Drats! Down the warmhole the warming went

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.


Change in surface temperature 1930-1990

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.

"Warming hole" delayed climate change over eastern United States

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.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

167 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Gail Combs
April 26, 2012 5:57 pm

DesertYote says:
April 26, 2012 at 5:34 pm
More non-sense from pseudo-scientists with their freshly minted PhD’s and their modern Marxist world view.
___________________________
What do you expect? It’s Haaavard. (I used to live close to Harvard.)

Steve in SC
April 26, 2012 5:58 pm

This does not say much for the Harvard Engineering school.
Pitiful plumb pitiful.

Darren Potter
April 26, 2012 5:58 pm

“Climate scientists at the Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences”
Harvard is the same school that graduated B.H.O.; thus anything come out of Harvard should be duly questioned – if not outright dismissed…

Gail Combs
April 26, 2012 5:59 pm

Gunga Din says:
April 26, 2012 at 5:38 pm
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?
___________________________________
They mean a “hole” in the warming trend. (I think)

Fred Allen
April 26, 2012 5:59 pm

The nonsense continues. Many people speculated that the alarmist crowd would try and shift blame to particulates for the absence of warming…and here they go. Nothing wrong with the climate models. It’s the particulates that we didn’t take into account. Send more money.

pat
April 26, 2012 6:11 pm

this is the MSM flavour of the day in Australia:
27 April: Science Mag: Ocean Salinities Reveal Strong Global Water Cycle Intensification During 1950 to 2000
Paul J. Durack, Susan E. Wijffels, Richard J. Matear
Fundamental thermodynamics and climate models suggest that dry regions will become drier and wet regions will become wetter in response to warming…
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/336/6080/455.abstract

ThumbWind
April 26, 2012 6:12 pm

[SNIP: How one person can violate so many site rules in two short sentences is a veritable wonder. -REP]

April 26, 2012 6:14 pm

Excuses, excuses, excuses.
I suspect the dog may have eaten their homework!

Keith Pearson, formerly bikermailman, Anonymous no longer
April 26, 2012 6:15 pm

Yes, because of *course* there were tons of particulates coming from Arkansas and Missouri…right? Beuller?

LamontT
April 26, 2012 6:16 pm

Oh look more computer models. I say this as a computer scientists. Models are useless for the kind of predictions and analysis presented in the article.

Eve
April 26, 2012 6:18 pm

My home in Canada is an hour north of Toronto, back yard is the Niagra Escarpment and the Nottawasaga River. When I moved there in the 80’s I tried to grow acid loving plants and failed. I checked the PH of the soil. It was 8. I checked the PH of the river water. It was 8.5. Why? Road salt. I even checked the PH of falling rain, not touching anything. It was a touch over 7. I was praying for acid rain. This was in a heavily forested area.

jorgekafkazar
April 26, 2012 6:28 pm

Pamela Gray says: “Where to begin. Buy whatever journal this was published in and use it to line your bird cage.”
Pamela, I have a stack of Seth Borenstein articles stacked up for Tweetie to poop on. A friend says I can have his promo copy of Michael Mann’s book. I probably won’t need any more liners.

DonK31
April 26, 2012 6:29 pm

Obviously, the way to combat global warming is to remove all the pollution controls that were enacted in the 70″s.

Gail Combs
April 26, 2012 6:34 pm

erik sloneker says:
April 26, 2012 at 5:42 pm
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.
______________________________
I have seen a Haaavad Business School grad just about kill a company. He had a great bottom line for the two years he was there and all the deferred maintenance did not hit until after he left to go on to ruin another business. (happened at two different companies with different harvard grads)

