Weather patterns that bring moisture are becoming less frequent
From the NATIONAL CENTER FOR ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH/UNIVERSITY CORPORATION FOR ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH and the “there’s no natural variation component anymore” department comes this blame game claim that seems to ignore history, like the fact that tree rings show decade and century long droughts in the past:
BOULDER — The weather patterns that typically bring moisture to the southwestern United States are becoming more rare, an indication that the region is sliding into the drier climate state predicted by global models, according to a new study.
“A normal year in the Southwest is now drier than it once was,” said Andreas Prein, a postdoctoral researcher at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) who led the study. “If you have a drought nowadays, it will be more severe because our base state is drier.”
Climate models generally agree that human-caused climate change will push the southwestern United States to become drier. And in recent years, the region has been stricken by drought. But linking model predictions to changes on the ground is challenging.
In the new study–published online today in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, a publication of the American Geophysical Union–NCAR researchers grapple with the root cause of current drying in the Southwest to better understand how it might be connected to a warming climate.

–Subtle shift yields dramatic impact–
For the study, the researchers analyzed 35 years of data to identify common weather patterns–arrangements of high and low pressure systems that determine where it’s likely to be sunny and clear or cloudy and wet, among other things. They identified a dozen patterns that are typical for the weather activity in the contiguous United States and then looked to see whether those patterns were becoming more or less frequent.
“The weather types that are becoming more rare are the ones that bring a lot of rain to the southwestern United States,” Prein said. “Because only a few weather patterns bring precipitation to the Southwest, those changes have a dramatic impact.”
The Southwest is especially vulnerable to any additional drying. The region, already the most arid in the country, is home to a quickly growing population that is putting tremendous stress on its limited water resources.
“Prolonged drought has many adverse effects,” said Anjuli Bamzai, program director in the National Science Foundation’s Division of Atmospheric and Geospace Sciences, which funded the research, “so understanding regional precipitation trends is vital for the well-being of society. These researchers demonstrate that subtle shifts in large-scale weather patterns over the past three decades or so have been the dominant factor in precipitation trends in the southwestern United States.”
The study also found an opposite, though smaller, effect in the Northeast, where some of the weather patterns that typically bring moisture to the region are increasing.
“Understanding how changing weather pattern frequencies may impact total precipitation across the U.S. is particularly relevant to water resource managers as they contend with issues such as droughts and floods, and plan future infrastructure to store and disperse water,” said NCAR scientist Mari Tye, a co-author of the study.
–The climate connection–
The three patterns that tend to bring the most wet weather to the Southwest all involve low pressure centered in the North Pacific just off the coast of Washington, typically during the winter. Between 1979 and 2014, such low-pressure systems formed less and less often. The associated persistent high pressure in that area over recent years is a main driver of the devastating California drought.
This shift toward higher pressure in the North Pacific is consistent with climate model runs, which predict that a belt of higher average pressure that now sits closer to the equator will move north. This high-pressure belt is created as air that rises over the equator moves poleward and then descends back toward the surface. The sinking air causes generally drier conditions over the region and inhibits the development of rain-producing systems.
Many of the world’s deserts, including the Sahara, are found in such regions of sinking air, which typically lie around 30 degrees latitude on either side of the equator. Climate models project that these zones will move further poleward. The result is a generally drier Southwest.
While climate change is a plausible explanation for the change in frequency, the authors caution that the study does not prove a connection. To examine this potential connection further, they are studying climate model data for evidence of similar changes in future weather pattern frequencies.
“As temperatures increase, the ground becomes drier and the transition into drought happens more rapidly,” said NCAR scientist Greg Holland, a co-author of the study. “In the Southwest the decreased frequency of rainfall events has further extended the period and intensity of these droughts.”
###
The study was funded in part by the National Science Foundation, NCAR’s sponsor, and the Research Partnership to Secure Energy for America.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

They analyzed THIRTY-FIVE (35) years of data – wow. That should have given them a pretty good picture of past conditions. If I’m not mistaken, pioneers coming across the great plains in the mid-19th century to California referred to it as the Great Western Desert. Is their anything these people do besides make predictions with (simplistic) computer models. How about using a bit of common sense! How about doing a study that, for once, predicts the postive aspects of a warmer climate – after all most plants and animal species (including humans) prefer warmth to cold. How about referring to history, particularily the middle ages, where people benefitted from a warmer climate.
(simplistic) computer models
Simplistic, yes. Simple, no — they can be and should be. And for all their complexity, they also exclude primary relevant factors.
