I liked this part:
According to the study an important issue remains as to why the poleward expansion is largest in autumn, and there is still uncertainty about the role of external forcings – such as greenhouse gases – as climate models underestimate the southward expansion of the Hadley cell edge.
From CSIRO Australia
Southern Hemisphere becoming drier
A decline in April-May rainfall over south-east Australia is associated with a southward expansion of the subtropical dry-zone according to research published today in Scientific Reports, a primary research journal from the publishers of Nature.
CSIRO scientists Wenju Cai, Tim Cowan and Marcus Thatcher explored why autumn rainfall has been in decline across south-eastern Australia since the 1970s, a period that included the devastating Millennium drought from 1997-2009.
Previous research into what has been driving the decline in autumn rainfall across regions like southern Australia has pointed the finger at a southward shift in the storm tracks and weather systems during the late 20th century. However, the extent to which these regional rainfall reductions are attributable to the poleward expansion of the subtropical dry-zone has not been clarified before now.
Mr Cowan said rainfall patterns in the subtropics are known to be influenced by the Hadley cell, the large-scale atmospheric circulation that transports heat from the tropics to the sub-tropics.
“There has been a southward expansion of the edge of the Hadley cell – also called subtropical dry-zone – over the past 30 years, with the strongest expansion occurring in mid-late autumn, or April to May, ranging from 200 to 400 kilometres,” Mr Cowan said. The CSIRO researchers found that the autumn southward expansion of the subtropical dry-zone is greatest over south-eastern Australia, and to a lesser extent, over the Southern Ocean to the south of Africa.
“The Hadley cell is comprised of a number of individual branches, so the impact of a southward shift of the subtropical dry-zone on rainfall is not the same across the different semi-arid regions of the Southern Hemisphere,” says CSIRO’s Dr Wenju Cai.
The researchers tested the hypothesis that the dry-zone expansion would give rise to a southward shift in the average rainfall during April and May, and questioned how rainfall across semi-arid regions, including southern-coastal Chile and southern Africa, would be affected.
“During April and May, when the dry-zone expansion is strong, rainfall over south-eastern Africa, south-eastern Australia and southern-coastal Chile is higher than over regions immediately to their north,” Dr Cai said.
Using high-quality observations and an atmospheric model the CSIRO team found that for south-eastern Australia, up to 85% of recent rainfall reduction can be accounted for by replacing south-eastern Australia rainfall with rainfall 400km to the north. Such a southward shift of rainfall can explain only a small portion of the southern Africa rainfall trend, but none of the autumn drying observed over southern Chile.
“For south-east Australia, autumn is an important wetting season,” Dr Cai explained. “Good autumn rainfall wets the soil and effectively allows for vital runoff from follow-on winter and spring rain to flow into catchments.”
According to the study an important issue remains as to why the poleward expansion is largest in autumn, and there is still uncertainty about the role of external forcings – such as greenhouse gases – as climate models underestimate the southward expansion of the Hadley cell edge.
This research was conducted through CSIRO’s Water for a Healthy Country Flagship, and was funded by the Goyder Institute for Water Research and the Australian Climate Change Science Programme. Wenju Cai, Tim Cowan and Marcus Thatcher are from CSIRO’s Marine and Atmospheric Research division.
UPDATE:
Some commenters can’t look beyond the title and see the bigger picture, so here’s an update just for them. Note that the study deals with the Hadley cell, which is NOT regional, but hemispherical. They looked not only at Australia, but also rainfall in southern-coastal Chile and southern Africa.
This is where I was coming from, which I thought would be obvious to anyone who’s been following the positive water vapor feedback issue for any length of time.
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/hall0001.pdf
===============
Abstract. Using two versions of the GFDL coupled ocean-atmosphere model, one where
water vapor anomalies are allowed to affect the longwave radiation calculation and one
where they are not, we examine the role of water vapor feedback in internal precipitation
variability and greenhouse-gas-forced intensification of the hydrologic cycle. Without
external forcing, the experiment with water vapor feedback produces 44% more annualmean, global-mean precipitation variability than the one without.
We diagnose the reason for this difference: In both experiments, global-mean surface temperature anomalies are associated with water vapor anomalies. However, when water vapor interacts with longwave radiation, the temperature anomalies are associated with larger anomalies in surface downward longwave radiation. This increases the temperature anomaly damping through latent heat flux, creating an evaporation anomaly.
