Story submitted by Eric Worrall
A new study from NASA’s JPL claims Asian air pollution causes worse storms in North America, especially during winter.
![beijing_smog_2[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/beijing_smog_21.jpg?quality=83)
Lead author Yuan Wang, from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory at the California Institute of Technology, said: “The effects are quite dramatic. The pollution results in thicker and taller clouds and heavier precipitation.”
The team said that tiny polluting particles were blown towards the north Pacific where they interacted with water droplets in the air.
Dr Yuan Wang said: “Since the Pacific storm track is an important component in the global general circulation, the impacts of Asian pollution on the storm track tend to affect the weather patterns of other parts of the world during the wintertime, especially a downstream region [of the track] like North America.”
Source: http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27027876
Assessing the effects of anthropogenic aerosols on Pacific storm track using a multiscale global climate model
Significance
Increasing levels of air pollutants in Asia have recently drawn considerable attention, but the effects of Asian pollution outflows on regional climate and global atmospheric circulation remain to be quantified. Using a multiscale global aerosol–climate model (GCM), we demonstrate long-range transport of the Asian pollution, large resulting variations in the aerosol optical depth, cloud droplet number concentration, and cloud and ice water paths; enhanced shortwave and longwave cloud radiative forcings; and increased precipitation and poleward heat transport. Our work provides, for the first time to the authors’ knowledge, a global multiscale perspective of the climatic effects of pollution outflows from Asia. The results reveal that the multiscale modeling framework is essential in simulating the aerosol invigoration effect of deep convective cloud systems by a GCM.
Abstract
Atmospheric aerosols affect weather and global general circulation by modifying cloud and precipitation processes, but the magnitude of cloud adjustment by aerosols remains poorly quantified and represents the largest uncertainty in estimated forcing of climate change. Here we assess the effects of anthropogenic aerosols on the Pacific storm track, using a multiscale global aerosol–climate model (GCM). Simulations of two aerosol scenarios corresponding to the present day and preindustrial conditions reveal long-range transport of anthropogenic aerosols across the north Pacific and large resulting changes in the aerosol optical depth, cloud droplet number concentration, and cloud and ice water paths. Shortwave and longwave cloud radiative forcing at the top of atmosphere are changed by −2.5 and +1.3 W m−2, respectively, by emission changes from preindustrial to present day, and an increased cloud top height indicates invigorated midlatitude cyclones. The overall increased precipitation and poleward heat transport reflect intensification of the Pacific storm track by anthropogenic aerosols. Hence, this work provides, for the first time to the authors’ knowledge, a global perspective of the effects of Asian pollution outflows from GCMs. Furthermore, our results suggest that the multiscale modeling framework is essential in producing the aerosol invigoration effect of deep convective clouds on a global scale.
The full paper:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Naughty asians – stop polluting the air or you’ll go blind…
My tax dollars at work. Bunk….
OMG, They are trying to setup a nucleation scenario like the Cape Verde. That is quite silly.
Another model fantasy masquerading as science. Bad models, using fabricated aerosol data and forcing values, paid for by other people’s hard earned money.
Parasites.
Is there evidence in the form of measurable Pacific storms to support this? It would not appear so. Which raises the question as to why this was not noted in the report.
” modelled pre-industrial conditions”
In Asia, people burn coal and coke in buckets to keep warm as they have for centuries. They also burn whatever else they can get, especially dried animal dung. What “pre-industrial conditions”?
This is our fault for sending all our manufacturing and smoke stack jobs to the orient. It’s always our fault.
Yes, we can see direct evidence of this from the fact that while China’s pollution has been horrible the past couple of years, last year saw the fewest number of tornadoes ever recorded and this year is even lower than last year at this time. This is because the Chinese pollution causes severe anti-storms. Anti-storms are a sort of massive weather event that completely cancels out tornadoes and they are absolutely horrible. It is estimated that anti-storms kill somewhere around 2.5 million Americans every year but the number is hard to pinpoint. This is because anti-storms have no clouds, no wind, and really no indication that they are there except for the lack of tornadoes and other severe weather.
Congress is now working on a bill to allocate some $200 billion dollars annually to the study of these anti-storms and what impact Chinese pollution might have on them. Supporters are lining up now to ensure these research grants go out to the people who can do the most good. A recently formed Center for the Study of Anti-Storms has currently hired lobbyists thanks to a grant from Warren Buffett who plans to invest in anti-anti-Storm technologies. His first investment is in super reinforced tornado shelters that President Obama is expected to mandate be installed in every home in the United States. Mr. Obama has also expressed support of building a 1,000 foot high wall around the state of Oklahoma. When asked about the expected impact of the wall, he replied “It depends on how fast that Okie was driving when he hit it”.
