Weather-making high-pressure systems predicted to intensify as a result of increasing greenhouse-gas concentrations

Oct 05, 2012

(Phys.org)—High-pressure systems over oceans, which largely determine the tracks of tropical cyclones and hydrological extremes in much of the northern hemisphere, are likely to intensify this century, according to a Duke University-led study published online this week in Nature Geoscience.

The study's findings suggest that as summertime near-surface high-pressure systems over the northern Pacific and Atlantic oceans strengthen, they could play an increasingly important role in shaping regional climate, particularly the occurrence of drought and extreme summer rainfall, in coming years.

Wenhong Li, assistant professor of earth and ocean sciences at Duke's Nicholas School of the Environment, and colleagues used climate model simulations to predict future changes in the strength of the annually occurring North Atlantic Subtropical High, also known as the Bermuda High, and the North Pacific Subtropical High.

According to the simulations, these high-pressure systems will intensify over the 21st century as a result of increasing greenhouse-gas concentrations. The simulations suggest that an increase in the land-sea thermal contrast – the difference between ocean and land temperatures, as Earth's climate warms – will fuel the systems' intensification.

Li's co-authors on the new study are Laifang Li, a PhD student at Duke's Nicholas School; Mingfang Ting of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University's Earth Institute; and Yimin Liu of the ' Institute of Atmospheric Physics.

They used from the Fourth Assessment Report and 40 years of precipitation data from the European Centre for Medium-Range for the months of June, July and August to conduct their research.

Explore further: NASA balloons begin flying in Antarctica for 2014 campaign

More information: The full study is online at www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/va… t/full/ngeo1590.html

Related Stories

Why Europe's climate faces a stormy future

Apr 03, 2012

(PhysOrg.com) -- Europe is likely to be hit by more violent winter storms in the future. Now a new study into the effects of climate change has found out why.

Past tropical climate change linked to ocean circulation

Aug 23, 2012

A new record of past temperature change in the tropical Atlantic Ocean's subsurface provides clues as to why the Earth's climate is so sensitive to ocean circulation patterns, according to climate scientists at Texas A&M ...

Human-generated aerosols affect our weather

Jan 22, 2008

The rise of human-generated pollution in the global atmosphere is forcing a change in ocean circulation in the Southern Hemisphere, in turn affecting our region’s weather systems.

Recommended for you

Scientists make strides in tsunami warning since 2004

Dec 19, 2014

The 2004 tsunami led to greater global cooperation and improved techniques for detecting waves that could reach faraway shores, even though scientists still cannot predict when an earthquake will strike.

Trade winds ventilate the tropical oceans

Dec 19, 2014

Long-term observations indicate that the oxygen minimum zones in the tropical oceans have expanded in recent decades. The reason is still unknown. Now scientists at the GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research ...

User comments : 14

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

ScooterG
1.8 / 5 (19) Oct 05, 2012
Per the Duke website, the Earth and Ocean Sciences division at Duke's Nicholas School of the Environment lists climate change as its' focus.

In other words, if there's no climate change, there's no justification for the Earth and Ocean Science division. Obviously biased, they produced a rigged study with a pre-determined outcome.

Throw this study - and all the taxpayer money that went into it - in the trash can. It's 100% worthless.

And any research performed by Duke University in any field is now under suspicion. Apparently, these clowns don't understand the value of integrity and credibility.
Scottingham
2.8 / 5 (4) Oct 05, 2012
Invest in indoor farming...
tadchem
2.1 / 5 (14) Oct 05, 2012
We heard this same claim after Hurricane Katrina, and just before the longest period in recorded history *without* a major (Cat 3 or greater) cyclonic storm making landfall in the US.
The techniques of Hitler's 'Big Lie' apply to Rhetoric - what you can make people believe - and not to what actually is going to happen. In other words this is just another unsupported claim, useful for persuading the illogical controllers of funds and purveyors of propaganda. Actual data is accumulating annually to cast doubt on the validity of this claim.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Oct 05, 2012
And any research performed by Duke University in any field is now under suspicion. Apparently, these clowns don't understand the value of integrity and credibility.


Can you please pray tell why there is anything lacking in the way of "integrity and credibility" and "biased" for a scientific organisation to.... "list climate change as its' focus."
While the (scientific) consensus is that climate change exists then it most certainly is not biased or anything else but credible scientific study. You do not state whether you are of the "barking mad" variety of skeptic who even denies that average global temperature are rising ( on a 30yr trend ) - or the variety that just does not accept an anthropic cause, but you are the biased party. The world revolves around the economics of people being paid by customers for something that they want ( in this case the best climate predictions ). Why should that stop at climate science?
ScooterG
1.3 / 5 (14) Oct 05, 2012
@runrig

"While the (scientific) consensus is that climate change exists" I do not believe this to be true.

"average global temperature are rising" I don't believe this either.

"does not accept anthropic cause" I sure as Hell don't believe this.

