Comments on 'The 'Elevated Heat Pump' Hypothesis for the Aerosol-Monsoon Hydroclimate Link: 'Grounded' in Observations?' by S. Nigam and M. Bollasina

In their recent paper Nigam and Bollasina [2010, hereafter NB] claimed to have found observational evidences that are at variance with the Elevated Heat Pump (EHP) hypothesis regarding the possible impacts of absorbing aerosols on the South Asian summer monsoon [Lau et al., 2006; Lau and Km 2006). We found NB's arguments and inferences against the EHP hypothesis flawed, stemming from a lack of understanding and an out-of-context interpretation of the hypothesis. It was argued that the simultaneous negative correlation of aerosol with rainfall, and correlations with other quantities in May as evidences against the EHP hypothesis. They cannot be more wrong in that argument. First, Lau and Kim [2006, hereafter, LKO6] never stated that the main rainfall response to EHP is in May. Second, the EHP is about responses of the entire Indian monsoon system that are non-local in space and time with respect to the aerosol forcing. Third, the correlation maps shown in NB, including the increased convection over the Bay of Bengal is not the response to EHP but rather represents the large-scale circulation that provides the build-up of the aerosols, before the onset of the monsoon rainfall over India. Because aerosol can only accumulate where there is little or no wash-out by rain, the negative correlation is a necessary condition for increased atmospheric loading of aerosols.