From UC Berkeley: Rising temperature difference between hemispheres could dramatically shift rainfall patterns in tropics
By Robert Sanders, Media Relations
BERKELEY —
One often ignored consequence of global climate change is that the Northern Hemisphere is becoming warmer than the Southern Hemisphere, which could significantly alter tropical precipitation patterns, according to a new study by climatologists from the University of California, Berkeley, and the University of Washington, Seattle.

Such a shift could increase or decrease seasonal rainfall in areas such as the Amazon, sub-Saharan Africa or East Asia, leaving some areas wetter and some drier than today.
“A key finding is a tendency to shift tropical rainfall northward, which could mean increases in monsoon weather systems in Asia or shifts of the wet season from south to north in Africa and South America,” said UC Berkeley graduate student Andrew R. Friedman, who led the analysis.
“Tropical rainfall likes the warmer hemisphere,” summed up John Chiang, UC Berkeley associate professor of geography and a member of the Berkeley Atmospheric Sciences Center. “As a result, tropical rainfall cares a lot about the temperature difference between the two hemispheres.”
Chiang and Friedman, along with University of Washington colleagues Dargan M. W. Frierson and graduate student Yen-Ting Hwang, report their findings in a paper now accepted by the Journal of Climate, a publication of the American Meteorological Society. It will appear in an upcoming issue.
Generally, rainfall patterns fall into bands at specific latitudes, such as the Intertropical Convergence Zone. The researchers say that a warmer northern hemisphere causes atmospheric overturning to weaken in the north and strengthen in the south, shifting rain bands northward.
Impact of the Clean Air Act
Even though greenhouse gas warming of Earth has been going up since the 19th century, Chiang, Friedman and their team found no significant overall upward or downward trend in interhemispheric temperature differences last century until a steady increase beginning in the 1980s.
The researchers attribute this to human emissions of aerosols, in particular sulfates – from coal-burning power plants, for example – which cooled the Northern Hemisphere and apparently counteracted the warming effect of rising greenhouse gases until the 1970 U.S. Clean Air Act led to a downward trend in sulfur emissions. The act reduced pollution and saved more than 200,000 lives and prevented some 700,000 cases of chronic bronchitis, according to 2010 figures from the Environmental Protection Agency.
“Greenhouse gases and aerosols act in opposite directions, so for much of the 20th century they essentially canceled one another out in the Northern Hemisphere,” Chiang said. “When we started cleaning up aerosols we essentially leveled off the aerosol influence and allowed the greenhouse gases to express themselves.”
The regions most affected by this shift are likely to be on the bands’ north and south edges, Frierson said.
“It really is these borderline regions that will be most affected, which, not coincidentally, are some of the most vulnerable places: areas like the Sahel where rainfall is variable from year to year and the people tend to be dependent on subsistence agriculture,” said Frierson, associate professor of atmospheric sciences. “We are making major climate changes to the planet and to expect that rainfall patterns would stay the same is very naïve.”
20th century rainfall patterns
Many discussions of climate change focus on long-term trends in the average global temperature. The UC Berkeley and University of Washington researchers went a step further to determine how the temperature difference between the two hemispheres changed over the last century and how that may have affected tropical rainfall patterns.
Using more than 100 years of data and model simulations, they compared the yearly average temperature difference between the Northern and Southern hemispheres with rainfall throughout the 20th century and noticed that abrupt changes coincided with rainfall disruptions in the equatorial tropics.
The largest was a drop of about one-quarter degree Celsius (about one-half degree Fahrenheit) in the temperature difference in the late 1960s, which coincided with a 30-year drought in the African Sahel that caused famines and increased desertification across North Africa, as well as decreases in the monsoons in East Asia and India.
“If what we see in the last century is true, even small changes in the temperature difference between the Northern and Southern hemispheres could cause measureable changes in tropical rainfall,” Chiang said.
This bodes ill for the future, he said. The team found that most computer models simulating past and future climate predict a steadily rising interhemispheric temperature difference through the end of the century. Even if humans begin to lower their greenhouse gas emissions, the models predict about a 1 degree Celsius (2° F) increase in this difference by 2099.
As global temperatures rose over the course of the 20th century (top), the temperature between the two hemispheres changed little until the 1980s, though it has been rising since. Courtesy of Andrew Friedman.While the average temperature of the Earth is increasing as a result of dramatic increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide, the Earth is not warming uniformly. In particular, the greater amount of land mass in the north warms up faster than the ocean-dominated south, Chiang said. He and his colleagues argue that climate scientists should not only focus on the rising global mean temperature, but also the regional patterns of global warming. As their study shows, the interhemispheric temperature difference has an apparent impact on atmospheric circulation and rainfall in the tropics.
“Global mean temperature is great for detecting climate change, but it is not terribly useful if you want to know what is happening to rainfall over California, for example,” Chiang said. “We think this simple index, interhemispheric temperature, is very relevant on a hemispheric and perhaps regional level. It provides a different perspective on climate change and also highlights the effect of aerosols on weather patterns.”
The research was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It’s always in the future, isn’t it? If they haven’t made any accurate previous predictions of today’s rainfall then they should make their predictions now and get back to us in a couple of decades.
“Greenhouse gases and aerosols act in opposite directions, so for much of the 20th century they essentially canceled one another out in the Northern Hemisphere,” Chiang said. “When we started cleaning up aerosols we essentially leveled off the aerosol influence and allowed the greenhouse gases to express themselves.”
