Well said, so well that even a denier should be able to understand. This really is a well-done overview of one form of catastrophe that could become normal in our lifetimes.
This is a terrific description of a very dramatic weather system, pointing out how our daily existence can be impacted by climate change effects. Thank you Dr. Dessler.
Now we have to worry about rivers in the sky, too? Climate change is really turning our world upside down... Great post, just learnt something new. Thank you.
Excellent summary about how climate change actually works. I suspect very few of the climate deniers understand these mechanisms because they only visualize weather from their backyards and have no understanding of cause and effect.
you have very little scientific data over the last 200 years to make any claims of human induced climate change. Real science means real data over a substantial amount of time. Our Planet is 5 billion give or take years old. we have less than 100 years of reliably obtained weather data that does not contain any true evidence to support human driven climate change. Please always consider a source of information before deeming it concrete or truthful. Lots of people like to point the finger of blame at anyone they can that doesn't think, speak , or act like they do. don't get caught up in this carousel. don't be a lemming. Think for yourself and do not let THE GROUP think for you
Thanks for this primer, we in the PNW are accustomed to atmospheric rain. They are referred to as the pineapple express mentioned here or Chinook winds....
I agree Ken Fabian that it is a complex issue. I do not believe that it is as simple as "If we assume a purely thermodynamic response (e.g., Clausius-Clayperon scaling), rain would increase by about 7% for every degree Celsius of warming of the atmosphere", as stated in the main text. Clausius-Clapeyron scaling explains the increase in evaporation but not necessarily the precipitation rate. The previous two answers are both plausible but I am not sure if they are sufficient to support the claim that rain would increase by 7% with every degree Celsius of atmospheric warming..
I expect the global average difference between dry places/times getting drier and wet places/times getting wetter will skew towards wetter, even with the incidence of rainfall deficiencies and drought still increasing. Low rainfall doesn't have a lot of room to go lower but the upper bounds of increased rainfall isn't so contrained.
Does more water vapour in atmosphere always mean more rain overall? Is it also possible to have the same amount or even less rain in a new equilibrium? I mean, the air has to cool down for vapour to condense and fall back. If the air does not cool down, there will be no rain.
If you have air converging into a storm, most of the water vapor in the air will fall out as rain. Thus, more water in the converging air means more rain unless you want to make an argument that convergence is declining.
It seems to me that with warmer air temperatures it takes more water vapour to reach saturation (for precipitation to occur). Where conditions favour atmospheric uptake of water vapor and for rain (as described for California) that leads to more rain.
But where and when (eg California during la Nina) conditions for reaching 100% humidity are more uncertain and infrequent; there can be more total water vapour and still not reach saturation, ie conditions that previously would have resulted in rain occur less often.
Here in South and Eastern Australia el Nino (on average) results in less water vapour rich on-shore winds and more inland high pressure systems that bring down dry air and push it coastwards. I suspect for California it is similar - with the ENSO phase reversed.
Well said, so well that even a denier should be able to understand. This really is a well-done overview of one form of catastrophe that could become normal in our lifetimes.
This is a terrific description of a very dramatic weather system, pointing out how our daily existence can be impacted by climate change effects. Thank you Dr. Dessler.
Now we have to worry about rivers in the sky, too? Climate change is really turning our world upside down... Great post, just learnt something new. Thank you.
Excellent summary about how climate change actually works. I suspect very few of the climate deniers understand these mechanisms because they only visualize weather from their backyards and have no understanding of cause and effect.
Agree. And they also confuse weather with climate.
Good, practical information that can help everyone understand one of the interactions of climate change and weather. Thanks.
you have very little scientific data over the last 200 years to make any claims of human induced climate change. Real science means real data over a substantial amount of time. Our Planet is 5 billion give or take years old. we have less than 100 years of reliably obtained weather data that does not contain any true evidence to support human driven climate change. Please always consider a source of information before deeming it concrete or truthful. Lots of people like to point the finger of blame at anyone they can that doesn't think, speak , or act like they do. don't get caught up in this carousel. don't be a lemming. Think for yourself and do not let THE GROUP think for you
Thanks for this primer, we in the PNW are accustomed to atmospheric rain. They are referred to as the pineapple express mentioned here or Chinook winds....
Great explanation, Andy. Thanks!
I agree Ken Fabian that it is a complex issue. I do not believe that it is as simple as "If we assume a purely thermodynamic response (e.g., Clausius-Clayperon scaling), rain would increase by about 7% for every degree Celsius of warming of the atmosphere", as stated in the main text. Clausius-Clapeyron scaling explains the increase in evaporation but not necessarily the precipitation rate. The previous two answers are both plausible but I am not sure if they are sufficient to support the claim that rain would increase by 7% with every degree Celsius of atmospheric warming..
I expect the global average difference between dry places/times getting drier and wet places/times getting wetter will skew towards wetter, even with the incidence of rainfall deficiencies and drought still increasing. Low rainfall doesn't have a lot of room to go lower but the upper bounds of increased rainfall isn't so contrained.
Does more water vapour in atmosphere always mean more rain overall? Is it also possible to have the same amount or even less rain in a new equilibrium? I mean, the air has to cool down for vapour to condense and fall back. If the air does not cool down, there will be no rain.
If you have air converging into a storm, most of the water vapor in the air will fall out as rain. Thus, more water in the converging air means more rain unless you want to make an argument that convergence is declining.
Air temperature is mostly linearly correlated with altitude. There will be colder air, though it might take a bit more altitude to reach it.
It seems to me that with warmer air temperatures it takes more water vapour to reach saturation (for precipitation to occur). Where conditions favour atmospheric uptake of water vapor and for rain (as described for California) that leads to more rain.
But where and when (eg California during la Nina) conditions for reaching 100% humidity are more uncertain and infrequent; there can be more total water vapour and still not reach saturation, ie conditions that previously would have resulted in rain occur less often.
Here in South and Eastern Australia el Nino (on average) results in less water vapour rich on-shore winds and more inland high pressure systems that bring down dry air and push it coastwards. I suspect for California it is similar - with the ENSO phase reversed.
Both are good answers. Thanks.