From the Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences
“Warming hole” delayed climate change over eastern United States
April 26, 2012
50-year model suggests regional pollution obscured a global trend
CONTACT: Caroline Perry, (617) 496-1351
Cambridge, Mass. – April 26, 2012 – Climate scientists at the Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS) have discovered that particulate pollution in the late 20th century created a “warming hole” over the eastern United States—that is, a cold patch where the effects of global warming were temporarily obscured.
While greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane warm the Earth’s surface, tiny particles in the air can have the reverse effect on regional scales.
“What we’ve shown is that particulate pollution over the eastern United States has delayed the warming that we would expect to see from increasing greenhouse gases,” says lead author Eric Leibensperger (Ph.D. ’11), who completed the work as a graduate student in applied physics at SEAS.
“For the sake of protecting human health and reducing acid rain, we’ve now cut the emissions that lead to particulate pollution,” he adds, “but these cuts have caused the greenhouse warming in this region to ramp up to match the global trend.”
At this point, most of the “catch-up” warming has already occurred.
The findings, published in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, present a more complete picture of the processes that affect regional climate change. The work also carries significant implications for the future climate of industrial nations, like China, that have not yet implemented air quality regulations to the same extent as the United States.

Observed change in surface air temperature between 1930 and 1990. Observations are from the NASA GISS Surface Temperature Analysis. Image courtesy of Eric Leibensperger.
Until the United States passed the Clean Air Act in 1970 and strengthened it in 1990, particulate pollution hung thick over the central and eastern states. Most of these particles in the atmosphere were made of sulfate, originating as sulfur emissions from coal-fired power plants. Compared to greenhouse gases, particulate pollution has a very short lifetime (about 1 week), so its distribution over the Earth is uneven.
“The primary driver of the warming hole is the aerosol pollution—these small particles,” says Leibensperger. “What they do is reflect incoming sunlight, so we see a cooling effect at the surface.”
This effect has been known for some time, but the new analysis demonstrates the strong impact that decreases in particulate pollution can have on regional climate.
The researchers found that interactions between clouds and particles amplified the cooling. Particles of pollution can act as nucleation sites for cloud droplets, which can in turn reflect even more sunlight than the particles would individually, leading to greater cooling at the surface.
The researchers’ analysis is based on a combination of two complex models of Earth systems. The pollution data comes from the GEOS-Chem model, which was first developed at Harvard and, through a series of many updates, has since become an international standard for modeling pollution over time. The climate data comes from the general circulation model developed by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Both models are rooted in decades’ worth of observational data.
Since the early 20th century, global mean temperatures have risen—by approximately 0.8 degrees Celsius from 1906 to 2005—but in the U.S. “warming hole,” temperatures decreased by as much as 1 degree Celsius during the period 1930–1990. U.S. particulate pollution peaked in 1980 and has since been reduced by about half. By 2010 the average cooling effect over the East had fallen to just 0.3 degrees Celsius.
“Such a large fraction of the sulfate has already been removed that we don’t have much more warming coming along due to further controls on sulfur emissions in the future,” says principal investigator Daniel Jacob, the Vasco McCoy Family Professor of Atmospheric Chemistry and Environmental Engineering at SEAS.
Jacob is also a Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard and a faculty associate of the Harvard University Center for the Environment.
Besides confirming that particulate pollution plays a large role in affecting U.S. regional climate, the research emphasizes the importance of accounting for the climate impacts of particulates in future air quality policies.
“Something similar could happen in China, which is just beginning to tighten up its pollution standards,” says co-author Loretta J. Mickley, a Senior Research Fellow in atmospheric chemistry at SEAS. “China could see significant climate change due to declining levels of particulate pollutants.”
Sulfates are harmful to human health and can also cause acid rain, which damages ecosystems and erodes buildings.
“No one is suggesting that we should stop improving air quality, but it’s important to understand the consequences. Clearing the air could lead to regional warming,” Mickley says.
Leibensperger, Jacob, and Mickley were joined by co-authors Wei-Ting Chen and John H. Seinfeld (California Institute of Technology); Athanasios Nenes (Georgia Institute of Technology); Peter J. Adams (Carnegie Mellon University); David G. Streets (Argonne National Laboratory); Naresh Kumar (Electric Power Research Institute); and David Rind (NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies).
