Climate change and the South Asian summer monsoon

Jun 24, 2012
This shows the approaching monsoon rain. Credit: Gisela E. Speidel, International Pacific Research Center

The vagaries of South Asian summer monsoon rainfall impact the lives of more than one billion people. A review in Nature Climate Change (June 24 online issue) of over 100 recent research articles concludes that with continuing rise in CO2 and global warming, the region can expect generally more rainfall, due to the expected increase in atmospheric moisture, as well as more variability in rainfall.

In spite of the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration of about 70 parts per million by volume and in of about 0.50°C over the last 6 decades, the All India Rainfall index does not yet show the expected increase in rainfall. The reviewers Andrew Turner from the Department of Meteorology at the University of Reading and H. Annamalai from the International Pacific Research Center at the University of Hawaii at Manoa give several reasons for why the region's observed rainfall has not yet increased, among them are inconsistent rainfall observations, decadal variability of the monsoon, the effects of aerosols resulting from industrialization, and land-use changes.

Regional projections for devastating droughts and floods--which are most meaningful for residents living in South Asia-- are still beyond the reach of current climate models, according to the reviewers' detailed analyses of the present state of research. The authors conclude that in order to make regional projections that can help in disaster mitigation and in adapting to , the following is needed: establishing more consistent rainfall datasets by expanding observations to include, for example, agricultural yield; a better grasp of the complicated thermodynamics over the monsoon region and of the interactions among , land-use, aerosols, CO2, and other conditions; and an evaluation in coupled circulation models (which allow feedbacks among variables) of those processes that have been shown in simpler models to affect the monsoon and rainfall.

Explore further: Earthquakes occur in 4 parts of Alaska

Related Stories

Desert dust intensifies summer rainfall in U.S. southwest

May 21, 2012

(Phys.org) -- Dust is more than something to be brushed off the furniture. Scientists at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory found that dust kicked up from the desert floor acts like a heat pump in the atmosphere, ...

Study projects weakened monsoon season in South Asia

Feb 27, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- The South Asian summer monsoon - critical to agriculture in Bangladesh, India, Nepal and Pakistan - could be weakened and delayed due to rising temperatures in the future, according to a recent ...

Aerosols -- their part in our rainfall

Feb 12, 2009

Aerosols may have a greater impact on patterns of Australian rainfall and future climate change than previously thought, according to leading atmospheric scientist, CSIRO's Dr. Leon Rotstayn.

Bangladesh monsoon rains 'lowest since 1994'

Oct 06, 2010

Bangladesh has experienced its driest monsoon season for more than a decade despite heavy rains in neighbouring India and Pakistan that caused flooding, officials said Wednesday.

Recommended for you

Tropical Storm Genevieve forms in Eastern Pacific

Jul 25, 2014

The seventh tropical depression of the Eastern Pacific Ocean formed and quickly ramped up to a tropical storm named "Genevieve." NOAA's GOES-West satellite captured an infrared image of the newborn storm ...

User comments : 24

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

NotParker
1.7 / 5 (22) Jun 24, 2012
Reality: "the All India Rainfall index does not yet show the expected increase in rainfall."

"Regional projections for devastating droughts and floods--which are most meaningful for residents living in South Asia-- are still beyond the reach of current climate models,"

Translation: We lie, say the world will end, and then it doesn't. But keep giving us money to lie some more.
freethinking
1.8 / 5 (15) Jun 24, 2012
Even famous environmentalist are now abandoning blaming humans

http://www.toront...n-drivel

Why are progressives following global warming?
http://www.youtub...98w1KZ-c
ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (15) Jun 24, 2012
Finally, a climate article which admits the climate models fail.
davhaywood
4 / 5 (12) Jun 24, 2012
If only I could read anything into information that is put in front of me, like you guys. How validating the world would be!
Birger
3.9 / 5 (14) Jun 24, 2012
Computer models of weather patterns are only as good as the data and the software the number-crunching speed of the computers.
Making a crude, large-scale model is relatively easy. Getting progressively higher resolution is hard. It was only in the nineties climate models got enough resolution to reproduce Sahara, for instance.
Expected problems with making better models are hardly proof of the world-wide conspiracy the denialbots see everywhere.
NotParker
1.9 / 5 (17) Jun 24, 2012
Computer models of weather patterns are only as good as the data and the software the number-crunching speed of the computers.
Making a crude, large-scale model is relatively easy.


