Changing variable in equation used to project climate change to give more accurate estimate of precipitation changes

December 18, 2018 by Bob Yirka, Phys.org report
Credit: CC0 Public Domain

A team of researchers from Australia and China has changed a variable used in an equation to project precipitation as the climate changes, and in so doing, has found that the planet may not become drier as many have suggested. In their paper published in Nature Climate Change, they explain their rationale for changing the variable and why they believe the equation now better represents reality. Jacob Scheff, with the University of North Carolina, offers a News and Views piece on the work done by the team in the same journal issue.

Climate scientists have been debating among themselves what will happen as the planet warms. In addition to changes in temperature, there are likely to be changes in and precipitation. One thing they have not been able to agree on is whether the planet will experience more or less precipitation. In this new effort, the researchers suggest that an widely used to help predict changes in weather patterns and precipitation levels is flawed because researchers have failed to properly use one of its parameters.

Scheff explains that the equation, the Penman-Monteith equation, uses temperature, surface radiation, wind speed and humidity as inputs. As one factor changes, such as temperature, changes can be seen in the others. But, he notes, many who use the equation have failed to take into account the closure of leaf stomata in plants that occurs when carbon dioxide levels increase, resulting in less evaporative loss. The equation allows for this with a parameter that permits inputting surface resistance to evaporation in non-arid locations. Many have simply been setting it to zero. The researchers argue that doing so has caused erroneous results that suggest an increasingly drier planet. They found that allowing this parameter to depend on carbon dioxide changes allowed accounting for leaf stoma closure. They report that using the equation in such a way showed that the planet is likely to experience more precipitation in some areas, less in others and that some areas may remain unchanged—a finding that would appear not only more logical but in line with several other theoretical models.

Explore further: Study sheds light on why a warmer world may equal a wetter Arctic

More information: Yuting Yang et al. Hydrologic implications of vegetation response to elevated CO2 in climate projections, Nature Climate Change (2018). DOI: 10.1038/s41558-018-0361-0

Related Stories

Global precipitation variability decreased from 1940 to 2009

October 29, 2012

One of the strongly held assumptions of climate change is that the variability of precipitation will grow with an increase in temperature. Storms will become heavier but less frequent. Flash floods and droughts will increase. ...

An equation to quantify the origins of life on other planets

July 5, 2016

(Phys.org)—A pair of researchers, one with the Columbia Astrobiology Center in New York, the other with the University of Glasgow in the U.K. has come up with a mathematical equation that when solved is meant to offer a ...

Accounting for extreme rainfall

March 7, 2017

A University of Connecticut climate scientist confirms that more intense and more frequent severe rainstorms will likely continue as temperatures rise due to global warming, despite some observations that seem to suggest ...

Recommended for you

Researchers make coldest quantum gas of molecules

February 21, 2019

JILA researchers have made a long-lived, record-cold gas of molecules that follow the wave patterns of quantum mechanics instead of the strictly particle nature of ordinary classical physics. The creation of this gas boosts ...

2 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

snoosebaum
1 / 5 (1) Dec 18, 2018
just make it up as you go , theres a few variables that should be in jail
V4Vendicar
5 / 5 (1) Dec 19, 2018
"just make it up as you go"

Yup, that is the denialist plan.

Science on the other hand continues to advance.

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.