The research was supported by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); neither EPRI nor the EPA has officially endorsed the results. The work also benefited from resources provided by Academic Computing Services at SEAS.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“The researchers found that interactions between clouds and particles amplified the cooling. Particles of pollution can act as nucleation sites for cloud droplets, which can in turn reflect even more sunlight than the particles would individually, leading to greater cooling at the surface.”
Interesting, so Svenmark’s cosmic ray nucleation would presumably have a similar effect.
I suspect the real sulfuric acid aerosols have not declined as much as is postulated and the plume is located over the mid Atlantic states downwind of most of the power plants that are still burning high sulfur coal. Some power plants with scrubbers are actually producing “blue mist” sulfuric acid that hangs in the atmosphere longer than SO2. We in North Carolina are still getting it from TVA. Is there even a network for measuring sulfuric acid arosols that can be used to check the model?
It’s good to know that the science is settled.
/snark
Without doing heaps of analysis: the first thing they do is presume warming should be there when it isn’t – why do they do this…..because a model says it should be there. They then use a different model to explain why the results of the first model were wrong. Lets just assume that they are right about this – so how does that translate to (say) the problem that the antarctic or indeed southern hemisphere is not warming as much as the arctic/northern hemisphere? Generally One might assume that this was occurring because of increased anthropogenic emissions in the Northern Hemisphere. But..then that would give the opposite effect of the one they postulate.
GlynnMhor says:
April 26, 2012 at 4:50 pm
“The pollution data comes from the GEOS-Chem model,.. The climate data comes from the general circulation model…”
It’s not actually ‘data’ if it’s just the results of a model.
__________________________
OH, My Goodness no, Didn’t you see what they said?
They are talking about observational data like this: Hansen’s temp graphs 1999, 2001, & 2008
Where to begin. Buy whatever journal this was published in and use it to line your bird cage.
“The researchers found that interactions between clouds and particles amplified the cooling. Particles of pollution can act as nucleation sites for cloud droplets, which can in turn reflect even more sunlight than the particles would individually, leading to greater cooling at the surface.
The researchers’ analysis is based on a combination of two complex models of Earth systems… The climate data comes from the general circulation model developed by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. ”
So it was not “climate data ” at all. It was model output data. What “the researchers found” was what was programmed into the model. That hardly a scientific discovery , they could have asked to look at the code.
“No one is suggesting that we should stop improving air quality, but it’s important to understand the consequences. Clearing the air could lead to regional warming,”
So is he suggesting both are evil, but one is the lesser of the two evils?
Gail, they may have “rooted” their models in data, but they’re still running models.
Epicycles… they finally have gotten to epicycles. This should just get better and better. Popcorn futures, folks!
Unfortunately, the aerosol optical physics in the models is wrong. Sulphate pollution reduces cloud albedo by switching off droplet coarsening. it’s the rain clouds which reflect most light.
(I really wish I could post these photos)
It seems the Dust bowl of the 1930’s must have cause really frigid weather…NOT.
I am sure the climate scientist would explain that the dust storms were only local.
Hansen’s graph of US temps: http://i31.tinypic.com/2149sg0.gif
Shorter: Evil pollution needs to be stopped so we can see the affects of evil pollution.
Nerd says:
April 26, 2012 at 4:43 pm
“I am all for clean air. One thing that most people do not realize is heavy air pollution can block UVB sunlight that we need to produce vitamin D in the skin. Vitamin D is very important to controlling or preventing asthma.”
Here in Germany there’s about 6 months of “polar winter”, meaning the sun does not rise up enough, its UVB rays have to penetrate too much air to actually reach the surface and get mostly deflected, so you can’t get enough of them to synthesize meaningful amounts of vitamin D. Of course in Scandinavia it’s even worse.
I guess the latitude you live at has a much bigger influence on the availability of UVB than pollution has. In the EU, sun banks don’t help; the EU commission has ordered that they have to have UVB filters. You get tanned but you get no Vitamin D. Their reason for this was that UVB also causes skin cancer.
My personal solution is Vitamin pils and fatty fish. Herring and Mackarel mostly.
