BBD BBD says:
“Sigh. This is what I said, and it is perfectly clear: As I understand it, the effect of AGW on the Hadley Cells is to increase precipitation in the tropics, not move it polewards.”
Look I tried to exit the thread, politely, to let Dikran stop running around in circles.
In relation to your comment as Dikran said
“if [*] the Hadley cells do expand by perhaps 2 degrees. This implies that there is perhaps a 1 degree increase in the “rain band” that might be conducive to the growth of the rainforest.”
That is a 1 degree increase in latitude from the equator.
It moves the precipitation polewards. Sorry, that is a fact, and would increase precipitation
Your understanding is not supported by the facts.
“the position of the ITCZ. That remains at the thermal equator.”
An obvious goalpost move. The sign of a lost argument.
Hadley cells start at the geographic equator for descriptive purposes.
the thermal equator is not identical to that of the geographic Equator, and it moves roughly between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn,
I am so disappointed in the haste and anger to tear down what was merely an observation based on a reasoned thought process with supporting arguments. seems to be purely on the ground that no argument put forward by someone I disagree with could ever possibly be right.
Hence we must ignore the salient points, find examples somewhere to prosecute our case, throw in goalpost moves [thermal equators] and redefine the physics to suit an answer.
AGW causes Hadley cells [defined as starting from the equator] to expand.
The upgoing moist air precipitates over the tropics.
The Hadley cells come down at 30 degrees latitude, now cold dry air causing deserts.
The expansion would cause the Hadley cells to move 2 degrees polewards.
Hence the area of precipitation would be expected to move a degree further polewards.
Hence the tropics [trees] could move further polewards and in fact would be expected to anyway in a warming world.
Arguments about the Amazon restrictions ignoring the tropics in the rest of the world Both North and South of the equator might look like cherrypicking but hey, this comment says it all.
“BTW if there was any doubt that X’s approach to science, there is always the fact that he only cited the information about the Amazon that supported his argument but he somehow failed to mention the other 97 bits that didn’t:”
angech, acknowledges his goalpost shift in usual blog style – by walking away.
No, I gave you and others a chance to let the subject rest.
The fact that others are not piling on in support, well not til now, should have helped you realize that the salient points above, and their relevance to my comments are for once sensible.