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
April 27, 2012 5:14 am

Alexander K says:
April 26, 2012 at 9:34 pm
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
You’re lucky you found some nuts therein. Check out a bar of top-brand Cadbury’s confectionery for the word “chocolate”. It doesn’t qualify, too little cocoa solids. Check out a Tesco own-brand bar at half the price – it has the word and does qualify.
As I said earlier, this kind of research is done in a data-free environment – “may conttain traces of data”. What emerges is insignificant but misleading, yet is hailed as “ground-breaking”. The only ground that should be broken is to bury it where it belongs.

April 27, 2012 5:22 am

That’s like saying, If it’s warm it’s man made and if it’s cold it is also man made. (I will make a personal note that these bozos are thick as two planks).
They’re trying to narrow their special type of Anthropological-Climatology down to two convenient factors ‘anthropogenic warming’ and ‘anthropogenic cooling’.
The constant blame of human activity on the weather is nauseating and shows their misanthropic tendencies and all for what? financial incentives? Eco-political ideology, there’s a name for these people, hmm, what is it? oh yea, “SELL OUTS”.

Scott
April 27, 2012 5:27 am

I wonder how they modelled the 100 atmospheric nuclear tests conducted at the Nevada test site. I noticed the fallout map is roughly consistent with the darkest spot of the warming hole. If the residence time of those test particles is also one week that’s two full years of particulate cooling.

FerdinandAkin
April 27, 2012 5:46 am

As a first step in combating Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, we should put more particles into the air. I propose that General Motors resume production of the 1970 Chevelle SS 396, and drivers spin the tires at every opportunity. It is the least we could do to save the planet.

Burch
April 27, 2012 5:52 am

beng
April 27, 2012 6:13 am

When I was in mountainous SW Virginia in the mid-80s, I also got a pH kit to measure rainfall pH. Surprisingly, it would always come out to right around 7.0 every time. This after reading Science News articles of “battery acid” levels (less than 5.0 pH) right in my vicinity (downwind of the Ohio & Kanahwa R. valley coal plants). I think that’s when I finally stopped my SN subscription in disgust.

April 27, 2012 6:17 am

Warming Hole? Why not coolness dome?
Models are “rooted” in obsevational data. Does that mean “created from”? Can they recreate the past climate?
The first model’s output is the second model’s input. GIGO

April 27, 2012 6:35 am

sunshinehours1 says:
April 26, 2012 at 10:57 pm
davidmhoffer: “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 … ”
To take it further …
Is it possible the dustbowl in the 1930s was caused by sudden temporary de-industrialization caused by he 1929 stock market crash? And that resulted in much cleaner air?

It is a myth that industrialization caused a large rise in particulates. The opposite is true. Domestic burning of fuels and agricultural burning (as well as motor vehicles in the 20thC) were the main source of particulates until around 1960 in the developed world.

April 27, 2012 6:45 am

Gail Combs says:
April 26, 2012 at 5:54 pm
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.”

Harvard only said the model was “rooted” in the data — not that they actually used any of it.

old construction worker
April 27, 2012 6:48 am

Questions, questions, always more questions than answers. So dust cools?
Dust particles are solid are they not? Since they are solid wouldn’t they heat up slower and cool down slower than gas vapors? Wouldn’t they hold more “heat” longer than a gas vapor? Don’t they also give off Long Wave radiation like gas vapors? So depending altitude of concentration dust particles, say 0ft to 100ft above the surface wouldn’t that dust “warming” effect be “Recorded” compaired to less dusty days? If the dust concentration was at a higher altitude wouldn’t dust LW back radiation add to “Earth’s Temperature”? So how do you separate that effect from Co2 induced warming in the from “dust warming effect” in the “Data”?

Dave
April 27, 2012 6:58 am

It’s worse than we thought!

LazyTeenager
April 27, 2012 6:59 am

Fred Allen on April 26, 2012 at 5:59 pm said:
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.
———–
I have never come across such people. Would you like to name them?
My understanding is that aerosols and CO2 are well know to be countervailing influences on climate for decades and decades and decades. It goes all the way back to the nuclear winter modelling and likely paid a part in the speculation about ice ages way back in the 70’s. It’s popped up again when interpreting Chinese temperature trends and keeps on being a factor to the present day.
Aerosols are even included in the climate models.
So maybe you need to get out more.

