Decades of drought in central Africa reached their worst point in the 1980s, causing Lake Chad, a shallow lake used to water crops in neighboring countries, to almost dry out completely.
The shrinking lake and prolonged drought were initially blamed on overgrazing and bad agricultural practices. More recently, Lake Chad became an example of global warming.
U.S. Library of Congress
Sulfate-laden aerosols coming out of a U.S. smokestack in 1942. Emissions rose steadily until legislation was passed in the late 1960s and ’70s.
New University of Washington research, to be published in Geophysical Research Letters, shows that the drought was caused at least in part by Northern Hemisphere air pollution.
Aerosols emanating from coal-burning factories in the United States and Europe during the 1960s, ’70s and ’80s cooled the entire Northern Hemisphere, shifting tropical rain bands south. Rains no longer reached the Sahel region, a band that spans the African continent just below the Sahara desert.
When clean-air legislation passed in the U.S. and Europe, the rain band shifted back, and the drought lessened.
Related research by the UW researchers and their collaborators shows that global warming is now causing the land-covered Northern Hemisphere to warm faster than the Southern Hemisphere, further reversing the pre-1980s trend.
Previous research has suggested a connection between coal-burning and the Sahel drought, but this was the first study that used decades of historical observations to find that this drought was part of a global shift in tropical rainfall, and then used multiple climate models to determine why.
“One of our research strategies is to zoom out,” said lead author Yen-Ting Hwang, a UW doctoral student in atmospheric sciences. “Instead of studying rainfall at a particular place, we try to look for the larger-scale patterns.”
Wikimedia / Annabel Symington
The road to Timbuktu, in the Sahel region, during more normal conditions.
To determine that the Sahel drought was part of a broader shift, the authors looked at precipitation from all rain gauges that had continuous readings between 1930 and 1990. Other places on the northern edge of the tropical rain band, including northern India and South America, also experienced dryer climates in the 1970s and ’80s. Meanwhile, places on the southern edge of the rain band, such as northeast Brazil and the African Great Lakes, were wetter than normal.
To understand the reason, authors looked at all 26 climate models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Researchers discovered that almost all the models also showed some southward shift, and that cooling from sulfate aerosols in the Northern Hemisphere was the primary cause.
“We think people should know that these particles not only pollute air locally, but they also have these remote climate effects,” Hwang said.
Light-colored sulfate aerosols are emitted mainly by dirty burning of coal. They create hazy air that reflects sunlight, and also lead to more reflective, longer-lasting clouds.
People living in the Northern Hemisphere did not notice the cooling, the authors said, because it balanced the heating associated with the greenhouse effect from increased carbon dioxide, so temperatures were steady.
UW / Y.-T. Hwang
Global precipitation change between 1931-1950 and 1961-1980. The African Sahel, center, is much drier, while east Africa and east Brazil are wetter.
“To some extent, science messed this one up the first time around,” said co-author Dargan Frierson, a UW associate professor of atmospheric sciences. “People thought that a large part of that drought was due to bad farming practices and desertification. But over the last 20 years or so we’ve realized that that was quite wrong, and that large-scale ocean and atmosphere patterns are significantly more powerful in terms of shaping where the rains fall.”
The models did not show as strong a shift as the observations, Frierson said, suggesting that ocean circulation also played a role in the drought.
The good news is that the U.S. Clean Air Act and its European counterpart had an unintended positive effect beyond improved air quality and related health benefits. Although shorter-term droughts continue to affect the Sahel, the long-term drought began to recover in the 1980s.
“We were able to do something that was good for us, and it also benefited people elsewhere,” Frierson said.
The work was funded by the National Science Foundation. Sarah Kang at the Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology in South Korea was a co-author.
###
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.



“To understand the reason, authors looked at all 26 climate models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Researchers discovered that almost all the models also showed some southward shift, and that cooling from sulfate aerosols in the Northern Hemisphere was the primary cause.”
Right. But by now it’s pretty certain that the models are over-sensitive to aerosols, isn’t it?
“People living in the Northern Hemisphere did not notice the cooling, the authors said, because it balanced the heating associated with the greenhouse effect from increased carbon dioxide, so temperatures were steady.”
So, now we know, huh.
/sarc.
How does that song go?
“how do I know, the models tell me so…”
Over sensitivity? Blasphemer! Now say 20 “hail Mannies” and ask the science gods for post-modern forgiveness…
They may have modelled not this world, as there appears to exist no AMO and PDO in their model world.
First the claim that the Clean Air Act saved Atlanta from drought, and now:
“The good news is that the U.S. Clean Air Act and its European counterpart had an unintended positive effect beyond improved air quality and related health benefits.”
Hmmm.
Would somebody please defund this idiocy?
Aerosols emanating from coal-burning factories in the United States and Europe during the 1960s, ’70s and ’80s cooled the entire Northern Hemisphere, shifting tropical rain bands south. Rains no longer reached the Sahel region, a band that spans the African continent just below the Sahara desert.
When clean-air legislation passed in the U.S. and Europe, the rain band shifted back, and the drought lessened.
Related research by the UW researchers and their collaborators shows that global warming is now causing the land-covered Northern Hemisphere to warm faster than the Southern Hemisphere, further reversing the pre-1980s trend.
Aerosols caused the cooling and decreased Sahel rain and then reversed the trend, but now global warming, which isn’t happening continues the same trend. What utter nonsense.
Although you could interpret this as equating decreased aerosol caused warming with global warming.
With so many aerosol studies coming out recently, I sense the GHG warming dam is begining to break. Which means the next tactic of the AGW obscurantists is too blur carbon pollution (ie CO2 emissions) into aerosol and and black carbon emissions.