April 26, 2012 6:39 pm

You just can’t make stories like this up! No, wait, they already did…

April 26, 2012 6:45 pm

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.”
________________
If you could find absolutley pure H2O, it’s pH would be 7. Water has been called the universal solvent. It will dissolve a little bit of just about everything. Rain would dissolve CO2 and other gases as it fell through the air. Rain with the CO2 it picked up would form a bit of carbonic acid and so lower the pH. But the alkalinity would be very, very low.
Don’t confuse “alkalinity” with “alkaline”. Water that is alkaline has a pH above 7. “Alkalinity” refers to water’s ability to resist a change in pH due to other things it has dissoved in it that will “use up” the acid (or caustic) before they can cause the pH to change.
Take two glasses with the same amount of distilled water and record the pH.
Now dissolve a tiny amount of baking soda one glass. Record it’s pH.
Add one drop of vinegar into the other glass of distilled water. Record it’s pH.
Now add one drop of vinegar into the glass with the baking soda. Record it’s pH.
What you should see (if this test I just made up on the fly works) is that the pH of both glasses dropped when you added the vinegar BUT the pH of the glass with baking soda did not drop as much. (The baking soda glass may not have changed at all.) That’s because when you added the baking soda, you added alkainity. The acid in the vinegar would have to “use up” the baking soda before it could raise the hydrogen ion concentration (pH).
With a swimming pool (and I’m no expert and i don’t have one) you’re probably adding some form of chlorine, some type of clarifier, a buffer and maybe other things. (Aside from the people using it and what they might add.) They can effect the pH AND alkalinity of the water. As the pool water gets warmer, it will release gases. Some of those gases, like CO2 and Cl2, had formed an acid. Lose the gas, lose the acid. (And Cl2 will also not be available to form an acid as is does it’s job as a disinfectant.)
Is that clear as mud?
I’m sure there are people here that know more and understand more about this than I do that might be able to explain it better.

Steve
April 26, 2012 6:50 pm

Particulates have been reduced dramatically over the last several decades…I’m not an atmospheric scientist, but the chemist in me suggests that the effective half life for these particles should be low…most would be washed out during precipitation….just my sawg…

Philip Bradley
April 26, 2012 6:51 pm

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.
Very confusingly written, perhaps deliberately so, but in substance correct.
The global land surface warming since the 1970s is substantially a decreased aerosol effect. What happened in the USA, happened in the rest of developed world and the ex Soviet Union post 1991. And contrary to popular myth aerosol levels have also decreased across large parts of the developing world.
Note how they avoid stating that reduced particulates has resulted in 0.7C warming since around 1980, the same amount of measured warming that has occured on a global basis since the 1970s.

April 26, 2012 6:56 pm

SInce our weather generally moves from west to set, how do they figure the greatest cooling effect to be over Missouri and Arkansas so far west? This makes no sense at all. I am totally unaware that our industrial centers are in the southern Midwest. I lived in Iowa for 17 years from 1978 to 1995 and in my travels missed ALL of the manufacturing.

AnonyMoose
April 26, 2012 7:05 pm

Oh, good! A study that points out that it was warm in 1930!

Interstellar Bill
April 26, 2012 7:21 pm

They got all their data from their famous huge fleet of weather balloons that have been operating in the tens of thousands for ‘decades’ over the entire US, providing not only meteorological observations at multiple altitudes every 20 km but a complete aerosol profile with optical and thermal IR transmittance as well. From this mountain of ‘research’ they ‘discovered’ the CO2 countering effects of all those aerosols. They reccommend doubling the number of balloons.
SARC ! !!!!!!!!!

John West
April 26, 2012 7:25 pm

fhhaynie on April 26, 2012 at 5:02 pm said:
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?”<i

John West
April 26, 2012 7:29 pm

Oops, finger slip.
fhhaynie on April 26, 2012 at 5:02 pm said:
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?”</i

Ugolino
April 26, 2012 7:30 pm

Does this have a parallel to retograde motion?

April 26, 2012 7:35 pm

This study has as much credence as the hypothesis that CFCs “caused” the “ozone hole”. No evidence outside the lab for the former, the “hole” isn’t a hole, and Dobson and others were measuring low ozone levels inside BOTH polar circles in the 1950s.
Model output used as input to another model, result is confirmation of AGW. A warning on the box “may contain traces of data” could result in a claim of exaggeration and possible legal action.