The evaporation anomaly, in turn, leads to an anomaly of nearly the same magnitude in precipitation. In the experiment without water vapor feedback, this mechanism is absent. While the interaction between longwave and water vapor has a large impact on the global hydrologic cycle internal variations, its effect decreases as spatial scales decrease, so water vapor feedback has only a very small impact on grid-scale hydrologic variability. Water vapor feedback also affects the hydrologic cycle intensification when greenhouse gas concentrations increase. By the 5th century of global warming experiments where CO2 is increased and then fixed at its doubled value, the global-mean precipitation increase is nearly an order of magnitude larger when water vapor feedback is present.
The cause of this difference is similar to the cause of the difference in internal precipitation variability: When water vapor feedback is present, the increase in water vapor associated with a warmer climate enhances downward longwave radiation. To maintain surface heat balance, evaporation increases, leading to a similar increase in precipitation. This effect is absent in the experiment without water vapor feedback. The large impact of water vapor feedback on hydrologic cycle intensification does not weaken as spatial scales decrease, unlike the internal variability case. Accurate representations of water vapor feedback are therefore necessary to simulate global-scale hydrologic variability and intensification of the hydrologic cycle in global warming.
=================
So if positive water vapor feedback were occurring, based on this idea, we’d see an “intensification of the hydrologic cycle”, i.e. more rainfall, runoff, and evaporation. That would apply to the southern hemisphere continents too.
And the researchers by their own admission can’t even fit GHG feedbacks into the Hadley cell migration equation successfully. It is just more evidence of uncertainty in the “settled science” of AGW.
EricGrimsrud said “Some very good scientists think that CAGW and worse is ahead and that the only thing we have going for us at the moment is the thermal inertia of the Earth.”
Appeal to authority: check. Hand wave (no attempt to quantify anything): check. Conflating CAGW and benign AGW: check. Ignoring some basic facts: check. Eric, I’ve pointed out a number of times now that the same thermal inertia that you claim is hiding catastrophic AGW so we only see benign AGW applies to the rise in solar input during the second half of the 20th century. You found and posted this link showing the rise in TSI: colli239.fts.educ.msu.edu/2003/12/31/solar-activity-2003/ It shows that TSI rose through 1950, then stayed historically high for nearly the remainder of the 20th century.
In contrast, your book contains this incorrect statement: “In addition, during the first half of the twentieth century, a gradual increase in the solar intensity of about 0.1 percent was observed. While the change might have contributed to a small increase in temperature over that fifty-year period, it would have had no effect after 1950.” The main flaw in that statement is that the rise in TSI is not what causes warming of the planet, but TSI staying historically high that causes warming of the planet. It’s like you are trying to say that you slowly turned on a heater until 1950, but that could not possibly cause heating after you finished turning it on (i.e. no effect after 1950). A child might ask, “did you turn the heater off in 1950?” Answer, no it stayed on high through the 80’s and then was gradually turned down to the mid-2000’s and only recently turned off.
The second flaw is that you are ignoring the thermal inertia that “some very good scientists” believe is delaying the true rise in temperature due to CO2. Why would CO2 warming be delayed but not solar warming? If anything solar warming would be more delayed since solar warms the oceans more efficiently than CO2-warmed air. Lagged warming from high solar would appear in spurts during El Nino as Bob Tisdale has pointed out here many times (have you read any of his articles?) Sure enough there was a major warming from El Nino in the early 80’s that was masked by El Chichon. There was another huge El Nino in 1997/98 that released enough stored warmth to warm the world significantly (about 1C). That very large spike in warmth dissipated but much remained. It was essentially a step function in warming. See http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/ for a depiction.
The third flaw in your statement (the one that ends in 1950) is that it fails to acknowledge the water vapor feedback from solar warming. The same positive feedback that will allegedly almost double the small warming from increased CO2 also applies to the warming from solar. So we should not only have seen 0.1 percent warming through the 20th century, but it should have also been amplified (i.e. 0.3 percent). That comes to around 0.8C (0.3 percent of 277). That leaves a very modest amount of warming due to CO2, probably a few tenths of a degree.