Then you should sign up with the climate "scientists", because they still can't do that.

Getting progressively higher resolution is hard. It was only in the nineties climate models got enough resolution to reproduce Sahara, for instance.
Expected problems with making better models are hardly proof of the world-wide conspiracy the denialbots see everywhere.


"Climate" models predict doom over and over gain and they turn out to be spectacularly wrong. The are like the Wile E. Coyote's of science.

Jimee
3.7 / 5 (9) Jun 24, 2012
The evidence is visible to all around, if you choose to see. "Denialbots" I know are becoming quieter about climate change, as they begin to confront the difference between what their eyes see and what is reported by the corporate propaganda, er, media.
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (10) Jun 24, 2012
Sorry, Lovelock doesn't say that.

Why do you need to lie about it?

"Even famous environmentalist are now abandoning blaming humans" - FreeTard

It is shameful for the Denialist camp to use the confused comments of a 92 year old man they way they have been used.

Filth.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.8 / 5 (11) Jun 24, 2012
Yup. climate models fail to predict the weather.

Why do you insist on claiming that they should?

"Finally, a climate article which admits the climate models fail." - UbVonTard

Are you terminally brain dead?
Vendicar_Decarian
2.8 / 5 (11) Jun 24, 2012
Poor ParkerTard. He will continue to deny reality to his last breath.

Predicted by the models.

https://docs.goog...sRzNVNWc

https://docs.goog...1bUhRQUE

https://docs.goog...kYU9Fc2s

https://docs.goog...neHQzdDA

https://docs.goog...zME9DOXc

https://docs.goog...Ta2NlX0k

And finally a rare picture of Parkertard,UbvonTard,sunshinehours1 and whatever other name it is calling itself these days.

https://docs.goog...TY0dpV1U

""Climate" models predict doom over and over gain and they turn out to be spectacularly wrong." - ParkerTard

That last breath may need to come early for people like him.
XQZME
2.5 / 5 (11) Jun 25, 2012
I shall repeat the links I have provided in the past for VDs benefit to demonstrate his refusal to learn. On the other hand, considering it only takes a third grade education to understand the numbers and graphs, maybe he hasnt gotten there yet.

All five official climate data centers (NASA GISS, RSS MSU, UAH AMSU, HADLEY CRU, and NOAA NCDC) report that global temperature has declined since 1998. http://www.friend...p?id=453
GISP2 Greenland ice core shows global temperature was warmer for 9,100 of the last 10,000 years.
http://icecap.us/...list.pdf
In the last 600 million years global warming has occurred before CO2 increased, not before.
http://www.iceage...ence.htm
From the National Climate Data Center, the Mauna Loa Observatory, the Carbon Dioxide Analysis Center, the Hadley Climate Research Unit, the University of Colorado, the strength of correlation of temperat
ubavontuba
2.3 / 5 (12) Jun 25, 2012
Finally, a climate article which admits the climate models fail.
Yup. climate models fail to predict the weather.

Why do you insist on claiming that they should?
Where do you see me using the word "weather," or suggesting climate models should predict the weather?

Are you terminally brain dead?
Apparently, you are.
ubavontuba
2.3 / 5 (12) Jun 25, 2012
Does anyyone else have trouble accessing VD's links? They seldom work for me. I just keep getting a page which redirects me to some advertisement for "Google Drive."

rubberman
2 / 5 (8) Jun 25, 2012
"I shall repeat the links I have provided in the past for VDs benefit to demonstrate his refusal to learn. On the other hand, considering it only takes a third grade education to understand the numbers and graphs, maybe he hasnt gotten there yet."

Not a refusal to learn, saying it has cooled since the warmest year on record is simply not even close to a valid point...for anything. That's like saying that the world is drying up after citing that it has rained less in every year since the one where it rained the most.
VD's link to that photo of Parkertard worked...nice bikini!
NotParker
2 / 5 (8) Jun 25, 2012
Not a refusal to learn, saying it has cooled since the warmest year on record is simply not even close to a valid point...for anything.


Sure it is for various reasons:

1) "On Record" ignores the MWP which was global.

2) Temperature, as predicted by the IPCC, was to keep climbing at .2C per decade. Meaning it should be .4C warmer than it was in 1991 and .2C warmer than 2001.