John
April 27, 2012 7:17 am

Grasping at straws — my favorite game.

tadchem
April 27, 2012 8:12 am

The math is all wrong. Particulate pollution peaked in 1980, and has been falling ever since, but they claim it is still causing cooling.
The cooling was 1 degree over 60 years (1930-1990) but only 0.3 degrees over 20 years (1990-2010). I see no significant difference.
The killer smogs of the 40’s through the 60’s have ceased as the particulate levels dropped, but the cooling goes on?
Why don’t the cities with the highest levels of particulate pollution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particulates#Affected_areas
also show the largest temperature drops?
Why isn’t the US ‘warming hole’ located over the most polluted US areas instead of the least polluted areas?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US-PM2.5-nonattainment-2007-06.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US-PM10-nonattainment-2007-06.png

chico grad
April 27, 2012 8:12 am

Look at Caliornia central valley. No change according to their model. Anyone who lives there (Anthony) can see their model looks broken just on that alone.

April 27, 2012 8:40 am

The current “debate” has turned me into my own horrible broken record: that current scientific skills allow two, contrary positions based on the same information.
The warming continues (Hansen) & it doesn’t continue (Jones). Sea-levels are going up (Envirsat) & they are the same (tidal records and maps/photos). Antarctic sea-ice is diminishing (warm water) & it is expanding (satellites). Global warming causes cooling, more moisture in the atmosphere causes more extensive droughts, Here, pollution was terrible in the 70s but better now (EPA) & pollution is why the NE US hasn’t warmed because pollution there has remained bad.
All together, CO2 is both incredibly powerful and overwhelms all other forces & it is so weak we can’t see its effects yet.
Postage Stamp Science (PSS): the type of science you get when you focus in on tiny elements, to the exclusion of all other elements and context, such that you can proclaim robust solutions to non-existent problems.
We should get all these guys in one room and insist that nobody leaves until there is just one man (or woman) standing who Understands. A “Hunger Games” of Climate Science.

April 27, 2012 8:46 am

“It is a myth that industrialization caused a large rise in particulates. The opposite is true. ”
I think coal was burned in industry directly. Like steel mills.
http://www.jaha.org/DiscoveryCenter/steel.html

Steve Oregon
April 27, 2012 8:55 am

It is astounding that such a lazy and defective piece can be produced by an entire group without any of them detecting how easily it could be refuted.
“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).”
It’s 2012. Where the heck is the learning curve? They had to know that in today’s www review of all things, their work would fall under immense scrutiny.
So did they really release this with confidence? Really?
There is something horribly wrong here. Both in the quality control of research and the means to assess merit for sponsorship. How does this get funded in the first place? Is there such an unlimited supply of revenue for academia that any nitwit folly attracts sponsorship?
Or maybe this was intended to be peer reviewed by the world wide web which has provided a refutation at a WUWT breakneck pace.

RayG
April 27, 2012 9:35 am

Anthony, are you pranking us? I swear that this paper was published in the Harvard Lampoon.

Jimbo
April 27, 2012 9:38 am

Now don’t laugh.

50-year model suggests
The researchers’ analysis is based on a combination of two complex models of Earth systems. The pollution data comes from the GEOS-Chem model,…
….international standard for modeling pollution over time…
…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….

The science is settled, head for the hills.
Models also suggest that the Sahel may get more rain, less rain, more or less rain. That’s right!
http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0509057102
http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2005GL023232
http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/2009JCLI3123.1
As for the UK it is projected to get more drought and more rain. That’s right!
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.04.035
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/joc.1827
and I could go on and on…………………………. 😉
I wish people would find something better for these researchers to do. They are a waste of taxpayer’s money.

gnomish
April 27, 2012 10:47 am

yeeha – this is a serenade to michael mann- a reprise of Carl Sagan’s Swan Song.
isn’t that perfect?
can you say Kuwaiti Oil Fires?
been there, failed that.

lgl
April 27, 2012 11:15 am

Sorry Professors, the hole is in your knowledge. Ever heard of the Arctic Oscillation?
http://virakkraft.com/AO-McMinnville.png

Jimbo
April 27, 2012 11:33 am

Sorry OT [snip at leisure]
[SNIP: It is OT for this thread. How about posting it here. -REP]

DesertYote
April 27, 2012 1:34 pm

Ric Werme
April 26, 2012 at 10:09 pm
Calcium is the major one, followed by magnesium, iron and carbonates.