When asked about how they were going to pay for this research, Nancy Pelosi became quite animated in her expression of horror that anyone would possibly get in the way of such an important project and that if it saves even one life then it is worth it. “Think of the children”, she repeated several times. Harry Reid couldn’t be reached for comment as he was busy negotiation the relocation of turtles to an area that had until recently been a Nevada ranch.
Thank you crosspatch. I will be alert to the increase in Chinese pollution caused Anti-Storms. Are there perchance any Super-Anti-Storms? Perhaps we could name them. Oh wait, maybe that wouldn’t work….
This just in, Pelosi has offered a breakthrough compromise where the new anti-storm research legislation will be paid for by a “breathing fee” levied on each American citizen. Those who consume the most air will pay the most money. There will be special surcharges on owners of airplanes, automobiles and vacuum cleaners for the air they consume.
Yes. There are super-anti-storms. You can see them best when there is a lack of them. For example, there was not a super-anti-storm in 2012 when Sandy struck the coast of NY and NJ. The reason we don’t have superstorms in most every other year is that they are blocked by the formation of super-anti-storms caused by a combination of Chinese and US pollution. As we are now seeing a reduction in US pollution, it has been suggested that this might be the reason for the lack of development of one in 2012.
Meanwhile in the UK global warming makes record number of UK beaches cleaner.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27020401
Wait a minute. Didn’t the UK have torrential rains and flooding?
So let me get this straight — water quality is great today in April because of a lack of rain last summer but “Biblical” rains in February DON’T cause pollution to filter down from towns and cities to the coasts? Are these people insane? (that was rhetorical)
http://www.westerndailypress.co.uk/PM-stunned-biblical-flood-scene/story-20587548-detail/story.html
Crosspatch, I think the study was made during last summer.
Here is another effect of ‘climate change’. 😉
But what’s this two months later?
By the way 2013 was the hottest and driest summer since 2006 according to the Met Office. Less sea pollution and a boost in butterfly numbers. Warm is good, cold and wet not so much.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2013/early-summer-stats
Yells: “CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION!”
Relieved: “Next!”
Can NASA’s JPL take this study to its next logical conclusion?
It would seem apparent that a reduction in North American air pollution would cause a lessening of storms in Europe, especially during winter.
Oh wait, Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming only goes in one direction.
Grant-pimping.
Crosspatch said: “Those who consume the most air will pay the most money…special surcharges on owners of airplanes, automobiles and vacuum cleaners”
Forgot diesel engines, they are such air hogs. Although one could argue an exemption for vacuum cleaners since they don’t really “consume” air. The air is just a working fluid, and expelled relatively unaltered. (assuming HEPA filtration).
After this winter (this in honor of Detroit setting its all-time snowfall record today), I think there are a lot of people in California who would welcome “worse” storms.
Hey, in the late 1970s, aerosols were partly blamed for the impending glaciation. And increased rainfall downwind of industrial aerosols. I suspect it won’t be long before someone uses this study to blame CO2 releases (and its concomitant aerosols) for the global warming pause.
Another example of writing a program to find what you are looking for and acting surprised when it finds it. I think we need to power down the generators that are powering up these computers that they use and that should cut down on that nasty old CO2 a little!
Straight away I can debunk this paper. Total aerosol load is largely made of natural sourced dust and sea spray particles which vary in concert with atmospheric oscillations teleconnected to oceanic oscillations. Manmade particulate increase/decrease is very, very small compared to normal oscillations from natural intrinsic sources (think natural droughts, natural trade wind oscillations, etc).
This paper makes the same mistake others have made. Turning natural and necessary components of our ocsillating atmosphere into things we should get rid of. We would all be in dire straights without CO2 AND aerosols.
Idiots.
The theory presented in this “study” makes sense to me; that the rapidly increasing pollution there makes its way over here and affects our weather — somehow. But to study it using models only is not science.
Does Asian particulate remain entrained long enough to cross the Pacific? The quantities over there are significant, worse than Gary IN in the 70’s, which lends some credibility to this, to me anyway. I will endeavor to answer my own question…
Good. Thicker, taller clouds are a negative forcing, increasing the earth’s albedo. More clouds, more cooling per Svensmark.