Asia's air pollution may be keeping tropical storm activity down

Aerosol_optical_depth
Above, May 2013 Aerosol Optical Depth. Uou can see the United States and Europe is relatively clear, while Asia has high amounts of aerosols. Image: NASA Earth Observatory

From the Law of Unintended Consequences and The Clean Air Act, comes this bit of news. Since the 1970’s The Clean Air Act has benefited breathing in many American cities with tangible results (just look at Los Angeles), but it may have had a role in increasing tropical storm activity.

This new paper suggests that due to the reduction of aerosols and particulates in the atmosphere might have been the main cause of a recent increase in tropical storm frequency in the North Atlantic.

Aerosol levels have increased since the start of industrial revolution, but as we know there have been periods when aerosol emissions declined; the Great Depression, World War II and after clean air legislation was enacted in Europe and the United States in the 1970s and 1980s.

The paper suggests that these periods of reduced emissions eventually increased tropical storm frequency.

Anthropogenic aerosol forcing of Atlantic tropical storms

N. J. Dunstone, et al. Nature Geoscience (2013) doi:10.1038/ngeo1854

Received 04 December 2012 Accepted 15 May 2013 Published online 23 June 2013

The frequency of tropical storms in the North Atlantic region varies markedly on decadal timescales1, 2, 3, 4, with profound socio-economic impacts5, 6. Climate models largely reproduce the observed variability when forced by observed sea surface temperatures1, 8, 10. However, the relative importance of natural variability and external influences such as greenhouse gases, dust, sulphate and volcanic aerosols on sea surface temperatures, and hence tropical storms, is highly uncertain11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. Here, we assess the effect of individual climate drivers on the frequency of North Atlantic tropical storms between 1860 and 2050, using simulations from a collection of climate models17. We show that anthropogenic aerosols lowered the frequency of tropical storms over the twentieth century. However, sharp declines in anthropogenic aerosol levels over the North Atlantic at the end of the twentieth century allowed the frequency of tropical storms to increase. In simulations with a model that comprehensively incorporates aerosol effects (HadGEM2-ES; ref. 18), decadal variability in tropical storm frequency is well reproduced through aerosol-induced north–south shifts in the Hadley circulation. However, this mechanism changes in future projections. Our results raise the possibility that external factors, particularly anthropogenic aerosols, could be the dominant cause of historical tropical storm variability, and highlight the potential importance of future changes in aerosol emissions.

h/t to Marc Hendrickx

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
34 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Gail Combs
June 26, 2013 5:06 am

David vun Kannon says:
June 25, 2013 at 12:12 pm
Anthony writes nice things about EPA regulation and climate models, the fanbase becomes restless.
REPLY: hey, I call ‘em as I see ‘em – Anthony
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Anthony lives in CA and is old enough to remember the smog. I lived in Rochester New York and am old enough to remember when the Genesee River ran in multicolored ribbons of bright colors, stank to high heaven and nothing grew on the banks of the river.
We in the USA needed to clean up our act. However the EPA as is true of most bureaucracies is interested in preserving its turf, reason for existence and also in expanding. The more people under you the higher the pay grade.

June 26, 2013 7:07 am

The biggest aerosol impact on the Atlantic should be Saharan dust storms:
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2006/s2719.htm
NASA was looking at sea surface temperatures:
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/cooling_dust.html
but recently seems to be focussed on cloud formation:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hurricanes/missions/hs3/news/saharan-dust.html

beng
June 26, 2013 9:07 am

And modelers think aerosols have decreased globally since the 70s? They have in Europe & NA, but increased everywhere else. Aerosols are higher now, globally, than ever. Stuff that into your “models”.
And where are all the current Indonesian aerosols on that map? Guess it just started in June…

daddyjames
June 26, 2013 11:49 am

As this study indicates, the inclusion of pollution (aerosols) data into the climate model better predicted historical hurricane activity in the Atlantic, more so than using natural climatic events.
Increased level of aerosols were consistent with decreased levels of hurricane activity,more so than was found from natural cycles. So, increased levels of aerosols influenced the climatic conditions that determine whether or not tropical storms develop and intensify into hurricanes.
Then, explain to me why changes in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would not have an effect on climate and weather patterns over a period of time? Why would it not be prudent to adopt measures to mitigate the impact that human activity has on increasing levels of CO2 ?

June 26, 2013 4:10 pm

daddyjames says:
“Increased level of aerosols were consistent with decreased levels of hurricane activity,more so than was found from natural cycles.”
It hard to imagine pollution competing with Saharan dust plumes through the Summer months:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/GlobalMaps/view.php?d1=MODAL2_M_AER_OD
Theoretically, colder winters result would in more dust storms, reducing tropical cyclone numbers, and very active seasons would follow very mild winters.

daddyjames
June 26, 2013 5:32 pm

@Ulric Lyons
All I can encourage you to do is read the study and see what natural sources were taken into account.

JPeden
June 27, 2013 4:26 pm

daddyjames says:
June 26, 2013 at 11:49 am
“So, increased levels of aerosols influenced the climatic conditions that determine whether or not tropical storms develop and intensify into hurricanes.Then, explain to me why changes in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would not have an effect on climate and weather patterns over a period of time? Why would it not be prudent to adopt measures to mitigate the impact that human activity has on increasing levels of CO2 ?”
1] Because CO2 is not considered to be an “aerosol” by Climate Science. It’s not even a real pollutant…and,
2] “Mainstream” Climate Science’s CO2 as “driver” of climate hypotheses have a 100% prediction failure rate. That means their idea is falsified. No detectable forcing effect of CO2 has been found in the empirical data of the real world. Moreover, there is nothing new going on in the current, post 1950 allegedly CO2-forced climate, as compared to the pre-CO2-forced climate.

Gail Combs
June 27, 2013 4:44 pm

I will add
#3. The catastrophic effect of CO2 was based on a model where water vapor is a feedback of CO2 and as CO2 increase so does water vapor. This is how the climate sensitivity of CO2 was multiplied by a factor of 3X. This key feedback also fail to respond as predicted.
Graph: Global Relativity Humidity
Graph: NOAA Specific Humidity 37 month running average

June 28, 2013 2:47 am

daddyjames says:
“@Ulric Lyons
All I can encourage you to do is read the study and see what natural sources were taken into account.”
I’m put off reading any further as they present an aerosol map for May, before the hurricane season, while in the following months, there are large Saharan dust plumes across the Atlantic:
http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/globalmaps/data/MODAL2_M_AER_OD/MODAL2_M_AER_OD_2012-07.JPEG
http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/globalmaps/data/MODAL2_M_AER_OD/MODAL2_M_AER_OD_2012-08.JPEG