There appears to be little accounting of PDO flux, and the study does not address the negative-PDO induced droughts of the 1950s.
It’s tantamount to measuring rainfall for 5 minutes outside your house, and concluding a flood will occur due to the obvious trend.
They measured a 6.5% change over 35 years? So…if a place gets 20 inches of rain a year, a 6% change is….1.2 inches difference. Over the course of 35 years is 0.0342 inches per year.
How exactly does one “measure” either one over an area the size of two entire states??? These people are insane.
Not to mention the Pacific climate shift of the late ’70s since when our constant flow of tropical cyclones came to an abrupt end in SE Queensland.
35 years of climate Nat Var.
There are plenty of records from the local towns in the area and the US weather review has detailed entries from around 1855 and sometimes earlier. 35 years is not long enough to base a study such as this on, any more than anyone can claim that we have a permanently altered warmer/cooler climate based on a few decades of information
We need to look at evidence as far back as it goes, which in this case includes tree rings as they are a reasonable measure of drought/flood.
tonyb
Seems like another case of mental masturbation to me.
When was the last time you saw any one of the 57 known GCMs or global climate model graphs for your state or borough or shire that showed what the historical drought conditions for you locality have been.
I mean a global climate model is not a model of the weather in the American South West.
It’s not even a model of the Northern, or Southern or Western or Eastern hemispheres.
And just for good measure, NONE of the 57 global climate models is even a correct model of the global climate.
Fortunately, nobody has yet used the GCMs to paint us a picture of the climate of the solar system, and its drought history.
g
They could have at least gone back to the Dust Bowl. They do know about the dust bowl, don’t they?
Or even to the Fifties drought: CLOUD SEEDING FOOLS AND OTHER DROUGHTY THOUGHTS
http://ppjg.me/2012/08/24/cloud-seeding-fools-and-other-droughty-thoughts/
In addition to droughts, the state is now wrestling with THE GREAT TEXAS WIND HOAX
http://ppjg.me/2011/02/17/the-great-texas-wind-hoax/
Well the dust bowl was a region of unusually low humidity back then, and in any case, that is not the American South West any how.
g
Sometimes, in mischief mode, I may steer a conversation around to The Lake District, here in Cumbria.
It rains a lot there, west-facing mountains etc etc and the rain keeps getting worse. We keep being told this and its no surprise when you keep moving the recording stations further uphill.
My question is though – Did all the rain make the lakes or, are the lakes creating the rain?
And it makes sense does it not – big bodies of water evaporate, make clouds and hence rain.
For The Lake District its pretty much a pedantic mischief but..
what about when we apply it to somewhere like the Aral Sea…….
The Aral Sea problem appears to be a result of overtapping the Oxus.
Unaccounted-for rain gauge moves create an inhomogeneity in the raw data, and that would need to be factored in.
The US great lakes region is a classic example. Google “lake effect”
If the precipitation data presents cyclic variation similar to hurricanes and typhoons [they are in opposite phase] — 60 year cycle –, 1980 to 2010 shall not indicative of the dry or wet conditions unless we specify which part of the cycle, this period is referring. We generally call it a truncated data that mislead the drought or flood condition.
Also, meteorological drought is different from hydrological drought; hydrological drought is different from agriculture drought; agriculture drought is different from meteoological drought. Meteorological drught relates to in-situ precipitation and hydrological drought relates to catchment area preciitation; agriculture drought relates to precipitation, crop & soil.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
if so then it’s just too bad for the southwest because there is no evidence that cutting fossil fuel emissions will change anything. empirical support for the theory of AGW comes from a correlation between cumulative fossil fuel emissions and surface temperature shown here
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n12/fig_tab/nclimate2064_F1.html
this correlation is spurious. please see
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2725743
On the other hand, it’s well known that higher CO2 levels help plants to use water more efficiently.
One of the ways of defining drought comes from the groundwater level. If more people are taking more water out of the ground at a rate faster than it is being replaced, then it would seem fair to say that the resulting drought is man-made. What car you drive, or what light bulbs you use is of course irrelevant.
There are, as I recall, three different types of drought. Agricultural (soil moisture), meteorological (rain fall), and hydrological (levels in streams and lakes). It’s more complicated than many people make it out to be.
Well hardly. The lack of sufficient water might be a result of overuse by humans, but a drought is a problem of inadequate resupply of water from natural sources (the sky); not a problem of excessive use.
Drought is a natural phenomenon. Misuse of limited water may be a man made problem.
g
LOL.
