Can smoke from fires intensify tornadoes? Study finds smoke from Central America intensified 2011 tornadoes

“Yes,” say University of Iowa researchers, who examined the effects of smoke–resulting from spring agricultural land-clearing fires in Central America–transported across the Gulf of Mexico and encountering tornado conditions already in process in the United States.
The UI study, published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, examined the smoke impacts on a historic severe weather outbreak that occurred during the afternoon and evening of April 27, 2011. The weather event produced 122 tornadoes, resulted in 313 deaths across the southeastern United States, and is considered the most severe event of its kind since 1950.
The outbreak was caused mainly by environmental conditions leading to a large potential for tornado formation and conducive to supercells, a type of thunderstorm. However, smoke particles intensified these conditions, according to co-lead authors Gregory Carmichael, professor of chemical and biochemical engineering, and Pablo Saide, Center for Global and Regional Environmental Research (CGRER) postdoctoral fellow.
They say the smoke lowered the base of the clouds and increased wind shear, defined as wind speed variations with respect to altitude. Together, those two conditions increased the likelihood of more severe tornadoes. The effects of smoke on these conditions had not been previously described, and the study found a novel mechanism to explain these interactions.
“These results are of great importance, as it is the first study to show smoke influence on tornado severity in a real case scenario. Also, severe weather prediction centers do not include atmospheric particles and their effects in their models, and we show that they should at least consider it,” says Carmichael.
“We show the smoke influence for one tornado outbreak, so in the future we will analyze smoke effects for other outbreaks on the record to see if similar impacts are found and under which conditions they occur,” says Saide. “We also plan to work along with model developers and institutions in charge of forecasting to move forward in the implementation, testing and incorporation of these effects on operational weather prediction models.”
In order to make their findings, the researchers ran computer simulations based upon data recorded during the 2011 event. One type of simulation included smoke and its effect on solar radiation and clouds, while the other omitted smoke. In fact, the simulation including the smoke resulted in a lowered cloud base and greater wind shear.
Future studies will focus on gaining a better understanding of the impacts of smoke on near-storm environments and tornado occurrence, intensity, and longevity, adds Carmichael, who also serves as director of the Iowa Informatics Initiative and co-director of CGRER.
###
Paper co-authors are Scott Spak ofthe UI Departments of Urban and Regional Planning and Civil and Environmental Engineering; Bradley Pierce and Andrew Heidinger of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Satellite and Information Service Center for Satellite Applications and Research; Jason Otkin and Todd Schaack of the Cooperative Institute for Meteorological Satellite Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison; Arlindo da Silva of NASA Goddard Space Flight Center; and Meloë Kacenelenbogen and Jens Redemann of NASA.
The paper “Central American biomass burning smoke can increase tornado severity in the U.S.” can be found at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL062826/abstract?campaign=wolacceptedarticle.
The research was funded by grants from NASA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Institutes of Health, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Fulbright-CONICYT scholarship program in Chile.
Did the South Americans burn significantly more biomass that year?
Computer simulations. What else need be said?
Which part of Central America started the fires?
Are they saying that Mexico and Texas are part of Central America? Hmmmm…..
Mexico is. Texas will be again : )
Re the above map: No Central America.
Explain to me how the particles would increase wind shear? I thought wind was caused by either warm air rising and cold air rushing in, or the high pressure/low pressure difference (and those may be related somehow, but my physical science is a bit rusty). I can see how more particulates in the air might make a cloud heavier and therefore lower, but the wind shear thing doesn’t make sense to me.
You are obviously not up with current events! The Models SAID SO!
Weird
Why is it that I suddenly hear Billy Joel’s “We Didn’t Start the Fire”. Obviously the problem is not 1st world co2, but 3rd world slash and burn. What can stop that? Modern, gasoline/diesel powered equipment. Nuf said.
And here I was hearing Deep Purple – “smoke on the water, fire in the sky”
Thank God for grant money, or we wouldn’t be able to enjoy all this simulation. Sadly, though, they actually take their effort seriously.
I suppose someone got the idea to research smoke when they saw the smoke they blew out from the last inhale of the joint caused a “vortex” to form in the air(smoke ring) and said “wow, man, that’s like a flat tornado. You suppose smoke from Central America can intensify tornadoes? We gotta get us a grant and see if we can simulate that on a computer. Anyone got any more of this weed?”
Did anyone measure the cloud base, and discern whether it was, in fact, significantly lower than other historical cloud base levels in otherwise similar storms?
After all, scientists know that model predictions require verification in physical reality before they get assigned any meaning.
The same question entered my mind. Then I read:
Then they write a paper based on “one tornado outbreak”, based on a model simulation. I’m not saying their conclusion is not right, I’d like to see OBSERVATIONS for future outbreaks, not simulations of past outbreaks. Just my 2 cents.
I hope the researchers are correct as this would be a blowback to alarmists’ claims that global warming made the outbreak more intense.
Jimbo, globull warming caused the fires and smoke.
All I know is, at this moment in time, it’s hard to keep focused on the comments while trying to keep my eyes from being drawn inexorably to the horror displayed in the sidebar.
(Probably go to hell for saying that.)
Beat me to it, Alan. I came to WUWT to read.
Lest anyone think I was commenting about Oreskes’ looks, I don’t give a good damn about what she looks like. If she looked like Daryl Hannah, she would be equally repulsive. As a matter of fact, DH’s coziness to James Hansen and his grotesque political theater makes her repulsive, despite her looks.
