What is black carbon? The latest way humans are causing changes in Antarctica
News Article: https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/22/world/antarctica-human-pollution-causing-more-snow-melt-climate/index.html
Scientific Article: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-28560-w
I chose an article from CNN titled “What is black carbon? The latest way humans are causing changes in Antarctica” that referenced a study that was published in Nature Communications early this year. I chose this article because it was interesting to learn about Anatartica’s place in the climate crisis, regarding increasing emissions from coal production and consumption. It is the one and only continent with no permanent human inhabitants; so one would assume that it would be on the lowest priority for any physical, organic pollutant remediation. The article explains very deeply black carbon (BC) or soot’s effect on melting in the Antarctic. BC is produced during combustion in diesel engines, coal burning, or wildfires. Deposition of light-absorbing impurities onto snow-covered surfaces “reduces the albedo (light reflectiveness), increases the fraction of solar energy absorbed on Earth’s surface, and accelerates melting”. Although a small amount of BC is actually reported compared to its background levels in remote areas, it is still imperative to know the effects tourism and research camps have on the BC footprint in these areas.
Using the Meltwater Filtration technique, the resulting samples were subject to spectrophotometry to analyze the light absorbing impurities’ absorption Ångström exponent (α). This value is used to calculate the impurities’ concentrations. The study also studied the albedo reduction (ΔA) and snowmelt from local emission using a method previously used by Dang and coworkers by cloud fractions, snow grain radii, and BC content.
In the study they found that BC content in snow surrounding research facilities and popular shore tourist-landing sites were 2 to 4 ng/g (roughly corresponding to the 25th and 75th percentiles of samples collected in that region), while well below BC concentrations typical of other remote regions, is considerably above background levels measured elsewhere in the continent (~1 ng/g). They also found a dependence based on latitude. The lowest BC content was found at the Southernmost part of the island and increased as you increase in latitude. This was hardly attributable to intercontinental transport. Other light impurities found in the samples collected were dust and snow algae. Although BC dominates light absorption, due to its mass absorption coefficient (MAC) several orders of magnitude greater than dust/snow algae at visible wavelength, dust makes a small contribution to the measured absorption Ångström exponent (α). The inclusion of dust in these samples were described from those areas being occupied by camps owned by private companies. Snow algae usually are blown in from coastal areas and the finding suggests that snow algae may be more abundant in Antarctica than prior estimates reported. The algal blooms were not sites of sample collection since they absorb light and could create outliers in the study.
The radiative forcing from BC concentration is accelerating snowmelt and shrinking the snowpack of areas of the Antarctic Peninsula and associated archipelagos by up to 23 mm every summer. Deposition varied geographically, but its “estimated that premature snowmelt due to the BC footprint of tourism is 83 ± 43 tons of snow per visitor”. The intensive use of fuel-powered equipment at scientific stations makes the average snow losses attributable to each researcher at least one order of magnitude higher. This is seen in the figure below showing that an average of 53,000 visitors traveled to Antarctica with IAATO operators from the season 2016–2017 to the season 2019–2020.
The researchers also estimated that the BC footprint of research activities has likely increased as the construction of new facilities has risen in Antarctica, specifically on the Peninsula and associated archipelagos. The use of airplanes, diesel generators, and all-terrain vehicles darken snow covered areas. “The BC footprint of tourism is likely driven by cruise emissions”. A typical cruise includes several shore landings at the sites where they sampled. Although the use of heavy fuel was banned, the results obtained from this study show that more remains to be done to reduce the impacts of tourism and ships in Antarctica; otherwise, the burdens of BC deposition will likely increase as human presence in Antarctica increases further. Other action plans that were mentioned in the scientific paper include to push for a faster transition to clean fuel and hybrid or electric ships.
The CNN news article was able to summarize the results of the paper well from the increase of BC content to the reasons why. Gainor and Fritz were able to provide common language definitions to words like black carbon and albedo. I also think the writer of the news article did a good job to include pictures of cute animals to add a level of relatability the science referred to. The title is not misleading and is very clear. They included lots of quotes from the authors of the paper (ie Alia Khan). However, they left out lots of detail about the other impurities that were found in the snow samples like dust and snow algae. These both have a significant effect on the absorption exponent, which influences the data that was reported for the BC content. They also glossed over the details of how the scientists were able to get a compute amount of snow melt from BC content. Lastly, I also thought it would have been beneficial to include some type of conclusionary action that could be done. After reading so many news articles, a sense of hopelessness always lingers so I think including a “practical” take away from the article would help alleviate that. One was mentioned in the scientific paper but only in the scope of a scientist or policy maker not to the general audience. With those things in mind, I would give the article an 7/10.
