From the University of Maryland Rising air pollution worsens drought, flooding, UMD-led study shows

COLLEGE PARK, Md. – Increases in air pollution and other particulate matter in the atmosphere can strongly affect cloud development in ways that reduce precipitation in dry regions or seasons, while increasing rain, snowfall and the intensity of severe storms in wet regions or seasons, says a new study by a University of Maryland-led team of researchers.
The research provides the first clear evidence of how aerosols — soot, dust and other small particles in the atmosphere — can affect weather and climate; and the findings have important economic and water resource implications for regions across the United States and around the world, say the researchers and other scientists.
“Using a 10-year dataset of extensive atmosphere measurements from the U.S. Southern Great Plains research facility in Oklahoma [run by the Department of Energy’s Atmospheric Radiation Measurement program] — we have uncovered, for the first time, the long-term, net impact of aerosols on cloud height and thickness, and the resultant changes in precipitation frequency and intensity,” says Zhanqing Li, a professor of atmospheric and oceanic science at Maryland and lead author of the study.
The scientists obtained additional support for these findings with matching results obtained using a cloud-resolving computer model. The study by Li and co-authors Feng Niu and Yanni Ding, also of the University of Maryland; Jiwen Fan of Pacific Northwest National Laboratory; Yangang Liu of Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY; and Daniel Rosenfeld of The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, is published in the Nov. 13 in Nature Geoscience.
“These new findings of long-term impacts, which we made using regional ground measurements, also are consistent with different findings we obtained from an analysis of NASA’s global satellite products and have just published in a separate study. Together, they attest to the needs of tackling both climate and environmental changes that matter so much to our daily life,” says Maryland’s Li, who is also affiliated with Beijing Normal University.”
“Our findings have significant policy implications for sustainable development and water resources, especially for those developing regions susceptible to extreme events such as drought and flood. Increases in manufacturing, building of power plants and other industrial developments are often accompanied with increases in pollution whose adverse impacts on weather and climate, as revealed in this study, can undercut economic gains,” he stresses.
Tony Busalacchi, chair of the Joint Scientific Committee, World Climate Research Program notes the significance of the new findings. “Understanding interactions across clouds, aerosols, and precipitation is one of the grand challenges for climate research in the decade ahead, as identified in a recent major world climate conference. Findings of this study represent a significant advance in our understanding of such processes with significant implications for both climate science and sustainable development,” says Busalacchi, who also is professor and director of the University of Maryland Earth System Science Interdisciplinary Center.
“We have known for a long time that aerosols impact both the heating and phase changes [condensing, freezing] of clouds and can either inhibit or intensify clouds and precipitation,” says Russell Dickerson, a professor of atmospheric and oceanic science at Maryland. “What we have not been able to determine, until now, is the net effect. This study by Li and his colleagues shows that fine particulate matter, mostly from air pollution, impedes gentle rains while exacerbating severe storms. It adds urgency to the need to control sulfur, nitrogen, and hydrocarbon emissions.”
According to climate scientist Steve Ghan of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, “This work confirms what previous cloud modeling studies had suggested, that although clouds are influenced by many factors, increasing aerosols enhance the variability of precipitation, suppressing it when precipitation is light and intensifying it when it is strong. This complex influence is completely missing from climate models, casting doubt on their ability to simulate the response of precipitation to changes in aerosol pollution.”
Aerosol Science
Aerosols are tiny solid particles or liquid particles suspended in air. They include soot, dust and sulfate particles, and are what we commonly think of when we talk about air pollution. Aerosols come, for example, from the combustion of fossil fuels, industrial and agricultural processes, and the accidental or deliberate burning of fields and forests. They can be hazardous to both human health and the environment.
Aerosol particles also affect the Earth’s surface temperature by either reflecting light back into space, thus reducing solar radiation at Earth’s surface, or absorbing solar radiation, thus heating the atmosphere. This variable cooling and heating is, in part, how aerosols modify atmospheric stability that dictates atmospheric vertical motion and cloud formation. Aerosols also affect cloud microphysics because the serve as nuclei around which water droplets or ice particles form. Both processes can affect cloud properties and rainfall. Different processes may work in harmony or offset each other, leading to a complex yet inconclusive interpretation of their long-term net effect.
Greenhouse gases and aerosol particles are two major agents dictating climate change. The mechanisms of climate warming impacts of increased greenhouse gases are clear (they prevent solar energy that has been absorbed by the earth’s surface from being radiated as heat back into space), but the climate effects of increased aerosols are much less certain. Until now, studies of the long-term effects of aerosols on climate change have been largely lacking and inconclusive because their mechanisms are much more sophisticated, variable, and tangled with meteorology.
“This study demonstrates the importance and value of keeping a long record of continuous and comprehensive measurements such as the highly instrumented (ARM) sites run by the Department of Energy’s Office of Science, including the Southern Great Plains site, to identify and quantify important roles of aerosols in climate processes,” says Stephen E. Schwartz, a scientist at Brookhaven National Laboratory. “While the mechanisms for some of these effects remain uncertain, the well-defined relationships discovered here clearly demonstrate the significance of the effects. Developing this understanding to represent the controlling processes in models remains a future challenge, but this study clearly points in important directions.”