If I had all the time in the world I would love to provide the same feedback for your “online course”. Unfortunately I don’t. I suspect it is full of the same hand wavy misrepresentations, oversimplifications, and cliches from the CAGW cabal that are found in your book. Let me ask you one question about it since I haven’t looked at it. Does it contain the same wrong claim about solar warming ending in 1950? If so, do you understand why it is wrong? Are you going to correct it?
Thierry
I quoted the great Leroux in one of my recent articlres;
“Global’ records are much less reliable than local ones due to the manner in which they are assembled, and the reality of a meaningful single global temperature is the subject of much debate, as observed by French climatologist Marcel Leroux. (who said) ‘Yet, they know very well that there is not one “global” climate, but a large variety of climates, depending on latitude, geographic conditions, and atmospheric dynamics.’ (18)
Brown and Jones commented on the many instances of local cooling trends, seemingly recording different- and cooling- climates to that observed in the global – and warming- record (19)
tonyb
kadaka (KD Knoebel)
Thats for the minor correction. The MW is indeed 44 and not 46.
The “new” result however, is still about 200 gton per year.
grimsrud says:
“You will recall that I had claimed that natural emission of carbon were about 200 gtons…”
No, you specifically referred to CO2, not “carbon”:
“…as far as I a can tell the total natural emissions of CO2 appear to be about 200 gton per year.”
You just got caught trying to move the pea under a different thimble.
To Tonyb, you ask,
“then you can tell me why the past has no relevance to the future.”
I certainly will not do that. Studies of the past are exceeding important. Major portions of my short course on my website deal with the past, from 65 myrs ago to the present. That said, it is also true that we can not understand all climate events of the past and perhaps never will because we don’t know enough about all relevant factors. That knowledge decreases roughly in proportion to the distance of past time. Thus, what do we know about the climate in the year 5000 BC for example. We know more about the year 1000 AD, but still not much compared to what we know about the present Earth. My point here is; to say that we can’t take action of AGW until we understand all past climate anomolies in detail is a foolish suggestion.
to wikeroy,
Yes, the Norwegians of the world now know that RC has his name on one research publication and perhaps some day they will be able forgive me for taking so long to discuss that he actually had one. You, however, could make us Norwegians really proud if you could produce the full scientific resume of RC. Since he holds forth so much on the subject of climate change at WUWT, knowing his background and level of professional expertice would be useful. Most Norwegians, I believe, would agree.
to RACookPE1978 who on October 7, 2012 at 6:07 am said
“So the only people who you will “allow” to discuss climate issues, analyze problems with theories and exaggeration and wild speculation (by the IPCC or any other body) about “climate change” are so-called “scientists” who have a published paper in your approved list of journals with your approved editors and pal-reviewers?”
Of course, I do not think that. What I do think is that when one gets involved in an extended discussion with anyone concerning any subject, it is appropriate to ask them to inform you of their previous experiences in the subject being discussed. This is a common practice in science and all other human endeavors as well, I believe. You for example described your background and should we ever get into a discussion of anything, that knowledge would be helpful to me. I would not “pull rank”, that knowledge would simply be helpful to me to know where you are coming.
Unlike you, I have no idea where RichardsCourtney is coming from because, unlike you he will not provide a resume showing his professional experiences and accomplishments. When people come on very strong and especially when they regularly lob insults at others with differing opinions and do not also inform us of their professional experiences and accomplishment, my s-detector starts to twitch. It has now fully fired.
wikeroy, you say
“Do’t think you should put too much into the measurements back then…..”
Why not ? Because one person made a public comment somewhere? Those stratosphere measurements have continued every since 1985, you know, by numerous countries and research groups. YOu should look and see that those measurements suggest – a much better source of info.
to Gary Pearse who says,
“Eric your disingenuousness is palpable. I offered such an explanatikon”
In order to get his full meaning, I will have to refer to a dictionary, but to respond to the science, I don’t need to look anything up – most chemists know what paramagnetism and diamagnetism is.
Substances that have the former interact strongly with magnetic fields and those of the latter try interact much more weakly.
