From the University of California – Riverside it seems that black carbon soot is driving tropical expansion. How could this be? I thought CO2 was all powerful, so powerful with the strength of 400,000 Hiroshima bombs each day that animals can’t outrun its effects.
Manmade pollutants may be driving Earth’s tropical belt expansion
UC Riverside-led team identifies black carbon and tropospheric ozone as most likely drivers of large-scale atmospheric circulation change in the Northern hemisphere tropics
RIVERSIDE, Calif. — Black carbon aerosols and tropospheric ozone, both manmade pollutants emitted predominantly in the Northern Hemisphere’s low- to mid-latitudes, are most likely pushing the boundary of the tropics further poleward in that hemisphere, new research by a team of scientists shows.
While stratospheric ozone depletion has already been shown to be the primary driver of the expansion of the tropics in the Southern Hemisphere, the researchers are the first to report that black carbon and tropospheric ozone are the most likely primary drivers of the tropical expansion observed in the Northern Hemisphere.
Led by climatologist Robert J. Allen, an assistant professor of Earth sciences at the University of California, Riverside, the research team notes that an unabated tropical belt expansion would impact large-scale atmospheric circulation, especially in the subtropics and mid-latitudes.
“If the tropics are moving poleward, then the subtropics will become even drier,” Allen said. “If a poleward displacement of the mid-latitude storm tracks also occurs, this will shift mid-latitude precipitation poleward, impacting regional agriculture, economy, and society.”
Study results appear in the May 17 issue of Nature.
Observations show that the tropics have widened by 0.7 degrees latitude per decade, with warming from greenhouse gases also contributing to the expansion in both hemispheres. To study this expansion, the researchers first compared observational data with simulated data from climate models for 1979-1999. The simulated data were generated by a collection of 20 climate models called the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project version 3 or “CMIP3.”
The researchers found that CMIP3 underestimates the observed 0.35 degrees latitude per decade expansion of the Northern Hemisphere tropics by about a third. But when they included either black carbon or tropospheric ozone or both in CMIP3, the simulations mimicked observations better, suggesting that the pollutants were playing a role in the Northern Hemisphere tropical expansion.
Next, to ensure that their results were not influenced by intrinsic differences between CMIP3’s 20 models, the researchers expanded the time period studied to 1970-2009, comparing available observed data with simulated data from NCAR‘s Community Atmosphere Model (CMIP3 data did not extend to 1970-2009). They then repeated the exercise with the GFDL Atmospheric Model. Using these models allowed the researchers to directly isolate the effects of black carbon and tropospheric ozone on the location of the tropical boundaries.
As before, they found that the models underestimate the observed Northern Hemisphere expansion of the tropics by about a third. When black carbon and tropospheric ozone were incorporated in these models, however, the simulations showed better agreement with observations, underscoring the pollutants’ role in widening the tropical belt in the Northern Hemisphere.
“Both black carbon and tropospheric ozone warm the tropics by absorbing solar radiation,” Allen explained. “Because they are short-lived pollutants, with lifetimes of one-two weeks, their concentrations remain highest near the sources: the Northern Hemisphere low- to mid-latitudes. It’s the heating of the mid-latitudes that pushes the boundaries of the tropics poleward.”
Allen further explained that with an expansion of the tropics, wind patterns also move poleward, dragging other aspects of atmospheric circulation with them, such as precipitation.
“For example, the southern portions of the United States may get drier if the storm systems move further north than they were 30 years ago,” he said. “Indeed, some climate models have been showing a steady drying of the subtropics, accompanied by an increase in precipitation in higher mid-latitudes. The expansion of the tropical belt that we attribute to black carbon and tropospheric ozone in our work is consistent with the poleward displacement of precipitation seen in these models.”
Black carbon aerosols are tiny particles of carbon produced from biomass burning and incomplete combustion of fossil fuels. Most of the world’s black carbon production occurs in the Northern Hemisphere, with Southeast Asia being a major producer. The same is true of tropospheric ozone, a secondary pollutant that results when volatile organic compounds react with sunlight.
“Greenhouse gases do contribute to the tropical expansion in the Northern Hemisphere,” Allen said. “But our work shows that black carbon and tropospheric ozone are the main drivers here. We need to implement more stringent policies to curtail their emissions, which would not only help mitigate global warming and improve human health, but could also lessen the regional impacts of changes in large-scale atmospheric circulation in the Northern Hemisphere.”
Thomas Reichler, an associate professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Utah, noted that the new work by the Allen-led team represents a major advance in climate dynamics research.
“For a long time it has been unclear to the research community why climate models were unable to replicate the observed changes in the atmospheric wind structure,” said Reichler, who was not involved in the study. “This work demonstrates now in very convincing ways that changes in the amount and distribution of tiny absorbing particles in the atmosphere are responsible for the observed changes. Since previous model simulations did not account properly for the effects of these particles on the atmosphere, this work provides a surprisingly simple but effective answer to the original question.”