###
Support for this research was provided by the Department of Energy, NASA, the National Science Foundation and the Chinese Ministry of Science and Technology.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
No one has mention the major forest fires caused by the watermelons banning of “Controlled” burning and brush clearance.
Heck the fire smoke here in mid North Carolina was so bad all summer, I had a chronic eye inflammation yet we had a six week or more drought and the corn burned up. It never got more than knee high and then turned brown.
Think of all the BIG forest fires that have made the news: Russia, Australia, USA, Brazil, Canada…
Wildfires In South America Lead To Carbon Monoxide Over Australia: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070509081650.htm
List of Wild Fires: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wildfires
The USA had a Dust bowl BEFORE we became really industrialized. Yet we did not have one in the fifties and sixties. Since the 1970’s we have cleaned up our act. The worst thing we ever did is ship out manufacturing overseas and you can thank Clinton for that.
This paper is just another example of politically skewed science used to make Humans look EVIL and guilt us back into the 18th century.
The truth is that “greenhouse gases” are just the more infrared-active gases, which means they shift the atmospheric heat transfer (which includes convection and conduction, not just radiation) more towards radiation (which is faster than conduction and convection), thus improving (never trapping or slowing) the rate of heat transfer–without changing the equilibrium vertical temperature distribution (which is governed by gravitational compression of the atmosphere, and by the incident solar infrared irradiation that directly heats the atmosphere). This is the fundamental physics that all of the “experts” are insulted by, because it wipes out their carefully concocted radiative heat transfer theory, and the consensus that so many have bought into and now consider their life’s work. But their life’s work will just have to change, to acknowledge the reality that there is no greenhouse effect, of increasing temperature with increasing carbon dioxide. The Standard Atmosphere, studied since the 19th century, adopted by the U.S. around 1920, and virtually unchanged since 1922 (the 1922 and 1976 versions are essentially the same, throughout the troposphere) shows the undeniable equilibrium state of the troposphere, and the reality of that equilibrium state should have prevented the “runaway climate” paradigm of the current consensus from ever developing–if evidence of seemingly catastrophic earth changes (such as the divisions between geologic “eras”, then the idea of a global “ice age”, then that of regularly recurring “ice ages”, then continental drift and its “explanation” by plate tectonics, and Milankovitch theory to “explain” the “ice ages”)–if all these had not made runaway climate an unavoidable, and irresistable, idea to an ever more degenerated scientific consensus. It is a very deep hole of false scientific theories, that few (and no academics that I know of) are willing to face.
Back in the late 1960s on the Jersey shore, it was quite clear that air pollution affected the weather. One summer we had 10 rainy weekends on a row, that I counted, with no weekday rain. It was clear that particulates, which cause or allow nucleation, would build up during the course of the week and regularly lead to rain, probably at some sort of threshold level, on the weekends. That pattern disappeared after the Clean Air Act went into effect.
I believe that it is a mistake to pretend that particulates today are as bad as they were then. This would lead to an over-reaction to this kind of news.
Do they also ignore the fact that no aerosols would be a very bad thing? No nucleation, 100% humidity (very oppressive), no evaporation, no evaporative cooling, it gets warmer.
Wait, what’s that? We do not transfer heat to altitude as efficiently and we warm. Soooo, low or no aerosols would be BAD.
I want error bands and a control (IE another 10 year period) for comparison. Then I want another set of researchers to choose a different 10 year period along with a different 10 year control period and in a different country. And I want folks to understand that we have less US pollution in our air than we did decades ago. So we should be seeing LESS affects now than back then if their suggested hypothesis holds water.
Why no mention of pollen, volcanoes and deserts as sources of aerosols?
It is not uncommon in the UK to have rain containing fine sand from the Sahara or fine ash from Iceland and for six months of the year asthma sufferers monitor the pollen count.
“Understanding interactions across clouds, aerosols, and precipitation is one of the grand challenges for climate research in the decade ahead, as identified in a recent major world climate conference. ”
So they don’t have a clue? Thought so.
This may be a perfectly accurate study, but it seems to me that the normal and appropriate skepticism – in the best sense of the word, waiting to see if there is confirmation by other groups using somewhat different methods – is somewhat missing here.
“from their marketing department?” Yes, it is a marketing department.
Experts say could. Expert said maybe. Experts are therefor truth providers. When asked of a politician what-who are the experts, the consensus is well funded.
In California the government system is well rehearsed – hire a person dedicated to writing a grant request. Private for profit entities(private timber vs U.S.F.S.) used heavy ink and the app would sand-screen to the round-file. The beginning of this expertise had ups and downs but in time the ‘writer’ would and did report ‘see, I have gleaned $10 of material from the grant giver, and it only took two minutes of my time equalling $7.50 for labor’. Being present for the carbon war prior to 9-11, this escalated to the tenth degree with the creation of DHS. In post 9-11 California all Expert-agencies have grant writers. In some part State governments near insolvency have utilized the Grant as one food staple to operations.
