I’m surprised Josh Willis would get involved in this as a co-author. Ok… here’s the press release title:
First-of-its-kind study finds alarming increase in flow of water into oceans
And here’s a quote from the body of the press release:
“Many scientists and models have suggested that if the water cycle is intensifying because of climate change, then we should be seeing increasing river flow. Unfortunately, there is no global discharge measurement network, so we have not been able to tell,” wrote Famiglietti and lead author Tajdarul Syed of the Indian School of Mines, formerly of UCI.
Do these guys even read their own press releases? I want my California State taxes back.From UC Irvine:
First-of-its-kind study finds alarming increase in flow of water into oceans
UCI-led team cites global warming, accelerated cycle of evaporation, precipitation
Irvine, Calif. — Freshwater is flowing into Earth’s oceans in greater amounts every year, a team of researchers has found, thanks to more frequent and extreme storms linked to global warming. All told, 18 percent more water fed into the world’s oceans from rivers and melting polar ice sheets in 2006 than in 1994, with an average annual rise of 1.5 percent.
“That might not sound like much – 1.5 percent a year – but after a few decades, it’s huge,” said Jay Famiglietti, UC Irvine Earth system science professor and principal investigator on the study, which will be published this week in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. He noted that while freshwater is essential to humans and ecosystems, the rain is falling in all the wrong places, for all the wrong reasons.
“In general, more water is good,” Famiglietti said. “But here’s the problem: Not everybody is getting more rainfall, and those who are may not need it. What we’re seeing is exactly what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicted – that precipitation is increasing in the tropics and the Arctic Circle with heavier, more punishing storms. Meanwhile, hundreds of millions of people live in semiarid regions, and those are drying up.”
In essence, he said, the evaporation and precipitation cycle taught in grade school is accelerating dangerously because of greenhouse gas-fueled higher temperatures, triggering monsoons and hurricanes. Hotter weather above the oceans causes freshwater to evaporate faster, which leads to thicker clouds unleashing more powerful storms over land. The rainfall then travels via rivers to the sea in ever-larger amounts, and the cycle begins again.
The pioneering study, which is ongoing, employs NASA and other world-scale satellite observations rather than computer models to track total water volume each month flowing from the continents into the oceans.
“Many scientists and models have suggested that if the water cycle is intensifying because of climate change, then we should be seeing increasing river flow. Unfortunately, there is no global discharge measurement network, so we have not been able to tell,” wrote Famiglietti and lead author Tajdarul Syed of the Indian School of Mines, formerly of UCI.
“This paper uses satellite records of sea level rise, precipitation and evaporation to put together a unique 13-year record – the longest and first of its kind. The trends were all the same: increased evaporation from the ocean that led to increased precipitation on land and more flow back into the ocean.”
The researchers cautioned that although they had analyzed more than a decade of data, it was still a relatively short time frame. Natural ups and downs that appear in climate data make detecting long-term trends challenging. Further study is needed, they said, and is under way.
Other authors are Don Chambers of the University of South Florida, Joshua Willis of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, and Kyle Hilburn of Remote Sensing Systems in Santa Rosa, Calif. Funding is provided by NASA.
About the University of California, Irvine: Founded in 1965, UCI is a top-ranked university dedicated to research, scholarship and community service. Led by Chancellor Michael Drake since 2005, UCI is among the most dynamic campuses in the University of California system, with nearly 28,000 undergraduate and graduate students, 1,100 faculty and 9,000 staff. Orange County’s largest employer, UCI contributes an annual economic impact of $3.9 billion. For more UCI news, visit www.today.uci.edu.
News Radio: UCI maintains on campus an ISDN line for conducting interviews with its faculty and experts. Use of this line is available for a fee to radio news programs/stations that wish to interview UCI faculty and experts. Use of the ISDN line is subject to availability and approval by the university.
UCI maintains an online directory of faculty available as experts to the media. To access, visit www.today.uci.edu/experts. For UCI breaking news, visit www.zotwire.uci.edu.
=========================================
The paper that the article is based on can be found here. (Thanks to Bill Illis)
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/09/28/1003292107.full.pdf+html
Is the next paper going to tell us what the normal amount of rainfall is and where the right places are?
How can there be a wrong place for rainfall, outside of family events and inside our homes?
MSNBC has edited the press release for maximum doom and gloom slant.
