Letter | Published:

Enhanced land–sea warming contrast elevates aerosol pollution in a warmer world

Nature Climate Change (2019) | Download Citation

Abstract

Many climate models simulate an increase in anthropogenic aerosol species in response to warming1, particularly over the Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes during June, July and August. Recently, it has been argued that this increase in anthropogenic aerosols can be linked to a decrease in wet removal associated with reduced precipitation2, but the mechanisms remain uncertain. Here, using a state-of-the-art climate model (the Community Atmosphere Model version 5), we expand on this notion to demonstrate that the enhanced aerosol burden and hydrological changes are related to a robust climate change phenomenon—the land–sea warming contrast3,4. Enhanced land warming is associated with continental reductions in lower-tropospheric humidity that drive decreases in low clouds—particularly large scale (stratus) clouds—which, in turn, lead to reduced large-scale precipitation and aerosol wet removal. Idealized model simulations further show that muting the land–sea warming contrast weakens these hydrological changes, thereby suppressing the aerosol increase. Moreover, idealized simulations that only feature land warming yield enhanced continental aridity and an increase in aerosol burden. Thus, unless anthropogenic emission reductions occur, our results add confidence that a warmer world will be associated with enhanced aerosol pollution.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Code availability

The codes used to process the CAM5 simulations are available from R.J.A.

Data availability

CAM5 data and simulations are available from R.J.A.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  1. 1.

    Westervelt, D. et al. Quantifying PM2.5-meteorology sensitivities in a global climate model. Atmos. Environ. 142, 43–56 (2016).

  2. 2.

    Allen, R. J., Landuyt, W. & Rumbold, S. T. An increase in aerosol burden and radiative effects in a warmer world. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 269–274 (2016).

  3. 3.

    Sutton, R. T., Dong, B. & Gregory, J. M.Land/sea warming ratio in response to climate change: IPCC AR4 model results and comparison with observations.Geophys. Res. Lett. 34, L02701 (2007).

  4. 4.

    Boer, G. The ratio of land to ocean temperature change under global warming. Clim. Dynam. 37, 2253–2270 (2011).

  5. 5.

    Bond, T. C. et al. Historical emissions of black and organic carbon aerosol from energy-related combustion, 1850–2000. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 21, GB2018 (2007).

  6. 6.

    Boucher, O. et al. in Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (eds Stocker, T. F. et al.) 571–657 (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).

  7. 7.

    Ramanathan, V., Crutzen, P., Kiehl, J. & Rosenfeld, D. Aerosols, climate, and the hydrological cycle. Science 294, 2119–2124 (2001).

  8. 8.

    Lelieveld, J., Evans, J. S., Fnais, M., Giannadaki, D. & Pozzer, A. The contribution of outdoor air pollution sources to premature mortality on a global scale. Nature 525, 367–371 (2015).

  9. 9.

    Vecchi, G. A. & Soden, B. J. Global warming and the weakening of the tropical circulation. J. Clim. 20, 4316–4340 (2007).

  10. 10.

    Held, I. M. & Soden, B. J. Robust responses of the hydrological cycle to global warming. J. Clim. 19, 5686–5699 (2006).

  11. 11.

    Pye, H. et al. Effect of changes in climate and emissions on future sulfate‐nitrate‐ammonium aerosol levels in the United States.J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 114, D01205 (2009).

  12. 12.

    Racherla, P. N. & Adams, P. J. Sensitivity of global tropospheric ozone and fine particulate matter concentrations to climate change.J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 111, D24103 (2006).

  13. 13.

    Fang, Y. et al. The impacts of changing transport and precipitation on pollutant distributions in a future climate.J. Geophys. Res. Lett. 116, D18303 (2011).

  14. 14.

    Lamarque, J.-F. et al. The Atmospheric Chemistry and Climate Model Intercomparison Project (ACCMIP): overview and description of models, simulations and climate diagnostics. Geosci. Model Dev. 6, 179–206 (2013).

  15. 15.

    Silva, R. A. et al. Future global mortality from changes in air pollution attributable to climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 647–651 (2017).

  16. 16.

    Textor, C. et al. Analysis and quantification of the diversities of aerosol life cycles within AeroCom. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 6, 1777–1813 (2006).

  17. 17.

    Allen, R. J. & Landuyt, W. The vertical distribution of black carbon in CMIP5 models: comparison to observations and the importance of convective transport. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 119, 4808–4835 (2014).

  18. 18.

    Byrne, M. P. & O’Gorman, P. A. Land–ocean warming contrast over a wide range of climates: convective quasi-equilibrium theory and idealized simulations. J. Clim. 26, 4000–4016 (2013).

  19. 19.

    Byrne, M. P. & O’Gorman, P. A. Link between land–ocean warming contrast and surface relative humidities in simulations with coupled climate models. Geophys. Res. Lett. 40, 5223–5227 (2013).

