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.
Mosher, your statement betrays ignorance of meteorological facts and willigness to remain that way: this study is garbage from people who are self serving and not even exposing honestly the state of science.
“One often ignored consequence of global climate change” will continue to be ignored.
John Tillman said @ur momisugly April 3, 2013 at 6:55 am
Interesting paper… Thanks 🙂
Yes. And coulde also say:
I vaguely recall that the consensus said that man began to have a discernible effect on temperature after 1950. I must be mistaken.
wilt says:
April 3, 2013 at 3:47 am
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?!
Excellent point.
Of course, if greenhouse gases have no significant effect then the end of substantial aerosol reductions around 2000, explains the flat temperatures since.
Yaaaawn. Next..
” [ … ] the Northern Hemisphere is becoming warmer than the Southern Hemisphere [ … ]”
Really ?
NOAA: NORTHERN HEMISPHERE COOLING AT -.27C / DECADE (1998 – 2013)
http://www.thegwpf.org/noaa-northern-hemisphere-trend-cooling-27c-decade-1998-2013/
Y’know, when I read James Gleick’s wonderful book on chaos theory (about 20 years ago) I really thought that science had moved up to another level in at last reaching an understanding of the limits of computability. Fool, I was. I didn’t reckon on the twin drivers of Global Warming Science: unscrupulous grantseeking and religiosity.
@Brent Even more worrisome, he’s Peter Gleick’s brother!
“When we started cleaning up aerosols we essentially leveled off the aerosol influence and allowed the greenhouse gases to express themselves.”
Why not just: “allowed solar insolation to better directly heat the surface?”
” 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.”
But, the converse is also true. Land masses cool faster than oceans. And to make an obvious point, since there is more land cover in the NH, there will always be more warming (and cooling , all else being equal), but also there should be more variations in temperatures. I seriously doubt that was ever an equilibrium between the 2 hemispheres.
BTW, we are all still waiting for the tropical mid tropospheric hotspot that the IPCC said is a feature of AGW.
The authors have apparently never heard of the Polar See-Saw. This has been going on naturally long before CO2 or aerosols were an issue. So what caused it in the past and why is that not the cause now?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_see-saw
And they call themselves climate scientists?
Continuing Joe B’s comments earlier this week concerning the March UAH numbers, he made an interesting if not obvious observation – namely that most of March’s warming occurred over Continental landmasses. While much of the cooling occurred either over Maritime areas, or areas heavily influenced by the oceans. And for March, much of strongest negative anomalies occurred in the NH. HIs was point was that since maritime areas require either more cooling or warming to move them away from the normal temps (as compared to continental areas), the cooling trend could be masked. And the NH for March was warmer than the SH. Interesting situation. A change in ENSO, of course, could tip the next 18 months global temps either way. I believe a La Nina event is due during the next 9-15 months
“Why do alarmists always bleat that we should insist on achieving a static climate?”
Because the very people crying for ideological “change” hate actual changes in reality.
Nearly 30 years ago as a geology undergraduate I was taught that a side effect of continental drift was the free southern oceans, while major land masses were clustered round the northern polar regions.
One effect of this was impeding water flow in the far north and this was considered important as background to the arctic ice mass and the variability of NH weather, including the formation of ice ages.
Now it’s all CO2 and aerosols. Perhaps the earth is only 6000 years old after all.
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.
Show me a computer model that attempts to replicate nature’s creation and use of the CO2 equivalent gases as any real computer modeller would consider to be a very ground level basic requirement. Sadly the climate fraternity is totally blessed with a blinkered and inadequate set of self opinionated set of pretty hopeless and untrained amateurs, professing expertise they clearly do not have. It would appear to me from the reluctantly released data they even are so ignorant they compare man’s emission with the leftovers in the atmosphere rather than the actual gross natural emissions but surely that is just the media who have misreported it.
Why is it, that everyone speaks of the shifting rainbands? Is it not possible that these rainbands may broaden, as well? Does it really have to take from one and give to another? Why should increased rainfall be restricted to the narrow bands, that existed during previously drier/cooler global atmosphere times? GK