Now, concerning your “explanation” for anything concerning the ozone chemistry of the atmosphere, it would be up to you, of course, to expain in more detail how ozone’s diamagnetism under the influence of the Earth’s magnetic field could be large enough to affect the climate in a significant way. Also if ozone is thereby affect, what about oxygen which is paramagnetic and interacts much more strongly with that field. All will agree that it is diamagnetic, but as for your suggestion that this might explain anything concerning the greater physics and chemistry of the atmosphere – that next step would be up to you. And, of course, if someone else has been this, please let us now.
So why don’t you settle down a notch or two and go to work. Also don’t be offended if I don’t take up your quest. This is “your thing” so do it.
Eric
* We know that one third of global stations are cooling, not warming (BEST)
* Of the renainder some are static, some are undoubtedly affected by UHI, some have moved location, some are warming.
*We know that CET appears a reasonable proxy for global temperature (if there is such a thing)
* We know that CET has dropped over the last decade and is now on a par with the 1730’s
*We know that global temperatures have been rising for some 350 years-long before Co2 could have had an impact (if it did have an impact back then man can’t live on this planet at present population levels)
* We know the MWP was probably warmer than today and the Roman and Minoan period were certainly warmer. It is likely therfore that 280ppm marks some sort of limit as to the likely sensitivity to co2.
* We know that in the case of the UK our co2 emissions are trivial and tryng to reduce them even further will cost around £30Billion a year we haven’t got
* Trying to move to a green economy is making us uncompetitive (petrol is $10 a gallon) and energy costs are impacting severely on the UK population with many in fuel poverty
* In an attempt to go green it is likely we will have to ration our energy or impose power cuts within 3 years (Indeprendent report this weekend) .
In all these circumstances what compelling reason is there to make the huge effort required to radically change our ways? Imperfect and controversial physics that cant take into account clouds nor natural variability?
Climate is infinitely and naturally variable and I dont know the future, I assume the long term trend will continue but it is worrying we are back to the 1730’s and reasonable to suggest we need a plan ‘B’ for cooling as well as the numerous plan A”s we have for warming.
tonyb
Eric1skeptic, Thanks for your additional comments.
You are right, of course, that the effects of all sources of heating are delayed by the thermal inertia of the Earth, including the heating we get from an increase in the solar intensity. My statement in my book concerning the effects of solar radiation on T after 1950 is, indeed, too simplistic. In the next revision, I will correct that.
At the same time there is a large difference between the magnitude of increased heating by the solar increase (clearly very small) and that due to our increased GHG heating. Thus looking forward it is primarily the heating effect of the GHG’s that is presently being delayed by the Earth thermal inertia.
If you require numbers for this statement, start with Hanson et al 2008, “Target Atmospheric CO2”. It is very referenced so you can go on from there.
eric1skeptic,
Thanks for pointing out ericgrimsrud’s numerous errors of fact. It is important that alarmist pseudo-science like that is refuted, lest a new reader might accept grimsrud’s fallacies as something other than the anti-science that it is.
I also note that grimsrud has again avoided attempting to refute my October 6 @6:06 pm post, in which I logically, step-by-step challenge the belief that CO2 has any measurable effect on temperature. If it does, where are the empirical measurements? Where is a chart showing that temperature is a function of CO2?
Now, CO2 may have a minusule effect. But if so, it is too small to measure. Therefore, CO2=AGW stops at the conjecture level of the scientific method. It may be true (or not). But without testable measurements, it is only a conjecture; an opinion. A belief. Those treating it as an established fact need to post their charts. The fact that they don’t greatly undermines their argument.
to tonyb, My own best and most thorough answer to your concluding question is provided by my short course. I developed it so that I would not have to repeat the entire ten yards every time asked to do so. Also it provides more effective way of doing this. Just look up ericgrimsrud.com, and hit the “short course” tab. and sit back, listen and watch. I consists of about 90 slides and lasts about 90 minutes with regular breaks for coffee or whatever.
To all,
Yesterday D Boehm posted this, including quote of my earlier statement.
D Böehm said:
October 6, 2012 at 2:32 pm
ericgrimsrud says:
“My own understanding is that the emissions of CO2 for example by plants and those from the oceans are each about 100 Gitatons (of carbon) per year while that due to fossil fuel combustion is about 7 to 8 Gitatons per year.”