Alan D McIntire says:
October 5, 2010 at 8:33 am
…As Andre Bijkerk has pointed out, starting with about 78 watts per year absorbed in
the latent heat of evaporation, an increase of 18% would eat up an additional
78 * 0.18 = 14.04 watts. I suppose half of that would be radiated back to earth, so
the net energy increase required would be only 7.02 watts.
Maybe that’s optimistic. Photons emitted by water (vapor) on the corresponding frequencies would hardly be affected by CO2 absorption/emission processes. It would basically only be interacting with the water vapor. Now there is orders of magnitude more water vapor below the cloud than above, favoring outradiation to space much more than penetrating the dense water vapor below to reach the surface again.
Well, I don’t know if it is true that more rain is falling. But one thing is plain to see – this is another extreme alarmist piece, loaded up with the sort of hyperbole that would be more at home on a Greenpeace or WWF blog. Eg
“In essence, he said, the evaporation and precipitation cycle taught in grade school is accelerating dangerously because of greenhouse gas-fueled higher temperatures, triggering monsoons and hurricanes.”
Accelerating has to be suffixed with the adverb ‘dangerously; higher temperatures have to be prefixed with a lovely, bouncing alliteration that would not be out of place in Shakespeare’s Macbeth – ‘hubble bubble toil and trouble, when the greenhouse gas-fueled higher temperatures doth reach Dunblane, thus wouldst thou trigger monsoons and hurricanes.’
Ok, jokes over. The fact that such overblown rhetoric and hyperbole trips off the tongue of these scientists, is testament that their primary purpose is advocacy, not science. Indeed, I very much doubt there is any science worthy of the name lurking within the covers of this illustrious publication. But one lives in hope.
“Unfortunately, there is no global discharge measurement network, so we have not been able to tell,”
Canada’s massive streamflow data set:
http://www.ec.gc.ca/rhc-wsc/default.asp?lang=En&n=894E91BE-1
HYDAT is the archival database that contains all water information collected through the National Hydrometric Program. These data include: daily and monthly mean flow, water level and sediment concentration for over 2500 active and 5500 discontinued hydrometric monitoring station across Canada.
Authors should have learned to google like the kids in grade school!
“13 years isn’t even half the acceptable climatology period”
You don’t normally give a damn about any “acceptable climatology period”, hyping weather events and short term “trends” regardless of statistical significance, so it’s a surprise that you care now. The authors do know about this:
“The researchers cautioned that although they had analyzed more than a decade of data, it was still a relatively short time frame. Natural ups and downs that appear in climate data make detecting long-term trends challenging. Further study is needed, they said, and is under way.”
Probably we can both agree that a press release that doesn’t even link to the paper in question, or even give its title, is useless. Now that I’ve finally tracked down the paper, I can see that the interannual variation in the quantities they measure is nothing like as large as the interannual variation in global mean surface temperatures, so less than 30 years could be meaningful. Have you read the actual paper?
REPLY: “You don’t normally give a damn about any “acceptable climatology period”, hyping weather events and short term “trends” regardless of statistical significance, so it’s a surprise that you care now.” Oh please, weather is what I do and have done for 30 years, it’s in the masthead along with many other topics. I’m not going to stop reporting on weather just because a grouchy UK academic says it is wrong for me to do so.
Heh, yes, Bill Illis tracked it down before you did, and if you’d noticed, I placed the link in the body of the post. And it’s still crap. – Anthony
“The trends were all the same: increased evaporation from the ocean that led to increased precipitation on land and more flow back into the ocean.”
OK.
Now, salt water contains stuff.
With evaporation the stuff is left behind, that is the sew gets more “stuffy”.
Then the ex-sea water, less stuff, therefore less, precipitates as
the gentle rain from heaven.
It seems to me that less rain must descend than sea water goes up, because of the stuff depletion.
So fresh water supply is decreasing.
Sorry folks, that should be
“”sea” gets more “stuffy””.
My fault.
As this commenter pointed out yesterday in “Tips and Notes”, the full story, such as it is, is a very iffy, short-term proposition.
E.M.Smith says:
October 5, 2010 at 5:30 am
“So, it’s raining more, but we have more heat induced droughts, even though there is more rain…. Because?… Maybe it’s the wrong kind of rain. Maybe it’s “rotten rain”…”
Nah… it’s a dry rain.
Stephen Wilde says:
October 5, 2010 at 6:48 am
Looking at the effect of CO2 in isolation a faster hydrological cycle prevents extra downward IR from more CO2 from becoming measurable sensible heat by converting it immediately into unmeasurable latent heat which is then accelerated upward by faster convection in order to radiate it away into space faster from a higher level with zero effect on surface temperatures.