You mean the sort of drought that caused the “decline” that had to be hidden?
LOL.
It just gets better and better folks.
Gotta love climate science. What ever it’s doing right now, warming or cooling, is what it will keep doing unabated, until we are all dead.
Greenpeace are taking photos of the worst affected bushfire ravaged areas of Tasmania and claiming it as proof of man made global warming .
I have just one question , has this area never ever been burnt before now ? Or is that just the unbeliever in me .
Well, if you don’t allow people to clear a fire break and/or remove the fuel loading around properties then when a bush fire starts the affects are worse. What about the Victorian fires – started by lightning
Interesting. Usually they take a photograph of the environment and proclaim that this is the way it has always looked and should always look. Forevah!!!!!
As the late Sam Kinison said: “It’s a desert, a f*****g desert…”
It can’t be a desert, the lawns are green.
It was understandable that many of us thought at the start, that GHG global warming would express as a slow, rather uniform blanket like effect that did not single out small regions for special treatment.
The paper under discussion has taken the non uniform evolved GHG hypothesis to heights that are , well, not credible. I would recommend shelving it for another 25 years so the vagaries of Nature can be expressed and perhaps allow humility in apology.
Circulation in the stratosphere.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_t100_nh_f00.png
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_z100_nh_f00.png
And in the troposphere (500 hPa).
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/blocking/real_time_nh/500gz_anomalies_nh.gif
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/hgt.ao.cdas.gif
I guess my high school history lessons were wrong then. The Anasazi native Americans didn’t abandon their pueblos because of drought after all. The NCAR has proven to me droughts are only because of AGW.
Sigh … It was all because the Anasazi drove too many SUVs. The Wise ones tried to warn them. But they did not listen.
It does not, BTW, take a climate scientist to project that there are probably more water users in the Western US (exclusive of a narrow coastal strip from Monterrey North) than natural precipitation can support. Probably ought to do something in the way of improved water management. But that’s SUCH a drag …
I know. Let’s blame climate change. That’ll fix everything.
Those Anasazi were good. I have no idea how they managed to get their SUVs up those cliffs.
@MarkW
Four wheel drive, buddy. Four wheel drive can go anywhere.
gary turner: Absolutely. Four wheel drive is magic and 4WD design and repair is taught in the fourth year at Hogwarts. Those things can go anywhere in time and space. MarkW must not watch TV commercials (lucky him).
It was well known 20 years ago that the last three decades of the 20th century were unusually wet in Colorado as the population boomed. There were concerns that the state may not have enough water for the future. It’s old news.
Oh yeah, it is called “The Desert Southwest” because…..anyone?
“In the Southwest the decreased frequency of rainfall events has further extended the period and intensity of these droughts.”
Who would have thought that it’s the lack of rain. I’m glad there was a study to tell us this.
Didn’t all this change this year? With the arrival of “The Christ Child”, El Nino, didn’t the south west get a good dousing of rain?
Yes, it did.
But please don’t confuse “climate scientists” with facts, ie actual observations of the real world.
We shouldn’t confuse them with scientists either.
“Climate Witch Doctor” would be closer.
Who do that voodoo science that they do so well, thanks to compliant governments and media.
El Niño didn’t dump as much rain and snow in California as forecast?
So far it’s been a pretty “average” rainfall year, which is great in the midst of a drought, but won’t bring the drought to an end. The Southwest still needs above average precipitation in the next couple months to put a dent in the drought.
..I made a model that says my model is better than your model, so there…plllltth !!
I prefer super models, but I can’t afford them.
Based on a 35 year study. 35years!! 35 years is just weather, not climate. Any projection based on less then 180 years is worthless as a predictor of future trends…pg
180 years takes us right back to the Little Ice Age, which is also a worthless starting point for projections, so it looks like you forgot your “sarc tag”.
Do I hear 1000 years? Going once, going twice …
Climatologists will have to re-invent past studies that did, and then did not find an increase or decrease in oceanic-atmospheric trends that were exclusive to the last half of the 20th century attributed to anthropogenic CO2 increase. I well remember the plethora of studies that heralded the rising Arctic Oscillation as a canary in the coalmine harbinger of anthropogenic catastrophe. I still have to laugh out loud when that oscillation fell into negative territory. You would think the phrase “anthropogenic drivers” is the most often used phrase. It isn’t. The phrase heard most often near the water cooler down the hallway of climatologists’ offices? “Never mind.”
