Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
I haven’t posted here at WUWT in a bit. I’ve been preoccupied writing for my own blog, Skating Under The Ice. It’s a work in progress. However, my climate work continues. There’s a paper out about a year old, unfortunately paywalled, regarding precipitation with some interesting conclusions. [UPDATE: available here, h/t to commenter Taphonomic]. The paper is called Changes in annual precipitation over the Earth’s land mass excluding Antarctica from the 18th century to 2013, by W.A. van Wijngaarden and A. Syed. Here is what ScienceDirect lists as the key points of the paper:
Highlights
• Over 1½ million monthly precipitation totals observed at 1000 stations in 114 countries analysed.
• Data record much longer than 3 recent conflicting studies that analysed a few decades of data.
• No substantial difference found for stations located at northern, tropical and southern latitudes.
• No substantial difference found for stations experiencing dry, moderate and wet climates.
• No significant global precipitation change from 1850 to present.
The Abstract of the paper reads:
Precipitation measurements made at nearly 1000 stations located in 114 countries were studied. Each station had at least 100 years of observations resulting in a dataset comprising over 1½ million monthly precipitation amounts. Data for some stations extend back to the 1700s although most of the data exist for the period after 1850. The total annual precipitation was found if all monthly data in a given year were present.
The percentage annual precipitation change relative to 1961-90 was plotted for 6 continents; as well as for stations at different latitudes and those experiencing low, moderate and high annual precipitation totals. The trends for precipitation change together with their 95% confidence intervals were found for various periods of time. Most trends exhibited no clear precipitation change.
The global changes in precipitation over the Earth’s land mass excluding Antarctica relative to 1961-90 were estimated to be: -1.2 ± 1.7, 2.6 ± 2.5 and -5.4 ± 8.1% per century for the periods 1850-2000, 1900-2000 and 1950-2000, respectively. A change of 1% per century corresponds to a precipitation change of 0.09 mm/year.
Being a visual kind of guy, I converted the one sigma errors to 95% confidence intervals, and graphed up the trends:
As you can see, there is no statistically significant change in global rainfall, whether we look back fifty, a hundred, or a hundred and fifty years.
How are we to understand this? Well, to start with it is another example of the amazing stability of the global climate system.
However, I have to ask myself, given that in general a warmer world is a wetter world .. why so little change? This is often a valuable exercise, trying to understand a negative result.
One thing that comes to mind is that the effect may be there, but not be big enough to see. After all, the land has warmed up something like one degree Celsius or so since 1850, from something like 14°C to 15°C.
So … IF we assume that atmospheric water goes up linearly with increasing absolute temperature T, the temperature has gone up from about 287 Kelvin to 288 Kelvin, which is about a third of a percent … so we wouldn’t expect to see that.
On the other hand, IF water vapor goes up by T^4, then the increase is a bit larger. But it’s still only a percent and a half, which still would not be visible.
Finally, IF atmosphere water goes up from approximately zero at 0°C to 100% at 100°C … well, even then it’s only one degree, so that would still only be 1%.
So one possibility is that warmer is wetter, but the temperature change over the last century and a half is not large enough to cause an observable change in rainfall.
Another possibility is more subtle. As I write this, the wind outside is pushing the rain sideways at something like 20° from the vertical. This means that my rain gauge shown below, complete with a chambered nautilus shell in the window that we picked up on some beach “long ago and in another country”, that gauge is not recording the actual rainfall amount.
So … how much is the error? Well, at the simplest level it’s equal to the cosine of the angle of the vertical. If the rain is falling at 45° the gauge will read about 30% less than the true value. At 20° from the vertical like today, it only reads about 6% low. However, in reality of course it’s much more complicated. For example, for a given wind, smaller droplets are more likely to be blown away from the gauge. So light rains will have a greater error than heavy rains.
The total analysis is quite complex, depending on the exact shape of the rain gauge and how it is affected by the winds. There’s a fascinating analysis here.
Setting the details aside, it is clear that a slow secular change in either global average wind speed or global average raindrop size could easily make a 1% change in the long-term rainfall records …
In any case, it seems that the rumored droughts and floods due to rising global temperature are not visible in either the global or regional analyses, nor in the short, medium, or long-term analyses, nor in the tropic, subtropic, or polar analyses, nor in the dry, medium or wet locations. Here is their final conclusion:
Stations experiencing low, moderate and heavy annual precipitation did not show very different precipitation trends. This indicates deserts/jungles are neither expanding nor shrinking due to changes in precipitation patterns. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that some caution is warranted about claiming that large changes to global precipitation have occurred during the last 150 years.
Another alarmist myth run aground on an inconvenient reef of facts …
Best to all,
w.