I just enlarge the typing and she goes away.
Alan,
I had the same reaction…. Perhaps it’s designed to create the internal reaction “What the hell is THAT?” and count on morbid curiosity to get the individual to ‘click on it’.
Didn’t work, though. I don’t stop to look at dead animals along the highway either.
I came to my realization about this matter (comment at 6:07pm) after reflection and realized that the true turnoff about Naomi had nothing to do with any superficialities, such as appearance. If looks were what really mattered, none of my friends or associates would have any thing at all to do with me.
Alan,
I didn’t recognize her at all. What I saw was a smirking and obviously well-to-do woman engaged in some sort of dumb protest over who-knows-what. I saw lots of that stupidity as a student at University of Wisconsin-Madison back in the early/mid ’80s, as I worked my way through a couple of engineering degrees. It has the same appeal to me as ‘road kill’.
What an ugly and vile human being, and that’s got nothing to do with her looks.
I too have been wronged.
Does that guy know somebody wrote something on his forehead?
For more violent tornados you need more work to be done by the atmosphere. The work that can be done is proportional to the temperature difference. So unless pollution can increase the temperature differences in the system I don’t see how tornados can become more intense.
Hi Rod
Temperature = electric potential at work . The faster the electron moves the more work it can do.
Don’t get that, it requires a temperature difference to produce work. Think internal combustion engines, stirling engines, hurricanes etc.
Work is momentum or Kinetic energy http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/PY106/Potential.html And like I said temperature is governed by the momentum of the electrons . These links may help http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavity_magnetron
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/thermalP/Lesson-1/Methods-of-Heat-Transfer
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/temptr.html
http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/PY106/Potential.html
Is this just another sneaky attempt to link AGW sceptics with the tobacco lobby?
Tobacco already linked to GW:
Gore: Cigarette Smoking Causes Global Warming
Never mind that algore’s family money came from tobacco.
As well as oil and coal.
I’ll take on the term “miscreant” gladly, if anyone would just set the rules of the game.
We gonna play nice, or is it no holds barred ?
The only thing that males any sense here is that man causes the smoke ergo man causes incresed tornado intensity. ATI. Anthropogenic Tornado Intensity. Alarm! Alarm!
So 2011 was the only year that they carried out slash and burn and caused worse tornadoes or was it the only year they looked at. I’m sure that there must be satellite DATA on the smoke from other years and plenty of DATA on tornadoes in other years so why rely on just one year and models unless they don’t make frightening reading?
James Bull
“They say the smoke lowered the base of the clouds”
And the tops. And the breadth. And density. And timing of creation.
Meh. This takes cherry picking to a whole new level. I think there is much more to cloud creation than CCN availability. So there is assumption built on assumption as a basis for this paper.
This only tells us that particulate matter in the atmosphere may impact weather events. Something skeptics have been saying for a long while. In any event, the chances of this type of research providing any real insight into the formation and life of a totally chaotic system like a tornado is just about the square root of nothing,
More useless busy work.
It is time for them to go back, research tornado history, find the many examples of massive tornado outbreaks, and then tell us how many of these occurred during months when no burning was evident. Computer geeks have no interest in history!
So, in 2011 we had 122 tornadoes, but back 1950 we also had a high number of tornadoes during “tornadoes season”. From article; “We show the smoke influence for one tornado outbreak,” (out of 122 tornadoes). All because of spring agricultural land-clearing fires in Central America.
Question: Did the spring agricultural land-clearing fires in Central America stop sometime back in the 50’s and then start again in 2011? .
” In fact, the simulation including the smoke resulted in a lowered cloud base and greater wind shear.”
Because that’s how it was programmed. Was there an actual lowering of the cloud base at the time and location of the tornadoes? No-one knows. And wind shear is not air moving at different velocities it is air moving in different directions; the velocities may or may not be different.
From the map it looks like the Gulf of Mexico was engulfed in fires that spring. How odd!
Is this an attempt to substantiate the chaos theory ‘butterfly effect’?
Come to think of it, doesn’t the monarch butterfly migration from central/south America coincide with tornado season in the USA heartland? All those wings….. headed north and east… each spring.
http://www.fs.fed.us/wildflowers/pollinators/Monarch_Butterfly/migration/index.shtml
http://tinyurl.com/ldxme97
Make a model, get a grant, make some money………
The research was funded by grants from NASA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Institutes of Health, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Fulbright-CONICYT scholarship program in Chile
I think, if there is a correlation, they totally missed the point.
Water molecules form around airborne particles: pollen, dust, microbes and yes Soot! No new revelation there. Point is that with high temperature differences between the two air masses the storm intensifies. If more particles are introduced will the storm intensity increase? The height of the storm causes the intensity to increase, known fact. Will a few hundred feet down increase the intensity or does several thousand feet on top increase it more?
The study seems to throw every fact known about thunderstorms out the window and insert a heaping helping of AGWBS
That old canard comes to mind: “correlation does not equal causation”.
Those researchers all have impressive titles… and it all escapes me, but I’m the dumbest guy that I know.
What is there about you that makes all those smart people hang out with you, Alan?
Do the dust storms from the deserts cause more severe tornadoes?
An increase in precipitation is the only correlation one can draw
Monday funnies? Can it get any worse? One years models prove a theory? GHUA.