Up is caused by us: http://www.cccma.ec.gc.ca/papers/jfyfe/PDF/FyfeBoerFlato1999a.pdf
Never mind: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2004GL021752/full
We move into a desert, make it green by taping the water table and the Colorado River, exhaust those resources, then blame anthropogenic CO2 emissions when it reverts to its natural state. Science at its very best!
From the head post:
Say that really fast 5 times. Almost as good as “The Leith Police dismisseth us.”
Try this sobriety test;
“I’m not a pheasant plucker I’m a pheasant pluckers son I’m only plucking pheasant till the pheasant pluckers come”.
Changing the P to an F makes it much more interesting !!
fheasant?
Marcus – say it fast a few times and you’ll get there. That’s the point. 🙂
The sixth sheikh’s sixth sheep’s sick.
Since mid-2007, I have been measuring and reporting daily rainfall at my house on the west side of Tucson, Arizona. Here are the results:
Here is the total rainfall recorded in inches since 2008:
2008: 12.09
2009: 10.00
2010: 11.56
2011: 10.83
2012: 10.85
2013: 7.95
2014: 11.36
2015: 14.32
Where is the drought?
..Hey, not fair, you took actual measurements !! Don’t you know that only computer models can tell us what is happening in the world ! Didn’t you watch ” Matrix ” ??….
Came and went in 2013.
With that much rainfall do you have a problem with mould?
In SoCal, where population went up 87% since 1970 while total state water storage increased 26%. Essay False Alarms. Cause greens don’t like dams and reservoirs as much as they don’t like fossil fuels. Hard to see anything useful that they do like. Zero GHG nuclear electricity? Nope. GMO crops that improve yields and cut down on toxic pesticides? Nope. Preserving jungle habitat for orangutangs and carbon sequestration? Nope, burn it all down for palm oil plantations for green biofuel. Grid solar and wind aren’t useful because of intermitency. And so on.
I’ll bet a lot of that is Summer thunderstorms. Because of the prevailing Westerly winds, those rarely make it West of the Sierra Nevada. Unfortunately almost all the people in California live West of the Sierra crest and depend on Winter rain/snow (plus all the rivers elsewhere they can hijack) for water.
gravitational wave
https://youtu.be/c7293kAiPZw
Unfortunately, none of us ” little people ” TRUST anything from NSF because of their backing of the Glo.Bull Warming hoax !!
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/31/climate-change-to-make-it-off-broadway-debut-thanks-to-national-science.html
Vukcevic,
What’s the frequency? Kenneth?
low low low?
Highest note in this event hit middle C.
“They identified a dozen patterns that are typical for the weather activity in the contiguous United States and then looked to see whether those patterns were becoming more or less frequent. (over35 years of data)”
You have got to be kidding me! Looking for frequency changes of large scale weather patterns over 35 years? How does this stuff get published? 60 years would be too short for what they are trying to do! At least this paper can be used in an intro stats class or research methodology class to demonstrate the perils of low sample size!
What an embarrassment for the authors, the reviewers, NCAR and the journal.
Basic science fail.
Here’s the 127 year annual precipitation record for Corvallis Oregon, a location that is shown to be drying on the NCAR map over the 30-year period:
http://blogs.oregonstate.edu/seedproduction/files/2016/02/Precipitations-graphic.jpg
The precipitation data has been collected by Oregon State University staff for the entire 127-year period. No significant trend in annual precipitation is seen in the data.
Interesting, is that data file available?
BTW what does the 5 year average have a point every year? If it’s a 5y ave it should have one point every 5 years.
It’s usually a running average. Notice how the start and end points do not extend all the way to the ends of the data. Start with the first 5 years of data. Next year, drop the oldest and add the current year. Repeat until you run out of data.
Thanks Mark, I realised that actually. I was being a little cheeky to our honourable Professor who had not correctly labelled what was being shown in the graph.
If he had labelled it as running average, I would have asked why he still has annual resolution variability in his “smooothed” data and pointed him to an article explaining about the distortion of running average “filters” and suggesting better filter. options 😉
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/2013/05/19/triple-running-mean-filters/
So why not just continue that running average process, until you are left with only one number when you run out of data, and then you can claim that as the proper result for that data.
You start out with real data, and you finish up with real fiction.
G
Ah, you mean the art of the accelerating cosine !
http://climategrog.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/warming-cosine.png
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/warming-cosine/
The temperature distribution in the upper stratosphere (5 mbar).
And the polar vortex.
Sorry.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_t05_nh_f00.png
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_z05_nh_f00.png
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/