"The world revolves around the economics of people being paid by customers for something that they want ( in this case the best climate predictions ). Why should that stop at climate science?" Then you agree with me: the AGW "scientists" are nothing but money-grubbing, self-preservationist hired guns. They're willing to risk their integrity and credibility by falsifying data and studies in order to keep the grant money coming in.

Falsifying data has no place in any science, especially climate science.
VendicarD
4 / 5 (8) Oct 05, 2012
Similarly, since the National Cancer Institute's focus is on cancer, if there is no such thing as cancer, then they have no justification for their existence.

Cancer must therefore be a global fraud perpetrated by the Medical establishment.

Similarly the focus of NASA is space exploration. If there is no such thing as space, then they have no justification for their existence.

Obviously then space is a global fraud being perpetrated by NASA and them evils gubderments of the other claimed space faring nations.

"In other words, if there's no climate change, there's no justification for the Earth and Ocean Science division." -
ScooterG

What excuse will these Conservative Tards think of next?

Ain't no global warmen cause my thermometer is done broke after I sats me down to skin me some road kill?

ScooterG
1.3 / 5 (12) Oct 05, 2012
Cancer is proven to exist, global warming ain't.

It's not my fault your industry is fraught with hucksters, fraud, and low/no ethics.
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 06, 2012
Cancer is proven to exist, global warming ain't.

It's not my fault your industry is fraught with hucksters, fraud, and low/no ethics.


So, let me just make sure I correctly understand your view. You deny that there is any climate change taking place, not just that humans are causing it.

The reason I want to get your perspective is so that I understand what you are claiming. Most people who have a problem with humans causing climate change still agree that the climate is changing (and they just are not convinced there is a human component - or there is an insignificant human component to it). However, from what I seem to be hearing from you, you don't believe the climate is changing from what it was a century ago (human induced or not). Please let me know if I am understanding your position correctly.

Could you also expand on what you consider fraud? Every investigation I have seen said there has been no fraud.

Than you in advance for your reply.
runrig
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 06, 2012
Cancer is proven to exist, global warming ain't.

It's not my fault your industry is fraught with hucksters, fraud, and low/no ethics.


That's the point. Climate change or GW is proven to be occurring and anthropogenic CO2 is the cause ............as far as it can ascertained currently by scientific process. If/when the consensus goes the other way then your argument would be correct. It is the way science works - make a model and test it against observation - tweak model - observation - tweak model and so on. The other way of course is to treat all matters of light and shade in a fundamentalist way and say "it's not in the book from on high" and so we'll ignore it. It doesn't suite our world-view - or failing our power to do that , accuse the people we choose to investigate that light/shade of a conspiracy to make money - Really ?? I'm sorry but your comments say more about you than the world in which ( I would want to anyway ) live. Basically never the twain shall meet.
mrtea
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 06, 2012
Every time I see an anti AGW poster hang around, their politics invariably surfaces - they are against environmental programs, which are run by "loony tree hugging hippies", and all for full scale extraction of oil, coal and shale oil ("let's ass-rape the earth while we can, especially Canada") every time.
ScooterG
1.4 / 5 (10) Oct 06, 2012
"Science plus prejudice = nonsense."

9/23/2012, ubavontuba
(http://phys.org/n...te.html)

-----

Brevity is indeed the soul of wit. Ubavontuba summed-up the entire AGW movement in 5 words.
ScooterG
1.4 / 5 (11) Oct 06, 2012
Every time I see an anti AGW poster hang around, their politics invariably surfaces - they are against environmental programs, which are run by "loony tree hugging hippies", and all for full scale extraction of oil, coal and shale oil ("let's ass-rape the earth while we can, especially Canada") every time.


Let's reduce oil and gas production and exploration, that way we can all enjoy what Californians are experiencing today - $5.00 gasoline, if you can find it at all.

A better idea is to identify all radical environmentalists and simply stop selling them oil, gas, and electricity. Maybe they'll become extinct and we won't have to listen to their incessant brow-beating and trumpeting of their bogus scientific studies.
cantdrive85
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 06, 2012
"Wenhong Li, assistant professor of earth and ocean sciences at Duke's Nicholas School of the Environment, and colleagues used climate model simulations to predict future changes in the strength of the annually occurring North Atlantic Subtropical High, also known as the Bermuda High, and the North Pacific Subtropical High."

Garbage in, garbage out!
runrig
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 06, 2012
"Wenhong Li, assistant professor of earth and ocean sciences at Duke's Nicholas School of the Environment, and colleagues used climate model simulations to predict future changes in the strength of the annually occurring North Atlantic Subtropical High, also known as the Bermuda High, and the North Pacific Subtropical High."

Garbage in, garbage out!


I would welcome some critique of this assertion of yours please. Links to data used and model parameters. But of course you know better that the experts in the field, so no need. It's wrong because you say so. Like you know better when you consult your doctor, lawyer, butcher, baker or candlestick maker. As I said earlier that type of ignorant comment says far more about the commenter than the commented upon.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.