PLEASE: In your comments, be so kind as to QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS YOU ARE REFERRING TO. This prevents misunderstandings regarding your subject.
REGARDING THE POST TITLE:
WHO’LL STOP THE RAIN—Creedence Clearwater Revival Band
Long as I remember the rain been comin’ down
Clouds of mystery pourin’ confusion on the ground.
Good men through the ages tryin’ to find the sun.
And I wonder, still I wonder, who’ll stop the rain.
I went down Virginia seekin’ shelter from the storm
Caught up in the fable I watched the tower grow
Five year plans and new deals wrapped in golden chains.
And I wonder, still I wonder, who’ll stop the rain.
Heard the singers playin’, how we cheered for more.
The crowd had rushed together tryin’ to keep warm.
Still the rain kept pourin’, fallin’ on my ears
And I wonder, still I wonder, who’ll stop the rain.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.


Willis,
Have you given any thought as to why the 1950 error bars are so much larger than for the other two time periods?
So … how much is the error? Well, at the simplest level it’s equal to the cosine of the angle of the vertical.
I suggest you actually read the paper you linked to Willlis.
It is nothing like that at all…
Wind makes a difference over time only if there is a trend in the wind vector.
DP,
A constant wind vector is like no wind at all, relative to the collected rain. While some rain will blow pass the collector cup, an equal amount of rain will fall in the cup that would have fallen outside of the cup in the absence of wind.
Thanks for bringing this artcle to light.
The issue of wind effects on rain guage error is complex as Willis said. The guage body is a cylinder in the air stream and therefore cause pressure and velocity changes as the wind passes around and over the guage. The air passing around the guage body would most likely be in the laminar range (Nre <2300), however I would expect some turbulence as the wind passes over the top of guage. I believe that turbulent flow would reduce the penetration of raindrops into guage. The higher the wind velocity, greater the error, assuming my previous sentence is correct.
Brooks
Willis,
“I converted the one sigma errors to 95% confidence intervals”
Odd that the confidence interval is so much wider for newer data while I would expect older data to have more uncertainty. Are you sure that +/- 8.1% doesn’t mean +/- 8.1% of -5.4 which is about +/- 0.44 which would seem more reasonable.
With regard to wind driven rain and rain gauges. Ignoring turbulence, Reynold Numbers and the like…
When the rain is falling vertically it is collected by the full area of the rain gauge. As the wind increases the apparent collection area steadily reduces by the sin of the rain angle.
Horizontal rain – Sin 0 = 0 therefore no apparent collection area and no rain collected.
Rain at 30 degrees to the horizontal – the landing area seen by the falling rain drops is 0.5 x full area of the collector
Rain falling at 60 degrees to the horizontal – the landing area seen by the falling rain drops is 0.88 x full area of the collector
cheers edi (with fond memories from 1956 – trudging 1 km each way to collect/record the data from a Stevenson “box” at Paardevlei, western cape)
http://tinypic.com/r/2jayc8i/9
It would seem that RH drops with increase in temperature
http://i68.tinypic.com/2jayc8i.jpg
Roy Spencer January 3, 2017 at 5:32 pm
“It’s the wind flow around an isolated gauge that reduces catchment.”
WR: How would the conclusions in the paper (and the post change), when a correction for ‘wind speed measurement effect’ is made?
Hi Willis,
Good to see an analysis of another measurement in the weather records.
Any chance of looking at barometric pressure?
Your question:
” I have to ask myself, given that in general a warmer world is a wetter world .. why so little change?”
Answer:
No warmer world.
Case closed.
Willis and others: In case you are not aware, the increase in precipitation with warming is intimately intertwined with climate sensitivity. For simplicity, let’s assume an ECS of 3.7 K/doubling or 1 K/(W/m2) or 1 W/m2/K. If ECS is 3.7 and if reflection of SWR doesn’t change (more later), then TOA OLR must increase 1 W/m2/K as surface temperature rises.
If a rise in surface temperature sends an additional 1 W/m2/K out the TOA, it must also send an additional 1 W/m2/K from the surface to the atmosphere – to maintain a steady state flux through the atmosphere the atmosphere. Warming increases surface emission by 5.4 W/m2/K. If we assume 333 W/m2 of DLR arises from a blackbody model at 277 K (1.7 km above the surface), then DLR rises 4.8 W/m2/K. (Or we can use MODTRAN with constant relative humidity and get the same answer for a US Standard atmosphere.) If evaporation rises 7%/K (like saturation vapor pressure) and evaporation currently carries 80 W/m2 of latent heat from the surface, then latent heat will rise at 5.6 W/m2/K. The total change in the surface energy balance is 6.2 W/m2/K – far above the 1 W/m2/K of additional heat escaping from the TOA.