Allen, who conceived the research project and designed the study, was joined in the research by Steven C. Sherwood at the University of New South Wales, Australia; Joel Norris at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, San Diego; and Charles S. Zender at UC Irvine.
Next, the research team will study the implications of the tropical expansion from a predominantly hydrological perspective.
“The question to ask is how far must the tropics expand before we start to implement policies to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases, tropospheric ozone and black carbon that are driving the tropical expansion?” said Allen, who joined UCR in 2011.
UCR start-up funds to his lab supported the study.
=================================================================
On the other hand, this is yet another modeling study. But, preferring hard data, I find the comparison of these two images quite interesting for the visual correlation they present in India:
Above: Satellite aerosol optical depth (AOD) for the period between Oct. 1, 2009 and April 14, 2010, over India shows the increased thickness of air pollution over the Indo-Gangetic Plain in the northeastern portion of the country. (source: Scripps)
And this one shows the “hot spots” so to speak:![black_carbon[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/black_carbon1.gif?resize=540%2C456)
Source: NASA, Dorothy Koch and James Hansen here.
I find it ironic that in the poorest developing places in the world (Africa/India/China), black carbon optical thickness is at its highest, but the developed countries with their massive pollution control agencies like EPA, have smaller amounts by comparison.
Maybe instead of wasting billions on CO2 bureaucracy, a better solution is to improve the energy infrastructure of these places and fix the cooking stove problem.
Note where CO2 seems the highest, it isn’t the equatorial band:

![RBRWuG0155_Black_carbon_absorb_reflect[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/rbrwug0155_black_carbon_absorb_reflect1.jpg?resize=450%2C301&quality=83)
![Himalayan-Surabi-Fig5[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/himalayan-surabi-fig51.jpg?resize=640%2C392&quality=83)
That aerosol climate effects diagram looks just like that yin and yang thing that the treehuggers worship.
For some reason, I’ve always believed that the tropics were based on physical characteristics of the wobble of the earth. On summer solstice the sun is directly above the tropic of cancer, on winter solstice, it is directly above the tropic of Capricorn. So is the extra carbon in the air causing the earth to wobble more?
Of course, their models do not appear to include the Svensmark Effect. If that effect is real, one cannot expect models that ignore the results of condensation influenced by cosmic radiation to produce realistic results.
E.M.Smith says:
May 16, 2012 at 1:27 pm
………………Looks like more modeling fantasy to me.
——————–
to quote Willis.
“It’s models all the way down”
——-
or was that turtles all the way down?
Occam say: tropospheric warming alone can explain the expansion of the tropics.
@WISE Math
Yin is this one. Yang is the other one.
ok…if you add a parameter in the model they are able toreproduce data better…sorry..one feature of reality..what about others? do they reproduce hot spot now?
“ both manmade pollutants emitted predominantly in the Northern Hemisphere’s low- to mid-latitudes, ” Diplomatically avoiding pointing the finger at China and India.
Is it just me or isnt this the same sort of argument they gave us for the ozone hole that turned out to be totally bogus.
.7 degrees/decade works out to .3 furlongs per fortnight! Even a two-toed sloth could outrun that, not sure why they would since they can’t shiver to keep warm. Maybe that should be our new mantra, when ever somebody says “think of the Polar Bears drowning due to global warming” we could say “well what about the three-toed sloths, they can’t even shiver, you wouldn’t want poor Sid to freeze would you?”
So the breakdown in the correlation between the sun and temps breaks down during the time when lots of short lived Carbon Soot is emmitted, so cut the Carbon Soot emmissions and 2 weeks later the Sun takes over again, trouble is the Sun activity is low and cold is worse than warm. Suggest we carry on emmitting the Carbon soot until the Sun activity increases again.
Have they ignored the paper which found super large lakes in the Sahara desert around eight thousand years ago? The authors attributed it to a cyclic change in the jet stream, They also asserted the jet stream was moving north again, if memory serves.
This is nonsense. Carbon soot is not a recent development. One can roughly estimate that prior to modern fire suppression and agricultural endeavors around the globe, there was way more carbon soot in the air and on the ground. It is likely at an historically low level.
What is it with climate scientists? Their seemingly total lack of historical reality astounds. Simply astounds. The halcyon days of life before our modern industrialized population is a figment of their blinder-ed imaginations.
Has anyone seen teh Discovery Channel documentary called ‘Earth from Space’? Must see
@ur momisugly Mike says:
May 16, 2012 at 1:47 pm
[SNIP: Mike, you are pushing the envelope. If all you have is snark and misdirection… -REP]
No snark. It has long been claimed by the anti-scientific establishment forces that deny human caused climate change that humans cannot cause climate change. Yet, here you tout research showing that humans can indeed cause significant climate change. That’s a contradiction. You accept mainstream science when and only when it suits you.
