equipment properly tuned and maintained. During the summer, fill your gas tank during the cooler evening hours and be careful not to spill gasoline.
    [Show full text]
  • Toxicological Profile for Acetone Draft for Public Comment
    ACETONE 1 Toxicological Profile for Acetone Draft for Public Comment July 2021 ***DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT*** ACETONE ii DISCLAIMER Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, the Public Health Service, or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre dissemination public comment under applicable information quality guidelines. It has not been formally disseminated by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency determination or policy. ***DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT*** ACETONE iii FOREWORD This toxicological profile is prepared in accordance with guidelines developed by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The original guidelines were published in the Federal Register on April 17, 1987. Each profile will be revised and republished as necessary. The ATSDR toxicological profile succinctly characterizes the toxicologic and adverse health effects information for these toxic substances described therein. Each peer-reviewed profile identifies and reviews the key literature that describes a substance's toxicologic properties. Other pertinent literature is also presented, but is described in less detail than the key studies. The profile is not intended to be an exhaustive document; however, more comprehensive sources of specialty information are referenced. The focus of the profiles is on health and toxicologic information; therefore, each toxicological profile begins with a relevance to public health discussion which would allow a public health professional to make a real-time determination of whether the presence of a particular substance in the environment poses a potential threat to human health.
    [Show full text]
  • Information on Selected Climate and Climate-Change Issues
    INFORMATION ON SELECTED CLIMATE AND CLIMATE-CHANGE ISSUES By Harry F. Lins, Eric T. Sundquist, and Thomas A. Ager U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Open-File Report 88-718 Reston, Virginia 1988 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR DONALD PAUL MODEL, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L. Peck, Director For additional information Copies of this report can be write to: purchased from: Office of the Director U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Books and Open-File Reports Section Reston, Virginia 22092 Box 25425 Federal Center, Bldg. 810 Denver, Colorado 80225 PREFACE During the spring and summer of 1988, large parts of the Nation were severely affected by intense heat and drought. In many areas agricultural productivity was significantly reduced. These events stimulated widespread concern not only for the immediate effects of severe drought, but also for the consequences of potential climatic change during the coming decades. Congress held hearings regarding these issues, and various agencies within the Executive Branch of government began preparing plans for dealing with the drought and potential climatic change. As part of the fact-finding process, the Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Water and Science asked the Geological Survey to prepare a briefing that would include basic information on climate, weather patterns, and drought; the greenhouse effect and global warming; and climatic change. The briefing was later updated and presented to the Secretary of the Interior. The Secretary then requested the Geological Survey to organize the briefing material in text form. The material contained in this report represents the Geological Survey response to the Secretary's request.
    [Show full text]
  • Wetlands, Carbon and Climate Change
    Wetlands, Carbon and Climate Change William J. Mitsch Everglades Wetland Research Park, Florida Gulf Coast University, Naples Florida with collaboration of: Blanca Bernal, Amanda M. Nahlik, Ulo Mander, Li Zhang, Christopher Anderson, Sven E. Jørgensen, and Hans Brix Florida Gulf Coast University (USA), U.S. EPA, Tartu University (Estonia), Auburn University (USA), Copenhagen University (Denmark), and Aarhus University (Denmark) Old Global Carbon Budget with Wetlands Featured Pools: Pg (=1015 g) Fluxes: Pg/yr Source:Mitsch and Gosselink, 2007 Wetlands offer one of the best natural environments for sequestration and long-term storage of carbon…. …… and yet are also natural sources of greenhouse gases (GHG) to the atmosphere. Both of these processes are due to the same anaerobic condition caused by shallow water and saturated soils that are features of wetlands. Bloom et al./ Science (10 January 2010) suggested that wetlands and rice paddies contribute 227 Tg of CH4 and that 52 to 58% of methane emissions come from the tropics. They furthermore conclude that an increase in methane seen from 2003 to 2007 was due primarily due to warming in Arctic and mid-latitudes over that time. Bloom et al. 2010 Science 327: 322 Comparison of methane emissions and carbon sequestration in 18 wetlands around the world 140 120 y = 0.1418x + 11.855 Methane R² = 0.497 emissions, 100 g-C m-2 yr-1 80 60 40 20 0 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Carbon sequestration, g-C m-2 yr-1 • On average, methane emitted from wetlands, as carbon, is 14% of the wetland’s carbon sequestration.
    [Show full text]
  • Focus on Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
    The information presented here reflects EPA's modeling of the Clear Skies Act of 2002. The Agency is in the process of updating this information to reflect modifications included in the Clear Skies Act of 2003. The revised information will be posted on the Agency's Clear Skies Web site (www.epa.gov/clearskies) as soon as possible. Overview of the Human Health and Environmental Effects of Power Generation: Focus on Sulfur Dioxide (SO2), Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) and Mercury (Hg) June 2002 Contents The Clear Skies Initiative is intended to reduce the health and environmental impacts of power generation. This document briefly summarizes the health and environmental effects of power generation, specifically those associated with sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and mercury (Hg). This document does not address the specific impacts of the Clear Skies Initiative. • Overview -- Emissions and transport • Fine Particles • Ozone (Smog) • Visibility • Acid Rain • Nitrogen Deposition • Mercury Photo Credits: 1: USDA; EPA; EPA; VTWeb.com 2: NADP 6: EPA 7: ?? 10: EPA 2 Electric Power Generation: Major Source of Emissions 2000 Sulfur Dioxide 2000 Nitrogen Oxides 1999 Mercury Fuel Combustion- Industrial Processing electric utilities Transportation Other stationary combustion * Miscellaneous * Other stationary combustion includes residential and commercial sources. • Power generation continues to be an important source of these major pollutants. • Power generation contributes 63% of SO2, 22% of NOX, and 37% of man-made mercury to the environment. 3 Overview of SO2, NOX, and Mercury Emissions, Transport, and Transformation • When emitted into the atmosphere, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury undergo chemical reactions to form compounds that can travel long distances.
    [Show full text]