Hi! Great work on finding a unique and interesting paper/article. You mention that you thought the news article shouldn't have glossed over the details of the types of snow impurities found in the snow melt content which I agree with. I also think they should have maybe not have glossed over the discussion of pollution in Antarctica in general. They were very vague in mentioning the "research stations" but didn't discuss exactly how these stations were causing so much pollution. Do you think this is something that would have strengthened the article or do you think it would have been unnecessary? I personally think this article dumbed down the scientific research almost too much because of the amount of actual data they left out! Just some thoughts!
ReplyDeleteI agree with your statement, the cause of pollution by these stations could have been elaborated a little further. It would help put put a name to the face to why there is so much out there to begin with. Most of the research stations cause pollution through the vehicles they use to get around the area (helicopters and diesel generators).
DeleteGreat choice of the article! I really liked the point you made about the "sense of hopelessness that always lingers". I had thought about this before - but it seems as if many news articles only present problems as a way of reporting news instead of focusing on possible solutions. In my opinion, the inclusion of possible solutions is really important because it allows readers to understand that there is in fact a solution and could potentially take action/lobby/sign petitions/or overall just be more informed about the issue. In the case of black carbon in Antarctica, I'm surprised that the author of the news article did not use the switch to clean fuels as a possible solution when it was outlined in the research paper.
ReplyDeleteHi Faridat, awesome post! I like your comment about the sense of hopelessness without practical takeaways. I noticed that the CNN article encouraged education on the issues, but I agree that for those readers that wish to do more, this article does not detail a way to do so. I think action items that include tips on energy consumption or vehicle emissions could be a good addition to the final paragraph of the article.
ReplyDeleteAt the same time, I wonder if this call-to-action really has a place in the article, as the article notes that BC content is linked to tourist and research activities in Antarctica. Should individual, at-home actions be promoted as a solution without acknowledgement of the larger changes (like tourist regulations or eco-friendly cruise practices) that must happen to truly address the problem?
Thank you for your comment. Yes, this was also something I was thinking about. In general, the rise of emissions causing global warming calls for action on all levels (especially, by large corporations). The need to acknowledge larger changes has to be the forefront in any solution. However, this increase of BC is in Antarctica. Unless someone has business in Antarctica, they might feel like they don't have any part in alleviating this problem. But BC pollution is ubiquitous everywhere, we burn fossil fuels and wood; so the news article could have included some at home solutions for the problem
DeleteHey Faridat! The article you chose was really interesting, I agree that the article not mentioning other snow impurities was a questionable choice as readers may get the idea that black carbon is the only pollutant affecting light absorption. The nature communications paper mentions the use of ice cores to study the background levels of black carbon in the Antarctic. I thought this was really cool as we hear a lot about ice cores being used to study atmospheric gases, but not a whole lot about their other uses. Do you think that ice cores could similarly be used to study past levels of dust/algae/other impurities as well?
ReplyDeleteThank you for your chosen article and review! One thing that caught me was this: "They also glossed over the details of how the scientists were able to get a compute amount of snow melt from BC content." In my opinion, most of the general public will go out of their way to avoid math and computation. With this in mind, I think that this omission may be better. If people who avoid math read this article, they might stop at this point thinking it's over their head. Those more interested in the technical side of the article should be encouraged to read the scientific article. However, I didn't see any link to the actual journal article. The only links I found were to other CNN articles. I think that easy access to the journal article is important/needed if they are going to omit information. What do you think about these opinions?
ReplyDeleteYou are actually right! Having them include a link to the study would have been a great addition to the news article for those who wanted to read more into the topic. I personally had to do a lot of digging to find the article they were referring to, which is very unusual compared to the articles we have looked over in class. I'm unsure if this was an afterthought or the omission was intentional. Maybe if they included the study, readers would be more cautious to what was reported.
DeleteThanks for the analysis! I found the topic of tourism in Antarctica really interesting, since essentially no one other than researchers or nature documentary/photography crews really has a reason to be there other than for novelty. I agree with you that there should be a strong call to action in the CNN article, and I found it surprising that they neglected to include one considering that the research paper itself did. If you had to include a call to action into the news article, which points do you think would be most impactful or important to mention?
ReplyDeleteI think the most important call to action was presented in the science article- limit tourist activity (having less cruises in the year) or have the switch to electric ships/vehicles for those who have to be on the continent.
DeleteThanks for your analysis and choice of article! Not that climate change is ever a cheery subject, but it struck me that the choices of how the CNN article was structured were particularly pessimistic. Both the opening and closing paragraphs were very grim. Especially for a piece about Antarctica which seems impossible to impact or reach to the average reader. I wonder what your thoughts are on balancing the need for accuracy and realism without creating fatigue and ambivalence.
