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.
Friends:
I have obtained brief internet access before my next stop, and I used it to see what has happened here.
I notice that Eric Grimsrud having been proven wrong in his assertion that I “have no background in science” by reference to one of my peer reviewed publications now asserts the lie that I have only one publication.
Of course, in reality it would not matter if I did have no background in science and I had published nothing. What matters is whether what I say stands up to scrutiny or if it is the kind of superficial junk spouted by e.g. Grimsrud. People will judge such matters for themselves, and boasts of self-proclaimed authority do not assist that.
I write because at October 7, 2012 at 1:08 pm ericgrimsrud writes:
“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” .”
Well, an obvious word which fits that description is a ‘Grimsrud’. I thank him for raising the point and will use the description “a Grimsrud” in future.
Richard
Timeline:
October 6, 2012 at 2:21 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.”
October 6, 2012 at 2:32 pm
D Böehm says: “Wrong, as usual. Grimsrud misunderstands even the most basic facts. Human emissions are only around 3% of the total of about three quarters of a million gtons. And that ratio is the same number whether you’re measuring CO2 or ‘carbon’.”
Note 1: linked table is CO₂, “three quarters of a million gtons” of CO₂ verified.
Note 2: There are other carbon fluxes than CO₂, thus exact ratio human/total for CO₂ is not exactly the same for carbon.
October 6, 2012 at 2:58 pm
ericgrimsrud mashed together his quoted words and D Böehm’s words, quoted the clump as from D Böehm, then says:
“Now lets see: my calculator says 7 divided by 100 + 100 gives 0.035 or 3.5%. Mr Boehm gets 3 % from his sources and makes a big deal about the difference – I am “Wrong” he says. Is it his calculator or his brain that has a few loose screws. In any case, if 3 % is the more accurate number (and human emissions do vary from year to year) , that number will also work for my intended purpose above.”
Note 3: Ratio would be human/total, thus 7/(100+100+7) = 0.034 or 3.4%.
Note 4: By the proper 12/44 ration, by the link provided by D Böehm, all human sources yield 6.3 GT carbon from CO₂, not “7 to 8”.
October 6, 2012 at 3:39 pm
D Böehm says: “grimsrud, I pointed out that your claimed total natural CO2 emissions 200 gtons, when the actual amount is much higher. When you’re wrong, you’re wrong.”
Note 5: Misunderstanding due to confusing wording by ericgrimsrud: “…emissions of CO2 for example by plants and those from the oceans are each about 100 Gitatons (of carbon)…”
Misunderstanding propagated:
ericgrimsrud on October 6, 2012 at 4:00 pm.
D Böehm on October 6, 2012 at 4:46 pm.
Etc.
Thus a misunderstanding due to confusing writing escalated to an ongoing debate.
So just admit that’s what happened and move forward.
Kadada, I believe you will find the error is due to Mr. Boehms reading of his own table. That is your check Note 1 in also inaccurate. As I said in one of my posts that table reads 750,000 million tons which is 750 billion tons = 750 gtons. When expressed in weigh carbon (x 12/44 ) becomes approximately 200 gtons, the number I claimed. Boehms had claimed a natural emision of about 1,000 clearly because he misread his chart. This is make additional clear by his repeated claim that my number was far too low (with accompanying insults, of course). One does not get a difference of x 1,000 via imprecise communications. One gets it from not reading the source correctly.
Note 1: linked table is COâ, three quarters of a million gtons of COâ verified. (NOT).
From ericgrimsrud on October 7, 2012 at 12:52 pm:
By that definition we are plagued with deniers who are certain about the existence of (C)AGW and refuse to engage in meaningful discussions with “deniers”.
And the “twisted cross” is an ancient religious/mystical symbol that was used positively worldwide in many cultures for millenia, and is now virtually banned in all “civilized” countries, even legally banned. Deal with it.
[Snip. You were given a 12-hour time out. No commenting until tomorrow morning. — mod.]
[Snip.]
[Snip.]
[Snip.]
Silence is golden? I still feel he is a professional troll, but congrats to you all holding up the banner for disarming of the alarmist rationale. I was labelled a denier when I crossed swords over a history debacle, and was labeled a climate change, Holocaust, and JFK Assassination denier publically. Holocaust and JFK Assassination was not correct. Luckily one person in the audience questioned this, and the spokesman had to back down.
[Snip.]
I don’t know whether or not EricGrimsrud is coming back. But I do know that if he doesn’t change his ways he will not last here. Mostly he needs to stop personalizing every argument. Also if he thinks he’s going to correct everyone he thinks is wrong, he needs to think again.