“Most of the world’s black carbon production occurs in the Northern Hemisphere…”
Two things:
1) There is about 16x the land available to inhabit in the northern hemisphere (between 30 deg and 60 deg) than there is in the southern hemisphere, so it stands to figure that this is where a reasonably-intelligent someone would automatically assume a higher proportion of [man-made] pollutants would originate.
2) We should find out who is “Producing” black carbon and point out that there is no market for it – aside from pencil lead and Shuttle heat shields (but the Shuttle was retired, so….) so they should really just stop. Please. (Who is producing carbon soot – like, intentionally?)
Plus, Alarmists prefer those less fortunate to remain 3rd/4th world economic states utilizing Bronze Age technology – it makes for cheap labor for wind powered call-centers and their all-organic hemp-based textile industries…
If you want less … black soot … advocate for Nuclear Energy (zero carbon emissions), CNG (Low/Negligible soot emissions), or ANYTHING other than the bio-mass/wood fires [well, except for the weekend barbeque] that a good deal of the poorer nations and the people who live in them use to power their lives. (That is unless the environMENTAL-CASES have discovered a way to keep, store, and prepare food that doesn’t involve fire or ice – and a microwave oven doesn’t count.)
SteveW says: May 16, 2012 at 1:13 pm
So, basically they programmed the effects of both black carbon and ozone into their model, then report the fact that the model responds to changes in input values of both in the manner it was programmed to do?
Groundbreaking stuff.
Exactly! I am dismayed at how people think computer output would be other than what it is programmed to give.
Let’s use bayesian statistics properly here and assign probablilities to the accuracy of these models in forecasting in a decision tree manner. Being generous at .5 probability of any one of them being correct (not historically born out so far) and say 5 different models that need to work in series (since they all use the same sets of assumptions) and we get .5x.5x.5x.5x.5=.03125 probability of the right answer. This level of reliability would never have worked out for the interdependent systems on spacecraft, I can tell you that for certain. Perhaps climate science needs some redundant backup predictors which do no depend upon the same old non functioning set of assumptions and theories.
WEASEL WORD ALERT
The paper from UC Riverside contains 973 words.
Roughly 40% of the words are what I consider to be Weasel Words.
That’s outrageously high, even for a university on our (American) left coast.
Are they worried they won’t have enough escape routes when who isn’t part of “ the team” takes a critical look?
Model (s) 14
Simulations 3
Simulated Data 3
Mimicked 1
Most likely 4
May 2
Could 3
If 14
Total Weasel words 44
Article Words 973
This aerosol business is out of control. When there was no warming in the fifties, sixties, and seventies and people started to worry about a coming ice age they invented a world-wide aerosol blanket that prevented carbon dioxide from doing its stuff. That blanket miraculously lifted for the eighties and nineties after Hansen devised a new method for measuring global temperature rise. Now they’ve got ozone and black carbon aerosols warming the world. But let’s not be too hasty with that. If you look at where they say these aerosols are located, they seem to be about 30 degrees north, nowhere near the tropics. We are then asked to believe that through a teleconnection involving the tropospheric jet this has an influence on the tropics because it makes their computer games work better. Give me a break.
earwig42 says:
May 17, 2012 at 11:14 am
“WEASEL WORD ALERT
The paper from UC Riverside contains 973 words.
Roughly 40% of the words are what I consider to be Weasel Words.
That’s outrageously high, even for a university on our (American) left coast.
Are they worried they won’t have enough escape routes when who isn’t part of “ the team” takes a critical look?
Model (s) 14
Simulations 3
Simulated Data 3
Mimicked 1
Most likely 4
May 2
Could 3
If 14
Total Weasel words 44
Article Words 973”
I believe that is 4.4%.
There are numerous things wrong with your statement.
First off it’s the alarmists side who hide their data and methods, who deny that natural climate change can explain most or all of the recent warming, who have never published a means of testing the theory of catastrophic warming due to CO2, and who blackball anyone who disagrees with them. I would call those people ‘anti-scientists’.
Secondly, WUWT frequently runs threads describing research claiming human-caused warming. There’s nothing special about this one just because it describes a method other than CO2, and like the human-CO2 warming papers it too has received it’s share of deserved ridicule.
Thirdly, most people who post here accept that CO2 has an effect on temperature; the argument is how large or small. Even among those few who totally rule out any warming from CO2, most accept other human-related causes of temperature change such as land clearing.
There’s no contradiction here. Now if you want to talk about alarmists taking private jets to exotic places …
I suspect a message one might find hidden between the lines of rhetoric on climate change is that human population has grown too large for the good of the planet and governments all over the world should unite to control this problem by indirect, politically correct, means.
“Carbon soot may be driving the expansion of the tropics-not CO2” Is that driving on black carbon?WUWT?
Thanks for all the interesting articles and comments