
From the Vienna University of Technology , what appears to be a negative drought feedback mechanism has been observed.
Summer rain more likely over drier soils
Summer rain is more likely over drier soil – this is the conclusion scientists have drawn from a detailed analysis of satellite data. State-of-the-art computer models predict the opposite effect; these models must now be reconsidered, says the study published in the journal “Nature“. Several international research groups were involved in the project: The Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (Wallingford, UK), the VU University Amsterdam, the Center of Meteorology CNRM in Toulouse, and the Vienna University of Technology.
Convective Showers: Hot Air Moves Up
Frontal rain systems, moving from the ocean across the land, can lead to rain over large areas. Summer showers, which frequently occur at the end of a hot day, are often restricted to a rather small region. This kind of rain is a completely different phenomenon. Instead of moving across the land, the air moves from the hot ground upwards, forming clouds high up in the air, and finally leading to rain. This is called “convective precipitation”.
Does Soil Moisture Lead to More Rain?
“It’s tempting to assume that moist soils lead to higher evaporation, which in turn stimulates more precipitation”, says Wouter Dorigo (Vienna University of Technology), one of the authors of the study. “This would imply that there is a positive feedback loop: moist soils lead to even more rain, whereas dry regions tend to remain dry.” But observations suggest otherwise: “We have analyzed data from different satellites measuring soil moisture and precipitation all over the globe, with a resolution of 50 to 100 kilometers. These data show that convective precipitation is more likely over drier soils”, says Wouter Dorigo.
The new data contradicts established computer models. A conclusive explanation for this effect has yet to be found. “The air over dry soils heats up more easily. This could lead to a more intense vertical draft”, Dorigo suspects. However, this cannot yet be described at a sufficient level of detail with today’s computer simulations.
Microwaves from Space
Soil moisture can be measured with satellites using microwave radiation. Unlike visible light, microwaves can penetrate clouds. Satellites can either measure the Earth’s natural microwave radiation to calculate the local soil moisture (passive measurement) or the satellite sends out microwave pulses and measures how strongly the pulse is reflected by the surface (active measurement). From this data, the soil moisture can be calculated.
here’s a second press release:
From the Centre for Ecology & Hydrology
Parched soils trigger more storms
Afternoon storms are more likely to develop when soils are parched, according to a new study published this week in Nature which examined hydrological processes across six continents.
The results have important implications for the future development of global weather and climate models which may currently be simulating an excessive number of droughts.
The research team included scientists from the UK, Holland, Austria and France and was led by Dr Chris Taylor from the NERC Centre for Ecology & Hydrology in the UK.
The scientists examined imagery from weather satellites which track the development of storm clouds across the globe. When they matched up where new storms appeared alongside images of how wet the ground was, they were somewhat surprised.
Dr Chris Taylor from NERC Centre for Ecology & Hydrology said, “We had been looking at storms in Africa and knew that rain clouds there tended to brew up in places where it hadn’t rained in the previous few days. We were surprised to see a similar pattern occurring in other regions of the world such as the US and continental Europe. In those less extreme climates, with more vegetation cover, we expected the soil wetness effect would be too weak to identify.”
The researchers compared their observations with six global weather and climate models used to simulate climate change. They found that the existing models do the wrong thing, triggering rain over wetter soils.
The implication is that existing climate models are more likely to go into a vicious circle whereby dry soils decrease rainfall, leading to even drier soil conditions. The paper concludes that fixing this problem is a priority for scientists developing the climate models.
Dr Taylor added, “Both heat and moisture are critical ingredients for rain clouds to build up during the afternoon. On sunny days the land heats the air, creating thermals which reach several kilometres up into the atmosphere. If the soil is dry, the thermals are stronger, and our new research shows that this makes rain more likely.”
Co-author Dr Françoise Guichard from CNRM-GAME (CNRS and Meteo-France) said, “We need to improve climate models so that we get a better idea of what global climate change will mean on smaller regional scales over land.”
The research team came from the NERC Centre for Ecology & Hydrology in the UK, CNRM-GAME (CNRS and Meteo-France) in France, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam in the Netherlands, and the Vienna University of Technology in Austria.
OT, but today I saw our own Leif Svalgaard on a National Geographic Channel program called “Solar Force” (concerning solar effects on climate). Congrats & about time!
Maybe, Just maybe. Average is just that? Drier areas are apt to get moisture. Wetter areas not so much.
Complete nonsense. Yes, dry soil might heat up more than wet soil because the heat goes directly to warming the surface as opposed to evaporation. But look at the effects on dew point. The dew point is much lower over drier soils in the same air mass than over wetter soils. It’s not the heat, it’s the humidity!
john robertson says:
“Does anyone know of a naturally occurring positive feedback mechanism?”
They are quite common. Avalanches. Nuclear chain reactions. Ice albedo feedback.
Most of what rgb suggests is already common practice. In particular GCM resolution of 1 degree is considered coarse nowadays and is only used for first passes or very long paleoclimate runs. Here is a visualization of a run at 25 km. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlT6mJzNqEQ
Jay Davis on September 12, 2012 at 5:49 pm
I love the “models wrong” in the title.
————-
I know you love it but it’s not really down to models. The models simply incorporate what science is known at the time. So the real issue here is whether the basic science behind soil evaporation and rain is correct. I am betting there is a whole lot of research already done into the issue. This new paper appears to contradict that (hypothetical) research.