ReplyDeleteI think there is a hard way to navigate this. You never know the tone to communicate with people around a tough topic of climate change. Maybe the CNN articles writers were trying to use a 'scare tactic' approach to get the point across. However, I think you would have to sandwich that with something positive/hopeful in order to scold the negative things happening but also pushing for a better future.
DeleteThank you for sharing the articles and for your post! Pollution in Antarctica is an interesting situation as no single governing body has a claim to the region. With that in mind, who do you think changes in black carbon emission and black carbon remediation should fall on? Do you think an international effort is feasible?
ReplyDeleteHi Faridat! This was a really interesting read. I agree that the CNN article did a really good job summarizing the key terms in the article for a general audience. Reading through the research article, though, I saw that the researchers discuss how albedo reductions in their samples were relatively low. They go on to say that any change to the extremely high albedo in Antarctica affects the local radiative balance, however, this seems like a finding that could easily be taken out of context in an article less weary of climate change. Do you think it would have been beneficial to this article, as the main topic is melting related to albedo changes, to preemptively include this information and better explain to readers why small changes are still significant?
ReplyDeleteYes, it would be very beneficial since melting is a topic that is more well known compared to albedo. This could be supported by having figures and models that show that over time the small increases can have a huge effect on something that is seen on a daily (like temperature increase in a certain hemisphere or the change in water levels).
DeleteThanks for sharing these articles! It's unfortunate that even in an uninhabitable place like Antarctica, the impact that carbon footprint has still exists. With the research centers seeming to be the main cause of this, have you heard of any efforts towards making these stations more "green"? And of course with such a harsh environment, is it even feasible?
ReplyDeleteHey Faridat, great article selection and fantastic review! This was one of the most unique articles that I have ever read in that the remoteness of the study was surely a difficult barrier to overcome; I thought the inclusion of the fieldwork in Figure 3 was pretty neat to see. It was really eye-opening to see that even limited human activity in this region had a significant potential of introducing black carbon to the landscape, I was especially shocked to see the National Antarctic Programs called out to limit their footprint. One question that I have or maybe missed reading the article: does snow fall assist with burying the black carbon such that these traces after visiting-human activity do not affect the albedo for long? I would hypothesize that long-term human activity in Antarctica would cause there to consistently be black carbon on the surface reducing albedo, but that temporary, brief human activity in a region of Antarctica would quickly have its black carbon buried by snowfall. A study investigating this would be interesting, but nonetheless, even if the snow does assist with clearing black carbon from the surface, it is quite evident that this is an issue that needs to be addressed. Again, great article selection!
ReplyDeleteThanks for the review! I agreed with you that the author did a good job in summarizing the main ideas but also glossed over some parts of the article. I am just wondering what information mentioned in the scientific articles will you consider important details. What do you think?
ReplyDeleteI like this topic a lot! I work with photochemistry in my research so it is cool to see something related to light absorption being discussed. I find these sort of feedback loops to be super important to study and talk about, but also very alarming! I've always heard talking points that we shouldn't be expressing things like feedback loops in typical media because it's "too alarmist", but I personally believe that people should know about what the world is facing. What do you think about that?
ReplyDeleteGreat critique of the article! it makes sense to me that BC would have that kind of effect, but its not something I've ever thought about, so I'm glad the article is bringing light to it. I agree with the person in class who made the comment wondering about how the BC carbon's affect compares to the general effect on global warming?
ReplyDeleteHi Faridat, this was a really interesting article! I think the issue of tourism and research in remote, ecologically sensitive areas of the world is really important to think about. The figure that you showed in class that compared the relative footprints of tourists vs. researchers was especially interesting, and brings up the catch 22 of trying to study the negative environmental effects on a place without being able avoid contributing to those effects. I also have a personal connection to this issue as it relates to Antarctica, since my sister studied abroad in Antartica to study the effects of tourism on the ecosystem there. I know she personally struggled trying to justify this trip, knowing that she would just be contributing to the problem.
ReplyDeleteHey Faridat! Thanks for sharing. I think this blogpost is a really good example of what over-tourism can do to an ecologically vulnerable area. It reminds me of several other common touristic destinations, such as the Amazon, Puerto Rico, Hawaii, etc. I think I'm biased, especially being from a place which suffers from over-tourism, but my genuine opinion is that there's no ethical way to move or travel to these places. I think there are ways to mitigate your carbon footprint, as illustrated in the scientific article, but I still think every unnecessary interaction that a tourist has drives up cost of living and resources for people living there.
ReplyDelete