Eric
You werent banned just given a time out for infringement of plicy. It also happens to sceptics.
You asked for more info on Qing bin lui ozone hole papers
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/08/a-paper-unifying-cosmic-ray-interaction-cfcs-ozone-and-warming/#comments
This link below written using some of the data that lui discovered
http://www.ucalgary.ca/engo_webdocs/KOK/12.20356_CharleneRadonsBeckie.pdf
Just about to read your ‘short course’.
tonyb
sorry Eric, but the first two of your 10 short course files took three and a half minutes to download (broadband/modern computer) before I could even look at each slide. I’m obviously not going to spend 35 minutes just waiting so Ive bailed out.
tonyb
Eric
I downloaded file 5 as well, as it concerned temperatures over the last 150 years.
slide 2 ; Arrhenius substantially modified down his estimates of 1896 in his paper of 1907.you didnt mention that.
I posted a link earlier in this thread to BEST/CET. This shows that temperatures have been rising for the last 350 years, well before any increase in co2 emissions and that the period 1700-1740 showed the steepest temperature increase in the record-not the modern rise. You might want to include that for better historical context.
As I mentioned, Giss merely shows a staging post in temperature rise NOT the starting post.
Todays tempertures are unremarkable in the context of the last 1000 years.
tonyb
Eric G, I also downloaded file #1, and saw the slides. The file was huge compared to the number of slides. Also I don’t have powerpoint. My mac displayed the slides with the preview app, but I didn’t get any sound / narrative. I can’t evaluate the course on the basis of the slides alone, I have to hear the narrative.
To All at WUWT, First please note a previous post of mine concerning the debate that D Boehm and I were having concerning the natural emissions of CO2.
ericgrimsrud says: on October 6, 2012 at 5:21 pm
“To D Boehm,
Concerning your assignment to me, “where did I get my value of about 200 gton for natural emissions” I get it everywhere I look using a google search for “Carbon cycle”. For example have a look at “the carbon cycle” at NOAA’s web site on climate change or that any other government agency of the USA. Sorry, but as far as I a can tell the total natural emissions of CO2 appear to be about 200 gton per year.
. So now, of course, I must ask you how you are coming on your assignment. That is how did you arrive at the same fraction, about 3 % for fossil fuel versus natural emissions as I did using different numbers.
In addition, can you show us where you got you number for total natural emissions of 750,000 gtons per year, which is many times greater than mine (200 gtons). Looking forward to your report. If you require any addition detail concerning mine, don’t hesitate to ask.”
Now concerning the previous claim by D Boehm referred to above, note that the post by D Boehm being referred to is no longer shown – at least I can’t find it.
Then in a “time-line study” of our debate by Kadaka did not note D Boehm’s claim – a factor of 1000 higher than mine, either. Mine turned out to be correct.
Thus we have not seen any admission of error by D Boehm and, therefore, a clarification of the debate outcome. Generally the one in error makes such a comment.
So the obvious question is: What’s Up With That at WUWT. Prefer Mods can expalin why that post by D Boehm is no longer there?
I am quite sure that D Boehm also knows exactly what I am talking about. But I doubt very much that he will confess up and clarify. I suspect that his interest in face saving far exceeds his sense of honesty. Nevertheless some “Manning up” seems to be required here.
From ericgrimsrud on October 10, 2012 at 8:46 am:
Looks like that’s what you referenced as: Concerning your assignment to me, “where did I get my value of about 200 gton for natural emissions”…
First it’s not a real quote as D Böehm wouldn’t ask “where did I get” the value you were touting.
The first reference of “200 gtons” is D Böehm’s here: “grimsrud, I pointed out that your claimed total natural CO2 emissions 200 gtons…” It is still there, and arises from simple addition from your earlier statement with the confusing wording of 100 and 100 gtons natural emissions from different sources.
Thus your claim of comment editing has no proof, once again, this time claiming a D Böehm comment has been removed.
I did not note what you are trying to say was D Böehm’s claim as it didn’t exist when I searched the comments, but I did note the “claimed total natural CO2 emissions” comment that I just linked to again.
However, my timeline comment was originally started very late at night and finished the next day. When it was written, it seem like the linked table, the one whose link was posted three times before you noticed it, did support the ‘three quarters of a million gtons’ of CO₂, but later I noticed it was only showing about 3/4 of a million million tons, or 3/4 of a million megatons, 3/4 of a thousand gtons. So you do pick up that correction.