Today he writes
D Böehm says:
October 7, 2012 at 8:26 am
grimsrud says:“You will recall that I had claimed that natural emission of carbon were about 200 gtons…” No, you specifically referred to CO2, not “carbon”
I would prefer not to have to respond to the continuous stream of misinformation (natural emissions of CO2 are 750 gtons /year?), untruths (illustrated above)and personal insults (read all his comment concerning me on this thread). But, of course, if one doesn’t the viewers of this website would be misled with respect to the science involved..
To the moderators: when Mr Boehm says.
“I also note that grimsrud has again avoided attempting to refute my October 6 @6:06 pm post, in which I logically, step-by-step challenge the belief that CO2 has any measurable effect on temperature ”
Am I obliged to response to every point raised here by other – points which I never raised? There are myriad statements made here by some who seem to know of what they speak and others who do not. I read most of them, respond to some, and do not respond to some, as I choose. In not responding to everything considered to be “avoiding” at WUWT?
Whats Up With this Guy, Boehm anyway – he acts like he runs the place.
REPLY: You can choose to respond or not, not our call nor our duty beyond determining if the comment violates policy. I do think you just don’t know how to handle online criticism well – Anthony
Eric, I read the Hansen paper and it looks like I need to divide the solar energy change by 4 to account for TSI/4 hitting the sphere of the earth. Also multiply by 0.7 since 0.3 gets reflected away (albedo is 0.3). That means the energy increase from the link you found which is about 1.7 W/m2 from 1900 to 1950 turns into about 0.3 W/m2 on the earth’s surface. Using Hansen’s 3/4 K/(W/m2) that means 0.2 degrees from increased solar upon reaching short term equilibrium.
We should assume the planet spent most of the rest of the 20th century trying to reach that equilibrium with solar while tracking the coincident rise in that equilibrium due to CO2 increases.
Based on that I would make a very rough estimate that about 1/3 of the rise in the 80’s and 90’s was from solar, the rest from CO2. I can also make a crude prediction that the solar minimum will cause a 0.3C drop in worldwide temperatures over the next 4 decades offset by the 0.4 rise from CO2. IOW, *if* the sun stays quiet and nothing else changes, temps will go nowhere through mid century.
D Böehm, I wish I could say with some certainty what the warming is from the rise in CO2. Unfortunately all the science has been skewed to the warming side, especially the models that calculate sensitivity. So I do the best I can with the science that has been presented (by Hansen and others) with the caveat that it could be wrong. But I do believe that the 4 W/m2 from a doubling of CO2 is relatively solid and that would translate into 1C of warming before any feedbacks.
To Anthony, Thanks for your response shown below.
REPLY: You can choose to respond or not, not our call nor our duty beyond determining if the comment violates policy. I do think you just don’t know how to handle online criticism well – Anthony
You might be right about my deficiencies in handling criticism. Almost all of it caused my inclination to treat people like they treat me. I have to work on that because on sites like this one, I regularly get treated very poorly. Many show little respect for the scientists who they often refer to as “alarmists” (a term used here routinely while the term, denier, is appearently not allowed). Learning to survive on a playing field that is not level provides a worthwhile experience and I’ll try to get better at it.
REPLY: “Alarmists” has no purposeful negative connotation related to holocaust denial, such as illustrated by Iran’s current president, so it is a more acceptable term than “deniers”. Witness some of the claims by Hansen, Serreze, and others, and you’ll see how “alarmist” fits, but doesn’t necessarily apply to everyone. Pro AGW advocates and climate skeptics would be better terms all around though. If you want to complain about being treated poorly online, I suggest you walk a mile in my shoes first. As for this thread, I think you overestimate the importance of your sensitivity. – Anthony
eric
I will try to watch your short course during the week.
tonyb
ericgrimsrud says:
October 7, 2012 at 11:27 am
Mr. Grimsrud, I would like to point out that you have engaged in a very ugly and contentious subject. I suggest you read what has been written about my father Dr. Tim Ball. A Phd in climatology. Just type his name in google and see what comes up. Note specifically Desmogblog and then note the smear that they engage in. He is far and away better schooled in climate than you are and has received egregious attacks for DECADES. You need to accept the yoke that you yourself have taken on in all it’s glory and suffering.
Just to let you know, the censuring and smears that skeptics receive at the hands of AGW proponents are FAR worse than the jabs that you are getting here. Suck it up, buttercup.
