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.
When and dwhere do these people get off? When the funding stops?
This is childrens’ thinking.
And for those who are sceptical that aerosols can affect the climate by the amount claimed there is the Weekend Effect, where temperatures change by around 0.5C in a regular weekly cycle. Almost certainly an aerosol effect.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2003/09/17/947631.htm
The article talks about particulate sulfates which are reflective. In China, my impression was that black carbon predominated in the “Asian brown cloud”. Ramanathan’s “Indian Ocean Experiment” noted that black carbon/soot had a powerful warming effect–up to 60 times as much as CO2. Even though the particles fall out in a couple of weeks, they’re constantly replenished. If China cleans up the airborne soot they should notice a cooling.
Hey, if “Particulates” offset CO2, then shouldn’t Sierra Club’s Particulate Office have a word with Sierra Club’s CO2 Office? There could be a synergy here.
Face palm…
M Hastings
April 26, 2012 at 4:58 pm
####
Before I add to the answers you have already received, I want to compliment you on thinking like a scientist and going out to collect your own data.
I’m an Arizonan and a semi-professional fresh-water ecologist. I spent a lot of time with my trusty Hatch measuring every body of water I came across. I make my living as an engineer specializing in test and measurement. I love measuring things, don’t care to much about what the results prove or disprove, just how accurate they are.
Your water samples were contaminated by the Cool-deck and concrete. The concrete used in walkways is particularly leechy. To measure rainwater, you would need to capture some in a clean container. You will find that your springtime PH will be around 7.3 to 7.5. There is a lot of dust in the air that the rain washes out. Once the monsoon gets rolling, the PH will fall to 6.8 to 7.2 if it is not proceeded by dust storms. In such cases, I have measured PH up to 7.8!
The ground water, depending on were you live will be 7.3 to 7.8 during the winter. In the summer time it will be 8.2 to 8.5, yes higher the seawater. In the desert areas most ground water is between 7.8 and 8.2. The more organic stuff going on, the lower the PH.
BTW, when getting a sample from your pool, you should be pulling it from a foot under the surface.
A good titration test kit for amateurs, that I find to be reliable is the one marketed by TetraTech that is available in most Aquarium stores. Its more accurate then the ones used for pool maintenance. Now go forth and measure.
Richard Feynman explains the scientific method:
1st you guess
2nd you compute the consequences of that guess
3rd you compare those computations against the real world.
Conclusion: If 2 and 3 do not match, You are wrong. Period.
http://youtu.be/EYPapE-3FRw
ThumbWind says:
April 26, 2012 at 6:12 pm
[SNIP: How one person can violate so many site rules in two short sentences is a veritable wonder. -REP]
——————————–
O, COME ON NOW! Pleeeez! That we have to see!
“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. ”
I think they forgot a fullstop between “rooted” and “in”.
I share the same corridor with climate / oceanographic modellers at my work place. Not only do they call numbers derived from models data, they refer to model runs as experiments.
I shake my head in disbelief.
Chemist.
Harvard continues to demonstrate that it’s racing, just racing, to the back of the pack…
Pointman says:
April 26, 2012 at 4:42 pm
I never thought I’d say it, but I’m getting sick of models.
Pointman
The only models which ever impressed me particularly are the ones I used to assemble as a kid, and the ones who tease me from the annual issue of Sports Illustrated.
I’m Reminded of Karl Pilkinton’s “Worry Hole”
From pilkipedia.co.uk:
worry hole – the part of the brain that casts doubt: Everyone’s got to fill that worry hole with worrie[s].
I’m getting a bit confused by this. Are they saying “it WAS worse than we thought”? I thought it was supposed to be “it IS worse than we thought” or “it WILL be worse than we thought”. Obviously, it’s always going to be “[something]…worse than we thought”. I can remember that bit.
“Curiouser and curiouser”, cried Alice…
Sunshinehours1 just want to mention you’ve done a great job summing up the met data for PNW. I have never visited your site and I was impressed.
I am a keen gardener and although many things besides the temperature affect the plant growth, your data does not contradict my 30+ years of experience.