Gee, according to your accusations WUWT has altered comments, deleted inconvenient stuff, concealed the truth. How much more “Mann-ing up” do you want?
Eric
Myself and another gave some helpful hints on the size of your short course files which in effect made it almost impossible to download them unless you were very motivated. I also commented on some omissions regarding Arrhenius and also that it would be helpful if the current temperature was put into context with the past instrumental records. That is to say that temperatures have been rising for at least 350 years and we must see the current warming in that wider context.
You also said looking at your short course would answer my comments to you of October 7th at 9.57 (and others) but. I can’t see that it does, at least in the files I have downloaded.
tonyb
kadaka,
ericgrimsrud is fixated on D Böehm, and he is impotently trying to nitpick a minor point in order to avoid responding to my October 6 @6:06 pm post.
Note to grimsrud: if you wish to make certain that someone will not respond, simply state that you are ‘assigning’ homework. And when you accuse me of dishonesty, see how far that gets you.
Truly, you are the biggest complainer around, always whining. All your ‘poor me’ sniveling concerns ericgrimsrud, and your crazy world view. You can’t find mysterious comments? You can’t find the IPCC’s table that was posted in plain view three times? I am not surprised. You seem unable to hold a coherent view, preferring to play the crybaby role instead of answering my October 6, 6:06 pm post. The fact is that you cannot falsify that reasoning, which completely destroys your “carbon” Belief system. So you whine about irrelevant peripheral issues. It’s the ‘red herring’ fallacy, AKA: “Look over there! A kitten!” You are deliberately avoiding the central issue: there is no empirical evidence to support your CAGW belief.
To all, First, note that when
“Böehm says: October 6, 2012 at 3:39 pm
grimsrud, I pointed out that your claimed total natural CO2 emissions 200 gtons, when the actual amount is much higher. When you’re wrong, you’re wrong.”
Note that when Boehm turns out the be wrong (by a factor of 1000 !) and I point that out – he defines my comment to be “whining”.
Note also that another post by Boehm slightly before that shown above is now gone! In it Boehm had clearly said that the natural emissions of CO2 were “three quarters of million gton” , three orders of magnitude higher than mine.
My respect for Boehm and possibly for WUWT has taken a distinctly downward turn. It appeasr to me that much is done there to made their regular “skeptics” look credible and the injection of truth appear to be “whining”.
I note that grimsrud is still scrambling to avoid answering my October 6, 6:06 pm post. He avoids responding to it for one reason: he cannot falsify the conclusion, which destroys his entire Belief system. Poor eric. Continue whining, it amuses us.
To D Boehm,
On another thread, I once shared a bit of local Montana Ranch wisdom with one of your co-conspirators, RichardsCourtney. It went like this. “If one plays with feces, one is likely to get feces on one”. That adage now applies to you in spades, as well. You are free to interpret this as you wish – RC says that I have called him feces and you can also take to meaning if you wish – if you think the shoe fits. In any case, all I know is that when interacting with you, all one gets in return is feces.
So concerning your silly questions above proving that CO2 has no effect on T, no thanks. Have you not heard of the PEMT maximun during which a huge natural carbon release 56 mYears ago produded massive warming throughout the planet lasting for some 150,000 years ?
From ericgrimsrud on October 11, 2012 at 8:15 am:
Nah, it’s still there. As mentioned in my timeline, that D Böehm comment is here, where it was before, where it still is, and hasn’t gone anywhere. “Human emissions are only around 3% of the total of about three quarters of a million gtons.”
You may be remembering it slightly differently. But still, a total of “about three quarters of a million gtons” minus only 3% human emissions would still leave natural emissions of about 3/4 of a million gtons.
Is your memory that faulty, do you have a reading problem, or is there another reason for you desperately trying to push your “WUWT is editing comments!” belief with this ongoing string of non-examples?
ericgrimsrud says:
“So concerning your silly questions above proving that CO2 has no effect on T, no thanks.”
And thus grimsrud concedes defeat. He will not admit it, of course. But readers can see that he has no way to falsify the conclusion. And as usual, grimsrud tries to drag another red herring across the path of the hounds with his irrelevant “PEMT” (sic) distraction.
DB, What I actually said was: “Have you not heard of the PEMT maximun during which a huge natural carbon release 56 mYears ago produded massive warming throughout the planet lasting for some 150,000 years ?” Now that is not a silly question. Is that evidence of CO2’s effect too obvious for you ?