One solution to this dilemma is for reflected SWR to increase by 5.2 W/m2/K. Our current 30% albedo reflects 100 W/m2 of SWR back to space and would need to increase 5.2%/K, which is an increase from 30% to 31.6% for 1 K of warming. For 3.7 K of warming, albedo would need to be a whopping 35.8%. Such a major shift in albedo with temperature probably would already have been detected during seasonal warming.
If reflection of incoming SWR doesn’t compensate, then precipitation and evaporation must be suppressed from 7%/K to about 1%/K. Climate models accomplish this by slowing “convective turnover” of the atmosphere, which raises humidity over the oceans and thereby slows evaporation. The change is global precipitation is being measure by satellites from space.
So, if climate sensitivity is high, then the increase in evaporations/precipitation must be about 1%/K instead of 7%/K or albedo must increase to 36% or some combination of these two.
given that in general a warmer world is a wetter world .. why so little change?
it may have to do with where the thunderstorms happen and the thousands of rain gauges in the bermuda triangle on the planet of Sea
Are we now going to see post hoc revisions of rain gauge readings? Change of instrument discontinuities? Recalculation for Time of Observation bias to eliminate evaporative errors? Homogenization by reference to more obedient gauge locations?
Willis writes
Is that really a given? If the amount of rainfall increases, then the amount of energy as latent heat that is removed from the surface, increases (and is deposited high in the atmosphere to be radiated away as clouds form) and consequently the surface must cool. More rain = negative feedback.
We often think of the tropics as warm and wet but then again, the tropics receive much more energy than the higher latitudes.
I’d start with this basic assumption. Maybe its not actually justified.
Another problem is that precipitation is not proportional to humidity (ie, to temperature and evaporation). Precipitation is more effected by the confluence and interaction of warm and cold airmasses – whether that is continental sized airmasses, or simply a tarmac car park and cooler farmland causing convection.
So a rise on 1 degree is not necessarily going to increase rainfall.
R
Thanks Willis, as always food for thought but you haven’t solved my lifelong dilema. Will I get less wet in the rain if I dash across the parking lot to the Pub, or park upwind and walk at the windspeed.?
Any suggestions?
Oh! and Happy New Year to all on WUWT.
Regarding: “On the other hand, IF water vapor goes up by T^4, then the increase is a bit larger. But it’s still only a percent and a half, which still would not be visible.” The relationship between water pressure of water and temperature is well known, and in the temperature range at which water is liquid the mathematical formula is an Arrhenius one. As temperature changes zero to 30 degrees C, 273-303 K, the equilibrium vapor pressure of water changes from 4.6 to 31.8 mm Hg, and the variation in this temperature range is close to exponential at a rate of doubling every 11 degrees C. In this temperature range, it is also close to absolute temperature raised to the 18.5 power. Either way, a 1 degree C increase, such as from 14 to 15 degrees C, causes water vapor to increase about 6.6 percent.
However, I expect a 1 degree C temperature increase to increase rainfall a lot less than 6.6 percent, at least where this temperature increase does not cause lack of convection to be replaced by convection. (Increase of greenhouse gases generally cools the tropopause.) More water vapor being moved around means more heat being moved around. I think that this means the wind will slow down, at least mostly, so that heat transport from the tropics to the poles keeps up with the difference between the tropics gaining heat and the poles losing heat.
All right, everybody. I solved the geometric rain angle problem! See my comments above:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/01/03/wholl-stop-the-rain/comment-page-1/#comment-2388417
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/01/03/wholl-stop-the-rain/comment-page-1/#comment-2388427
The cosine opening reduction effect is offset by a cosine, more rain containing, longer pathway increase
The reduced rain gauge measurements have to be due to edges or eddies or something else.
You are correct, Canman!
But, consider this: (perhaps applicapbe for the amount of rain falling on a catchment? 🙂
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/01/03/wholl-stop-the-rain/comment-page-1/#comment-2389062
I looked at the problem. I don’t see how the rain gauge being in a valley (on tilted land) would collect less rain than if it were on flat land as long as the gauge was always pointing straight up (not necessarily perpendicular to the ground).
Sorry, the tilt of the valley was not the point. Simply consider it as a catchment area.
A certain amount of rain falls there, filling a reservoir to a certain level.
If there is a stiff breeze blowing, the gauge will record less than had the rain fallen vertically (and even less if we take the turbulence paper into account!)
Yet the same amount of rain will have fallen within the area.
But… I think I belabour the point, pointlessly. 🙁
How many decades in 150 years?
v’