Eric
Further to Anthony’s comments It would help if you realised that sceptics are not ignorant knuckle draggng neanderthals with two heads and that actually some of us go to great lengths to look closely at the evidence we are given.
As I previously remarked you seem to have a short fuse which, combined with the obvious dislike and incerdulity you have for sceptics, does tend to wind up some of the people here.
Treat us with more respect and be less abrasive and it will be more pleasant for everyone. I for one welcome people with different views to the majority here.
tonyb
To Anthony, With respect to your additional comment shown below”
“REPLY: “Alarmists” has no purposeful negative connotation related to holocaust denial, such as illustrated by Iran’s current president, so it is a more acceptable term than “deniers”. Witness some of the claims by Hansen, Serreze, and others, and you’ll see how “alarmist” fits, but doesn’t necessarily apply to everyone. Pro AGW advocates and climate skeptics would be better terms all around though. If you want to complain about being treated poorly online, I suggest you walk a mile in my shoes first. As for this thread, I think you overestimate the important of your sensitivity. – Anthony”
OK, I did not know that reason for not allowing use of the term, Denier, that is, your envisioned connection to the holocaust. To me it simply meant what the dictionary says in meant. The term “skeptics” does not cut it for me. All thinking people are skeptics and should be skeptical of many if not all things. One of the first books every written in the field of chemistry was “the Skeptical Chemist” by one of the very best chemists early scientist, Robert Boyle.
In my view we don’t have another word yet to replace “denier”. A Denier of anything is someone who knows the answer and knows he will not change and does not even indulge in meaningful discussions on the issue with anyone excess fellow choir members. Too bad the holocaust stoled that word from us.
Finally, let me correct you of one impression you have of me – just for the record. I am not a complainer but I do point things out that do not seem fair or proper to me. There is a difference you know between that and complaining – the former is an effort simply to keep the record straight while the latter is an argument for change. I just like everyone involved to understand what the rules will be. Most say I have pretty thick skin in going forward from there.
Note how so many of your faithful followers “pile on” and come to the defense of your bonifide crybabies when the insult they lob are returned in kind (RC would be the best examples of this I have ever seen). One of these days I might find one such supporter at WUWT but very like not do not need it. I hope it is obvious to all that I run under my own steam when it somes to discussions of science and the rest is all meaningless noise.
REPLY: In another comment you said “I love skeptics, they drive science.” and above you say. “The term “skeptics” does not cut it for me. “, and “In my view we don’t have another word yet to replace “denier”.”. Those contradictory statements show your true colors, which are of contempt, IMHO.
Be as upset as you wish then, but please do stop whining, as we all have better things to do that argue about your emotive views of how you are interacted with here. – Anthony
Climate Reason,
I love skeptics. They drive all of science. One of the first books writen in science was called “The Skeptical Chemist” by Robert Boyle in about 1660. If a scientist is not a sceptic it is very unlikely that he will become a good scientist. We should always to skeptical of ideas, theories and even measurement (which happened to be my own field).
As apposed to a skeptic, one who thinks he knows the answers to the big questions and ceases to consider other notions if not longer a skeptic. One who denies something no matter what and no longer is open to alternate views could be called a “D…….. ” I can’t say the word here because it appears that the holocaust has usurped it so that it can no longer be used to convey its traditional meaning. So until we get it back, we need another term and “skeptic” will not do. We are hopefully all skeptics. Also I think many are “contrarians”. Some of the best scientists have been “curmudgians”. Other than “brain-dead dumb s. t’s” (which would not pass the PC test) I can’t think of a word that can replace “D….. er” . You can???
In any case, if you are a skeptic, tonyb, I am very pleased to hear it.
To David Ball,
Let them pile it on all they like – and especially if their remarks pertain to science.
And rest assured that I can “take it”. If you saw how cute my 5 grandchildren are, you might better understand why I can and will.
And I am pleased to learn about your father who has gone through similar experience. Give him my regards when you see him. I will, indeed, learn more about him myself via the usual information sources. He probably even has a resume that he has made available to the public – imagine that! A standup guy, it appears, who could possibly serve as a model to others also who hold forth regularly at WUWT.
Best Regards, EPG
[snip – take a 12 hour time out – Anthony]