There was an increased damage/mortality to more tender plants at my place (BC coast) in the last four or so years as compared to the 90’s. I wouldn’t make a mistake of making any future projections but I certainly have not observed any signs of warming in the last ten years; except perhaps for the Vancouver airport during the El Nino year of 2010 and the January scramble to get the airport ready for the Olympics.
Oh, great – the return of the “acid rain” meme. What has been mentioned cannot be un-mentioned.
Having been mentioned, the chances of this turning up as a greater threat than GW… umm, AGW, umm, CC… umm, CACC are very good indeed. Of course, there’ll be some wag that manages to link acid rain to ocean acidification, and then it’s goodnight Vienna. Or something like that.
Do I really need a /sarc tag after that?
I didn’t know Harvard produced engineers. I am one, I thought one had to grade papers and such to get an engineering degree. In any event, I’m befulded by this claim. I’ll check with EPRI and see how they regard it. I hold respect for EPRI, not Harvard.
Arrrrggggg, mobile devices and uncooperative fingers!
fhhaynie 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?”
If you’re talking about:
“North Carolina Sues TVA to Clean Up Pollution”
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6417740
“Cooper said. “Anyone who has been in the Smoky Mountains on an incredible day like today know[s] that haze should not be a part of the Smoky Mountains.””
Consider the area was named the “Smoky Mountains” long before there was a TVA.
John,
Cooper is pointing out the difference between clean clouds on humid days and the sulfuric acid aerosol haze (often called smog) on low humidity days with no clouds. I’ve seen the damage to the trees.
Note to self – do not hire engineering grads from Harvard (adds to previous list, do not hire MBA grads from Harvard).
Goldie at 5:06 pm
You bring up the hemispheric problem about which there is much misinformation.The difference between the Arctic and the Antarctic warming has nothing to do with anthropogenic emissions. The Arctic is warming because of warm Atlantic currents are carrying Gulf Stream water into the Arctic. It started at the turn of the twentieth century, paused in mid-century, and is still active. Before that there was nothing but slow cooling in the Arctic for 2000 years. Get the full story about it here: http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/arno-arrak.pdf
By extension, all the warming we’ve seen is clearly due to the reduction in the use of high particulate fuels such as wood and coal in the 1800’s, which were replaced with oil and gas, and then particulates were reduced further by clean air regulations. So, all the warming we’ve seen over the last two hundred years is just us cleaning up our own act and the planet returning to itz normal state?
Not that I believe that, but if they are going to take the position they have, then they cannot blame CO2 for much. if any, of the warming since the 1800’s because by their own models, the reduction in wood fire use alone would explain all the warming.
M. Hastings:
Rain droplets form around dust particles in the clouds. the 5.5ph number comes from research which was mostly conducted in the eastern US & Britain where sulfur is a significant component of that dust. The actual ph of rain (as opposed to nominal 5.5 which should have thrown out decades ago) varies with the composition of dust upwind of where the rain falls. If your weather comes over alkali flats or some other source of alkali dust, you can experience alkali rain. It was some years ago that I read a study of rainfall in Italy, where rain from the Balkans is acid and rain from North Africa is alkali which causes problems – the Balkan rain brings sulfur which reacts with calcium carbonate from the African Rain and eats away at masonry far worse than either acid rain or alkali rain would alone.
michael hart says:
April 26, 2012 at 8:26 pm
I’m getting a bit confused by this. Are they saying “it WAS worse than we thought”? I thought it was supposed to be “it IS worse than we thought” or “it WILL be worse than we thought”. Obviously, it’s always going to be “[something]…worse than we thought”. I can remember that bit.
********************
What they’re saying is, “Don’t pay any attention to the man behind the curtain!” or that the predictions that started this ball rolling were wrong or gas prices or your electric bill rising or your food bills rising or your control of your life slipping away or ……..
C02 = GLOBAL
SULFUR FROM MAN = REGIONAL, over DECADES
SULFUR FROM VOLCANOES = GLOBAL
Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.
This hilarious piece of faux research reminds me of a bag of house-brand cashew nuts I bought from a Tesco store, (Tesco is a supermarket chain in the UK); in small print at the bottom of the bag’s label was the legend
WARNING: THIS PRODUCT MAY CONTAIN TRACES OF NUTS