So what happened in the last 15 years? The aerosols decided to cancel the greenhouse gas effect again after not doing so for decades? And in the process, did they consult the daily temperature data to make sure that overall the temperature would remain precisely flat?!
michael hart sums it up for me.
Saves me having to make the comment.
It will shift back over the coming decades as the PDO and AMO flips will show you.
its a natural back and forth, because of the way the planet was designed
Eccl 1:9
“One often ignored consequence of global climate change is that the Northern Hemisphere is becoming warmer than the Southern Hemisphere…’
But does this say anything about the mechanism? Consequence of what? Don’t we already know NH is more variable? More responsive to external forcing? Ice Ages?
I couldn’t stand to read this in entirety. GH gasses warming since when, 19th century? When did they change it from ~1950? And aerosols canceled the rise for “much” of the 20th? So really all this hullabaloo is about 20 yrs rise and 25 yrs flat or falling temps. I wish these turkeys would get together and settle on a common story. I just can’t keep up with all their bulsh.
cheers,
gary
“This bodes ill for the future, he said. The team found that most computer models simulating past and future climate predict….”
As usual. In the climate-change religion, mankind used to live in an extraordinary situation in which every universal constant [sarc], such as temperature, sea level, sea ice extent, glacier size, snow cover, etc, was “perfect” as designed by Gaia. Then one day around April 15 1979 at 7:30pm, Man caused those conditions to change from their perfect equilibrium, and every change of every parameter will result in a catastrophe (as predicted by computer models). Every aspect of the Gaia religion has a correspondence in the traditional Christian religion (sin, repentance, indulgences, etc). In this case it’s the story of mankind sinning and being expelled from the Garden-of-Eden.
Hmm, the pattern looks similar to the last time temperatures increased for 20-30 years from 1910 to 1940. Yet the problem with the rain in the Sahel in the 60’s occurred when the temp. differences were very small. Sound the alarm!!
Tim Flannery was on the Oz news tonight pushing a climate change commission report with big emphasis on storms, increased rainfall and flooding. The new push downunder seems to be on flood fear. Can’t wait to see Jo Nova’s response.
The U.S. Clean Air Act is causing global warming? Maybe, it makes a certain sense. But then much of AGW theory makes a certain sense in the abstract. Overall, I get a clear wiff of post hoc ergo propter hoc coupled with grant fishing. The use of “could mean” early on doesn’t help their cause.
”greenhouse warming of the atmosphere has been going on since the 19th century”
What about the GHG’s before the 19th century did they not cause a problem??????? What a load of crap Berkley talks. The SH will always be cooler than the NH because that hemisphere has MORE water. Dumb clucks producing a modeled outcome from cherry picked rubbish. Can we not pay these people to clean the streets.
The largest was a drop of about one-quarter degree Celsius (about one-half degree Fahrenheit) in the temperature difference in the late 1960s, which coincided with a 30-year drought in the African Sahel that caused famines and increased desertification across North Africa, as well as decreases in the monsoons in East Asia and India.
HH Lamb knew all about this at the time. As a result of a colder NH, and particularly Arctic, the equatorial rainbands were squeezed into much narrower bands.
Does the author want us to return to that, because those droughts were far worse than anything seen since?
“Such a shift could increase or decrease seasonal rainfall in areas such as the Amazon, sub-Saharan Africa or East Asia, leaving some areas wetter and some drier than today.”
Now there’s an incontrovertible hypothesis if I’ve ever seen one! What a bunch of nonsense.
So 1960’s cooling caused a 30 drought in the Sahel. Not sure a slight shift back in rainfall to that area would be all bad.
The land mass I am on is not warming up.
http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2013/04/02/march-is-joint-second-coldest-on-record/
A warming globe warms more over the northern continents and a cooling globe cools more over the northern continents.
Either way the southern oceans have a buffering effect.
Their observations are already out of date since the warming trend of the late 20th century is now in the process of reversing.
It is the circulation changes that tell what is really going on and CO2 has little or no effect compared to solar and oceanic forcings.
“Tropical rainfall likes the warmer hemisphere”
“As a result, tropical rainfall cares a lot about the temperature difference between the two hemispheres.”
Who knew rainfall was so emotional?
sed s/new/knew/g
“One often ignored consequence of global climate change is that the Northern Hemisphere is becoming warmer than the Southern Hemisphere,”
I lost heart to continue reading. These guys only just looked at land ocean distribution over the planet?
Does anyone know the Guiness World Record for the minimum amount of time for the wonderful Steve McIntyre to completely eviscerate a warmist “peer reviewed paper?
Another record looming with this one?
johnmarshall:
At April 3, 2013 at 4:18 am you suggest
Although I agree with the first of your sentences which I quote, I ask you to
please withdraw your suggestion.
I want the streets cleaned at reasonable cost by competent cleaners and – following more than 30 years of studying this subject – I have yet to observe any evidence that any climastrologists have any competence at anything except obtaining funds from other people.
Richard
Go long on umbrella manufacturers
“Such a shift could increase or decrease seasonal rainfall in areas such as the Amazon, sub-Saharan Africa or East Asia, leaving some areas wetter and some drier than today.”
Yep. In my expert opinion, rainfall will either increase, decrease or stay about the same…
Sad what comes out of Berkeley. “The stupid, it burns,” doesn’t begin to cover it. Emotional, vague, duplicitous. Are there any statements in the article that couldn’t be explained to support any fact or counter example raised? Perhaps just postmodernism at its best.
It’s a study from UC Berkeley… that’s all one needs to know.