No doubt there will be some to and fro about whether this new paper is correct and under what conditions it is correct. It’s quite possible on a local scale in some geographies it’s is not correct and this may have led to faulty global conclusions.
john robertson says:
“Does anyone know of a naturally occurring positive feedback mechanism?”
Ice sheet elevation increases during cold periods causing increased snow/ice accumulation, and the reverse during warm periods.
Last month, global water vapour levels were 0.13 mms/m2 or 0.13 kg/m2 (0.6%) above average while the climate model runs included in IPCC AR5 were forecasting that it would be 6.1% above average by this time.
The ENSO, as the biggest weather phenomenon on the planet, actually has more influence on global water vapour levels than anything else and it has NO trend over the long-term. Thus, there is no real trend in water vapour levels either.
More than half of the expected warming comes from the expected increased water vapour levels (which is not happening unless one cherrypicks a time period of low levels contrasted with a period of high levels which the IPCC/climate scientists have consistently done in the past).
http://s13.postimage.org/z4ux4t5pz/Water_Vapour_IPCC_AR5_Forecast_ENSO_Aug_2012.png
How to fix the models?
See the paper at: Afternoon rain more likely over drier soils Christopher M. Taylor, Richard A. M. de Jeu, Françoise Guichard, Phil P. Harris & Wouter A. Dorigo, Nature Letter DOI: doi:10.1038/nature11377 online 12 September 2012
David Stockwell (2008) showed that the CSIRO’s drought predictions were contrary to the historical evidence with a hindcast/forecast using half the data for tuning and the other for prediction. Tests of Regional Climate Model Validity in the Drought Exceptional Circumstances Report.
rgbatduke above observes:
The models might have been corrected earlier had researchers incorporated WJR Alexander’s findings that precipitation and runoff vary strongly with the 21 year Hale cycle but NOT with surface evaporation.
Linkages between solar activity, climate predictability and water resource development* J. So. African Inst. Civil Engineering Vol 49 No 2, June 2007, Pages 32–44, Paper 659
Now the challenge of applying the scientific method, discovering the missing physics, and correcting the models to match the evidence – rather than political alarmism.
Bill Illis September 13, 2012 at 5:44 pm
Bill, 1] water vapor has nothing to do with the phony GLOBAL warming. 2] more water vapor = milder climate + more snow on the polar caps. 3] more water vapor = better climate; but NOTHING to do with the imaginary GLOBAL warmings.
4] most of the Faulty Line is on the bottom of the oceans – where is tectonic movements – submarine volcanoes / hot vents get more active -> currents spread 100% of that heat = get La Nina or El Nino; depends where is more activity – that increase evaporation. You people are falling for their trick that water vapor increases the OVERALL global temp = they are feeding you with more bullshine. If you keep using ENSO’s lies, to prove them wrong – they just invent more lies.
Get some real proofs about water vapor: http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/2012/07/20/water-vapor/
Dorigo says: “The air over dry soils heats up more easily.”
BUT, Dorigo obviously doesn’t know that: ”The air over dry soils COOLS faster, at night. It should start getting too obvious to you people that: as long as there are ”bullshine addicts – there will be plenty Bullshine Merchants. From IPCC to CSIRO – they have to feed their bulldung consumers; bon-apetit
If somebody believes that: they know overall Water vapor in the atmosphere, with precision at given times; shouldn’t blame the climatologist; but the person in his mirror.
Increased / decreased evaporation in the oceans depends on the activity of submarine volcanoes / hot vents – if they can ”predict’ where AND when is that activity going to increase – they would have became the BEST seismologists = they wouldn’t had to confuse big / small regular climatic changes with any phony GLOBAL warmings; to fleece the Urban Sheep
Dorigo says: “The air over dry soils heats up more easily.”
That’s because the air over drier soil is less humid. Less humid air has a lower thermal capacity, but is more dense than more humid air. The net effect is more humid air over wet soil rises, even though it is cooler than warmer drier air over dry soils.
@Rich Lambert says:
September 12, 2012 at 7:04 pm
I live in Oklahoma where it has been dry the past two summers. The sun quickly heats the ground, but I’ve failed to see those thunderstorms and rain. Recently, I was in eastern North Carolina which is quite humid this year and it rained about every other day. I guess the model applies somewhere else.
Another Oklahoman here. I agree.
From mtobis (@mtobis) on September 13, 2012 at 1:45 pm:
Most people kinow of feedback as what happens when a microphone that’s the input to an amplifier gets too close to the speaker that’s the output, when the gain is too high. That’s positive feedback, a small signal gets amplified into a much larger one when the output feeds back into the amplifier.
An avalanche is a failure of supporting structure, normally thought of when snow at the bottom can no longer support the weight of the snow on top of it. Other “avalanches” are landslides and mudslides. They are a catastrophic failure.
Naturally occurring nuclear chain reactions are far from quite common. There is only one known location in the world, which occurred about 1.7 billion years ago. They occurred there because of rich uranium deposits and groundwater.
Inherent in the concept of positive feedback is if you remove the input then the effect will stop. If you reduce the input then the effect will lessen.
Avalanches are catastrophic one-time events. Nuclear chain reactions are self-sustaining. Both are triggered, “turned on”, and then run their course with no further input required.
If you think the ice albedo effect is a similar positive feedback, you clearly have no idea what really is a positive feedback, at all.