  20. 20.

    Joshi, M. & Gregory, J. Dependence of the land‐sea contrast in surface climate response on the nature of the forcing.Geophys. Res. Lett. 35, L24802 (2008).

  21. 21.

    Fasullo, J. T. Robust land–ocean contrasts in energy and water cycle feedbacks. J. Clim. 23, 4677–4693 (2010).

  22. 22.

    Clark, R. T., Murphy, J. M. & Brown, S. J. Do global warming targets limit heatwave risk?. Geophys. Res. Lett. 37, L17703 (2010).

  23. 23.

    Neale, R. B. et al. Description of the NCAR Community Atmosphere Model (CAM 5.0) (NCAR, 2012).

  24. 24.

    Atlas, E. & Giam, C. Ambient concentration and precipitation scavenging of atmospheric organic pollutants. Water Air Soil Pollut. 38, 19–36 (1988).

  25. 25.

    Rowell, D. P. & Jones, R. G. Causes and uncertainty of future summer drying over Europe. Clim. Dynam. 27, 281–299 (2006).

  26. 26.

    Simmons, A., Willett, K., Jones, P. & Dee, D. Low‐frequency variations in surface atmospheric humidity, temperature, and precipitation: inferences from reanalyses and monthly gridded observational data sets.J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 115, D01110 (2010).

  27. 27.

    Byrne, M. P. & O’Gorman, P. A. Understanding decreases in land relative humidity with global warming: conceptual model and GCM simulations. J. Clim. 29, 9045–9061 (2016).

  28. 28.

    Joshi, M., Lambert, F. & Webb, M. An explanation for the difference between twentieth and twenty-first century land–sea warming ratio in climate models. Clim. Dynam. 41, 1853–1869 (2013).

  29. 29.

    Allen, R. & Zender, C. The role of eastern Siberian snow and soil moisture anomalies in quasi‐biennial persistence of the Arctic and North Atlantic Oscillations.J. Geophys. Res. 116, D16125 (2011).

  30. 30.

    Sejas, S. A., Albert, O. S., Cai, M. & Deng, Y. Feedback attribution of the land–sea warming contrast in a global warming simulation of the NCAR CCSM4. Environ. Res. Lett. 9, 124005 (2014).

  31. 31.

    Chang, E. K., Guo, Y., Xia, X. & Zheng, M. Storm-track activity in IPCC AR4/CMIP3 model simulations. J. Clim. 26, 246–260 (2013).

  32. 32.

    Chang, E. K., Guo, Y. & Xia, X. CMIP5 multimodel ensemble projection of storm track change under global warming.J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 117, D23118 (2012).

  33. 33.

    Liu, X. et al. Toward a minimal representation of aerosols in climate models: description and evaluation in the Community Atmosphere Model CAM5. Geosci. Model Dev. 5, 709–739 (2012).

  34. 34.

    Rasch, P. et al. A comparison of scavenging and deposition processes in global models: results from the WCRP Cambridge Workshop of 1995. Tellus B 52, 1025–1056 (2000).

  35. 35.

    Hou, P., Wu, S., McCarty, J. L. & Gao, Y. Sensitivity of atmospheric aerosol scavenging to precipitation intensity and frequency in the context of global climate change. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 18, 8173–8182 (2018).

  36. 36.

    Emmons, L. K. et al. Description and evaluation of the Model for Ozone and Related chemical Tracers, version 4 (MOZART-4). Geosci. Model Dev. 3, 43–67 (2010).

Download references

Acknowledgements

T.H. is supported in part by the Fellowships and Internships in Extremely Large Data Sets programme, which is funded by the NASA MUREP Institutional Research Opportunity and developed by the University of California, Riverside and NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory. R.J.A., T.H. and C.A.R. also acknowledge support from the ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company. H.S. is supported by the NASA ACMAP programme, and conducted the work at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with NASA.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Earth Sciences, University of California, Riverside, Riverside, CA, USA

    • Robert J. Allen
    •  & Taufiq Hassan
  2. ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company, Annandale, NJ, USA

    • Cynthia A. Randles
  3. Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, USA

    • Hui Su

Authors

  1. Search for Robert J. Allen in:

  2. Search for Taufiq Hassan in:

  3. Search for Cynthia A. Randles in:

  4. Search for Hui Su in:

Contributions

R.J.A. conceived the project, designed the study and performed the CAM5 simulations. R.J.A. and T.H. led the writing of the paper. T.H. carried out the data analysis and figure construction. C.A.R. and H.S. advised on interpretation of the results. All authors discussed the results and commented on the manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert J. Allen.

Supplementary information

  1. Supplementary Information

    Supplementary Discussion, Supplementary Table 1, Supplementary Figures 1–11

About this article

Publication history

Received

Accepted

Published

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0401-4