In fact their tactics makes me think they knew this was coming and have been positioning themselves for the shift in the science. I’m not normally given to conspiracies, but this doesn’t pass the smell test.
Talked about this at Chiefio’s back in 2010…
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/12/27/lake-chad-is-rising/
“People living in the Northern Hemisphere did not notice the cooling, the authors said, because it balanced the heating associated with the greenhouse effect from increased carbon dioxide, so temperatures were steady.”
Proof?
It is all about finding ways to blame the west.
So model based rubbish then, especially based on climate models we all know are wrong to start with.
Lake Chad is following the same route as the Aral Sea, over irrigation leads to water loss.
As far as I am aware, sulfates don’t travel that far. The clean air legislation got rid of the soot, then the trees a short distance downwind started to die because they were losing their protective coating of soot. So those processes that weren’t already capturing the sulfates (simple technology from at least 1951) had to catch up.
This paper whether correct or not will serve two purposes
1) it allows the emphasis on aerosols to flourish so current warming hiatus can be explained in the near future.
2) Reparations
I’m sorry, and with all due respect to the authors of this paper, who I’m sure are all very sincere and are just trying to find meaning in past events, I had to take 3 tries reading this because I was laughing so hard!
This sounds like a child’s conclusion, something kids in third grade might come up with. A simple, neatly wrapped up explanation for something when they don’t have even close to all of the information, or the real world experience to back up their ideas.
Then I sobered right up, because I realized that there are a lot of adults, intelligent people, who also don’t have close to all of the information or real world experience, who will believe this and demand action.
So, unknown to early electrical pioneers, they weren’t just building coal fired power stations, they were building a thermostat for the planet!
I remember reading 50s era SciFi about weather control. This isn’t much different.
OK. Now add in all the emissions from India and China and run your model.
Before the warmists were paid the sums they ended up being paid a paper was published which looked at drought in Ethiopia and no mention of global warming was made.
Go to this link and click on the download button to read it.
There is a table of past droughts and the effects of el nino over the past few centuries.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1589710
Load of hose$#!t…
“Shrinking African Lake Offers Lesson on Finite Resources
Hillary Mayell
for National Geographic News
April 26, 2001
Lake Chad, once one of Africa’s largest freshwater lakes, has shrunk
dramatically in the last 40 years. Two researchers from the University
of Wisconsin, Madison, have been working to determine the
causes.
In a report published in the Journal of Geophysical
Research, they conclude that human activities are to blame for the
shrinking of Lake Chad.
The question of interest to Jonathon A. Foley and Michael T. Coe is applicable to many other natural phenomena as well, such as melting ice caps, retreating glaciers and warming oceans: Are the dramatic changes we are now witnessing the result of natural variation over millennia, or more or less a direct function of human activities?
The lake’s decline probably has nothing to do with global warming, report the two scientists, who based their findings on computer models and satellite imagery made available by NASA. They attribute the situation instead to human actions related to climate variation, compounded by the ever increasing demands of an expanding population.
“Humans in the system are the big actors here,” says Coe, a hydrologist. “What has happened to Lake Chad may be an illustration of where we’re heading.”
Denying climate change in order to make place for the Orwellian Climate Change.
The wording almost sounds like the sulfate problem went away on the passing of the clean air act, not some time following the act and after rules had been promulgated and implemented. I missed the time lag from the wording. Also, we had cooling in the northern hemisphere that we didn’t notice because of GHG warming? Is that saying it would have been warmer, but it wasn’t because of aerosols? I’m not sure how to measure unnoticed cooling.
Search engines reveal some number of “scientific” papers published since about 2008 which attempt to explain the lack of warming by citing the increased aerosol emissions of China and to a lesser extent, India. Models all the way down.
Oh, I see. Aerosols. Again. They do give them a handy way out. They’re the magic secret ingredient, the fudge factor, along with the “hidden” heat in the oceans.
They do have a problem though: If sulfate aeorosols were the primary cause of cooling in the 60s-80s, with warming recommencing after Clean Air legislation, where does that leave sensitivity of climate to C02?
These two statements appear to be contradictory
““People living in the Northern Hemisphere did not notice the cooling, the authors said, because it balanced the heating associated with the greenhouse effect from increased carbon dioxide, so temperatures were steady.””
“Aerosols emanating from coal-burning factories in the United States and Europe during the 1960s, ’70s and ’80s cooled the entire Northern Hemisphere, shifting tropical rain bands south. ”
The first says that the Northern Hemisphere temps were ‘steady’, i.e., they didn’t warm or cool. The second says the Northern Hemisphere cooled and that is what affected the Sahel. If the first statement is accurate, then how did the Northern Hemisphere temps shift tropical rain bands south?
Your title for this post should begin with “Academic Consensus Scientists say…” The report is really just the conflation of two false academic streams I was made aware of 20 years ago, 1) the war on coal-burning power plants, and 2) the war on “greenhouse” carbon dioxide emissions. Surprisingly, I have made contributions toward a better understanding of the real physics in both of these areas, first with 1) my earlier work on analysis of IMPROVE (Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments) aerosol measurements (see Huffman, “Atmospheric Environment”, Vol. 30-1, Jan. 1996, pp. 73-83 and pp. 85-99)–which indicated diesel fuel-burning emissions as the big culprit in aerosol pollution, away from urban centers, along with internal mixing of added sulfates–from natural and agricultural sources, not the typically scrubbed emissions from coal-burning plants) and 2) in 2010 and afterwards, with my Venus/Earth temperatures comparison (which disproved the carbon dioxide “greenhouse effect”, with the definitive evidence of not just one, but two detailed atmospheres). They are beating two dead horses at once, totally unwilling to admit the science has failed utterly.