1991 0.213
2001 0.408
2011 0.339

Epic Fail. Theory wrong. Go back to drawing board.

http://www.cru.ue...t3gl.txt

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Jun 25, 2012
Not a refusal to learn, saying it has cooled since the warmest year on record is simply not even close to a valid point...for anything. That's like saying that the world is drying up after citing that it has rained less in every year since the one where it rained the most.
It's been cooling since 1998. According to NASA, the warmest years on record were 2005 and 2010.

http://www.nasa.g...emp.html

rubberman
5 / 5 (3) Jun 25, 2012
" It's been cooling since 1998. According to NASA, the warmest years on record were 2005 and 2010. " -uba

This is NotParkeresque....I can't even fathom what point you thought you were trying to make when you typed the above statement....it...it's...I am in awe.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Jun 25, 2012
I can't even fathom what point you thought you were trying to make when you typed the above statement
Then you're an idiot. It was to counter your claim that we're only "saying it has cooled since the warmest year on record."

And interestingly, the HadCRUT3 data shows there's been no global warming since before the warm peak of 1997-1998:

http://www.woodfo...97/trend
XQZME
1 / 5 (2) Jun 25, 2012
Finishing my earlier post:
From the National Climate Data Center, the Mauna Loa Observatory, the Carbon Dioxide Analysis Center, the Hadley Climate Research Unit, the University of Colorado, the strength of correlation of temperature changes to CO2 from 1897 to 2007 is 0.43; to oceanic oscillations from 1895 to 2007, 0.57; to solar intensity from 1895 to 2007, 0.85; but to CO2 from 1987 to 2007, only 0.02.
http://wattsupwit...han-co2/

Temperature cycles since 1900 corresponding to oceanic oscillations and sunspots project cooling until 2030; warming, 2030 2060; warming, 2060 2090.
http://www.global...Id=10783
A case has been made that the real driving force of the 60 year climate cycle is the center of mass of the solar system (CMSS) and its speed (SCMSS).
http://www.appins...ycle.htm
XQZME
1 / 5 (2) Jun 25, 2012
Table of monthly and annual temperatures since 1850 (HADLEY CRU).
http://cdiac.ornl...obal.txt
rubberman
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 26, 2012
I can't even fathom what point you thought you were trying to make when you typed the above statement
Then you're an idiot. It was to counter your claim that we're only "saying it has cooled since the warmest year on record."

And interestingly, the HadCRUT3 data shows there's been no global warming since before the warm peak of 1997-1998:

http://www.woodfo...97/trend


Easy there ubavonparkertard, your the one who said that it has been cooling since 1998, then as though it would somehow prove you correct, site 2 years AFTER 1998 that were warmer, essentially rebutting your own moronic statement. I love when you guys get so wrapped up in your agenda you post something that shows your true level of intelligence, thanks for the chuckle...and keep on typing!
rubberman
5 / 5 (3) Jun 26, 2012
Finishing my earlier post:
From the National Climate Data Center, the Mauna Loa Observatory, the Carbon Dioxide Analysis Center, the Hadley Climate Research Unit, the University of Colorado, the strength of correlation of temperature changes to CO2 from 1897 to 2007 is 0.43; to oceanic oscillations from 1895 to 2007, 0.57; to solar intensity from 1895 to 2007, 0.85; but to CO2 from 1987 to 2007, only 0.02.
http://wattsupwit...han-co2/


This is an intelligent post...other than the Watts link. Increased solar intensity will outshine (no pun intended) any other potential contributors to climate when it is a factor, other than the PDO, and NAO to a lesser extent. Global temperatures will always track these, they are cyclic oscillations that can't be compared to CO2 because they are temporary. The extended solar minimum through the majority of the 2000-2010 decade should have seen more cooling than was observed.
Howhot
4 / 5 (4) Jun 26, 2012
XQZME; that is all well and good for an industrial shill. My money is on "the effects of aerosols resulting from industrialization, and land-use changes."
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Jun 26, 2012
your the one who said that it has been cooling since 1998, then as though it would somehow prove you correct, site 2 years AFTER 1998 that were warmer,


Aren't you the one that claimed:

"...saying it has cooled since the warmest year on record is simply not even close to a valid point...for anything. That's like saying that the world is drying up after citing that it has rained less in every year since the one where it rained the most."

...now you're playing at moving the goalposts.

What's the matter, can't win an honest argument?

Why are AGW alarmists so dishonest?