My Personal Theory is the air pollution has been decently heavy for the past ~130ish years over the eastern US which helped keep the temps down yet it was pretty stable in its coverage so that the natural variation came into play for the temps, then in the 70’s we started to clean the air via clean air act, and the air got cleaner…thus allowing more sun to hit the planet, thus warming the planet temporarily overriding the long term natural variation in temps, bringing the planet up to the temps that were supposed to be at if their was minimal air pollution. the natural variation is now taking over as the world temp reached where it was supposed to be at with the temps fluctuating up and down in ~30 year cycles……that is my rough hypothesis, but what do i know i’m just a civil engineer 🙂
The US temperature trend has been adjusted upwards by +0.612C now in the new USHCN Version 3.
One cannot go back and say the the temperatures were affected by aerosols or whatever because no one knows what the true temperature trend is.
M Hastings says:
April 26, 2012 at 4:58 pm
“I looked up PH of rain on the internet and all the articles I read listed it as around 5.5 or lower, this does not jive with my 16 years of experience with swimming pools and adding acid. I would be curious if anyone else has noticed similar results.”
Trees cause acidic rain. No kidding. In other words, the water in forest creeks should be that acidic.
Reagan was in a way right when he said that ““trees cause more pollution than automobiles do”.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/11/new-study-confirms-that-nature-is-responsible-for-90-of-the-earths-atmospheric-acidity/
Whew, I feel so much better knowing that …
I don’t get it. They have data on historical temperatures. Why do they need the climate model? Seems like a bog-standard regression of the GEOS-Chem model against actual temperatures would be preferable …
w.
Rob Crawford says:
April 26, 2012 at 5:12 pm
Gail, they may have “rooted” their models in data, but they’re still running models.
_______________________________________
ROb, look at the graph I included of Hansen’s temperature “Data” that this study is “based on” http://i31.tinypic.com/2149sg0.gif
(Don’t bust a gut laughing)
More non-sense from pseudo-scientists with their freshly minted PhD’s and their modern Marxist world view.
“Cambridge, Mass. – April 26, 2012 – Climate scientists at the Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS) have discovered that particulate pollution in the late 20th century created a “warming hole” over the eastern United States—that is, a cold patch where the effects of global warming were temporarily obscured.”
I’m confused.
CO2 is pollution that causes AGW and particulates are pollution that stops it. ???
And, if they’re right, shouldn’t they call it a “cooling hole”? Or does saying something is cooling throw a wet blanket on all the warming rhetoric?
Really…….surely it’s just a case of ground control to Major Leibensperger?
I’ve been fond of saying that “nothing is as dangerous to our economy, our liberties and our lifestyles as a Harvard educated lawyer or a Harvard educated economist”. Looks like I’ll need to add Harvard educated scientist to that list as well.
M Hastings says:
“I live in AZ. and have had swimming pools for 16 years of different shapes and sizes. It doesn’t rain much in AZ so its a noticeable event. Everytime it rains (for the last 16 years) I must ADD ACID to my swimming pools in order to lower the PH to the recommended level of 7-7.5. Today it rained again and because I read this article and was curious I took the PH of the rain puddles on my deck and walkways and in the garden, all three puddles had a PH of 7.8 or higher.
I looked up PH of rain on the internet and all the articles I read listed it as around 5.5 or lower, this does not jive with my 16 years of experience with swimming pools and adding acid. I would be curious if anyone else has noticed similar results.”
AZ is a dry dusty place most of the time. Clean rain normally has a pH of around 5.5 because it is in equilibrium with the atmospheric concentration of CO2. The dust in AZ raises the pH to what you observe. Concrete also does it. Western coal is low sulfur and I don’t think you are getting any sulfuric acid aerosol from over the mountains to your west.
Willis Eschenbach says:
April 26, 2012 at 5:25 pm
Whew, I feel so much better knowing that …
_______________________________________
Willis, I find it very interesting that they would put in the sentence “Both models are rooted in decades’ worth of observational data.”
I guess they must have noticed “Deniers” have been laughing at any studies based on models as “Data” Perhaps a tiny step in the correct direction. Of course using models with well massaged and pureed data is still laughable even if the model is supposedly “rooted in decades’ worth of observational data.”