So, some experts have established that there is a reverse-slinky, not only will it use gravity to mot-ate downward but this new one will reverse with stored energy and escalate up. Barf is better receptical-ed in a disposable semi organic natural synthetic bag, buckets need to be cleansed. Dog gone it, Mikhail Gorbachev was my first Russian that made cents. Now, he was a plug nickle, shoot.
“Don’t oceans cover 75% of our planet? As such, the oceans would not qualify as dry regions. The net effect of increased aerosols over the planet would then have to be an increase in “rain, snowfall and the intensity of severe storms.”
John M Reynolds”
Kinda makes land use change seem more important.
Looked at UM’s site which only gives an overview of the paper, and GeoScience is paywalled. So there is no way to ascertain what the detail of this paper is about ( ie. aerosol type discrimination and variation measurements) and what timespan ( datewise) is involved.
There is an interesting summary of the problems associated with aerosol measurement at Wiki.esipfed.org — “Satellite Measurements of Atmospheric Aerosols” .
There we go with the decade-long data sets again.
And when we asked them where the empirical evidence was only the crickets answered…
lol, the old ten year data = long term predictions. …… see it all the time. Funny stuff. Maybe Tanya Tucker knew what she was talking about after all….. (Lizzy and the Rainman) 🙂
Well, there a lots of reasons to support reductions in particulate pollution that have nothing to do with climate. The adverse impact of particulate pollution on human health is large and well established.
We can’t do much about the production of volcanic ash but there are good reasons to reduce avoidable soot and other discharges in populated areas. Smog, asthma, and lung disease are not pleasant for anyone.
Let’s keep all that in mind even if this is just a blatant and shallow attempt to raise grant funds by tying the issue to the GW bandwagon and prophecies of doom.
Damn increased rainfall!
Why is it, that whenever alarmists speak of increased rainfall (whether from warm increased evaporation or increased aerosols), it ALWAYS is predicted to fall in areas that are already receiving too much rain (therefore disastrous)?!. It is 100% certain that rain will not fall on parched areas of the globe!
I find this assumed fact “alarming”. How exactly does increased rain/moisture “know” where it must fall and where it must NOT fall?? Warmer temps and increased moisture USED TO BE celebrated by the pagans. More than one virgin has been sacrificed, in order, to bring such conditions about. Seems most primitives, have a better understanding, of what makes the world thrive, than modern man. Why is that? GK
The direction of the study is clearly indicated by the list of sponsors.
If the mechanisms of some of the effects are uncertain how are there well defined relationships? It seems to a casual observer that all they are saying is that wet areas are wetter and dry areas are dryer because of particles in the air.
And who has proven that greenhouse gasses and aerosols are major agents dictating climate change or that there is such a thing as manmade climate change. If they are going to hang the purpose of their research on causes of manmade climate change should they first prove that manmade climate change as they define it exists?
“Using a 10-year dataset”
============================
What 10 year dataset?
The one with a strong El Nino? La Nina?
The one where temps were going up? or the one where temps are going down?
“Greenhouse gases and aerosol particles are two major agents dictating climate change.”
The End
So CO2 is a smaller than we thought effect – this seems to be the trend since climategate. Sensitivity has declined from as high as 5 to something less than 1. They claim to now know how much weight to give to the aerosol effect on climate – so how much is it percentagewise. Do I have a sensitivity of 0.5?
eh, i don’t believe this either….what they want is to regulate business at every opportunity and also they have in mind the usual formula: scare story = big grant $$$
This smacks of “Acid Rain”.
As a non-scientist, I am so tired of everything in science appearing to come up with an answer that is what the funders of the scientific research want. It just seems like scientists have no conscience. In this day and age of crony-capitalism, it just seems like all scientific research is prescribed. Some interested party with huge political clout lobbies the government to come up with an answer that is in the best interest of the interested party.
What I want to know is when will scientists regain the integrity they once had? When will they stop appearing to be so bought and paid for? I guess only when political and big business funding are out of the equation.
So the idea that the increases in aerosols over the past decade, from both anthropogenic as well as natural sources could have played a role in flattening the rise in global temps gains another set of data as evidence. This rise in aerosols, combined with a quiet sun, certainly must be considered as plausible reasons for the flattening of global temps. One would have to wonder what the effects would be with CO2 at 280 ppm.
REPLY: The study doesn’t say that, as it is limited to effects on rainfall patterns. But if there is an effect as you (and others tryign to find an explanation for the pause) suggest, then it shows that O2 isn’t all that strong and other factors can easily squelch its effects. It also demonstrates then that the whole “weather is getting more severe due to CO2 induced heating” is the ridiculous claim we know it to be. – Anthony
davidgmills says:
November 14, 2011 at 8:11 am
“What I want to know is when will scientists regain the integrity they once had?”
You are overgeneralizing. LOTS of scientists are very aware of what’s going on, and don’t mince their words, even in arch-Green Germany.
http://notrickszone.com/2011/11/13/german-professor-slams-global-warming-science-calls-manns-hockey-stick-a-very-very-nasty-fabrication/