This has been part of my contention about IR from CO2 causing global warming. Water takes up > 2/3 of globe so AGW theory must say that IR from CO2 over < 1/3 globe (land) can heat entire globe. From the land you probably can subtract out green plants, people, animals, etc as IR hitting them is "gone" and cannot cause heating of the atmosphere.
“Freshwater is flowing into Earth’s oceans in greater amounts every year, a team of researchers has found, thanks to more frequent and extreme storms linked to global warming.”
Well, isn’t that special. Suspected things that might influence that:
1. ability to better measure flows today than could be done even 15 years ago so we are comparing apple data to orange data.
2. Uhm, is the salinity changing? Where is this water that is falling as rain due to global warming coming from? Might it be going right back into the oceans from which it came?
3. what is the impact of major dam projects around the world in increasing evaporation where there was much less before? Does that really change net outflow or does it simply change where the outflow takes place? For example, might Lake Powell act to move water outflow from the Gulf of Cortez to the Gulf of Mexico?
4. lets just blow a hole through the sierra nevada and turn the great basin back into a giant lake.
And what about then, of the drought armageddons so many times repeated on cable TV?
Can we not believe in Show-business scientists like Suzuki anymore?
Is any Noah’s descendant around to build us an Ark?
Note please:
they say there is no GLOBAL network of measurement.
it does little good to point out isolated systems.
Imagine if they did a global estimate using only a patchwork or regional systems?
They should have just stuck to detailing what observations they could make with 13 years of data, and not try to “connect” it with the theory. It’s consistent with the theory, but lots of short term measures are consistent. some short term measures are inconsistent. nothing much turns on the matter.
But hey, can we build more hydro power, instead of tearing damns down like greenies suggest? Just as a precaution against global warming. And more nuclear, can we build more of that, just as a precaution? precautionary principle also can be used for good ideas
So essentially they’ve “discovered” that when it rains in the mountains the water trickles to stream to rivers to the ocean, so when it rains more more water is flowing into the oceans.
They must be really smart to have figured out that really truly horribly complex cycle.
If true that the precipitation has increased in parts that already get most of the precipitation, and it has been that way for hundreds, if not thousands, of years, the billions of people who live in those areas thank mother nature for uping the fresh water supply as the need grows. Just look at China’s Huang He river which is in dire need of even more fresh water if it gonna reach the ocean all year round, which it doesn’t any more (Hey maybe we ought to thank all the thirsty Chinese for keeping the ocean levels lower than otherwise.)
RW says:
October 5, 2010 at 7:59 am
I suppose they could attempt to word their statements in a way that you and your ilk couldn’t possibly misunderstand, misquote, twist or complain about. I suspect you’d always find a way though.
Instead of the usual Alarmist Post Normal bilge, they might have said:
First-of-its-kindNew studyfindssuggestsalarmingpossible increase in flow of water from and into oceansI would see nothing wrong with that headline. Unfortunately, it does nothing to sell the Warmist ideology you and your comrades seem so fond of.
And where is the (supposed) increase coming from? Let’s see: “Hotter weather above the oceans causes freshwater to evaporate faster, which leads to thicker clouds unleashing more powerful storms over land. The rainfall then travels via rivers to the sea in ever-larger amounts, and the cycle begins again.”
Setting aside their great leap in logic as to how more ocean water evaporates, and the repeatedly-debunked meme that it “unleashes more powerful storms over land”, the (supposed) “additional” freshwater that is “dangerously” increasing appears to be coming from the oceans themselves, with some additional from a bit of melting in the Arctic and some glaciers. So, there’s only a (supposed) speedup in the process. The Alarmist headline only mentions the supposed increased flow into the oceans, conveniently neglecting to mention it is primarily coming from the oceans themselves.
Report on the weather all you like. No-one’s going to complain. But that’s not what you do. What you do is crudely insinuate every few days that because it’s cold somewhere, then global warming isn’t happening. You conflate weather and climate, frequently, possibly with the intention of confusing your weaker-minded visitors, possibly because you don’t really understand the difference yourself. So it’s quite funny that you gripe here about the importance of the distinction.
You didn’t answer before, so I’ll ask again: did you read the actual paper, or just the press release?
REPLY: I did answer, you missed it. Where’s YOUR answer to the “you and your ilk” labeling?
You are the one insinuating. Look, we are never going to see eye to eye. I think you are a bullying coward, who does nothing more than hurl insults and snark from behind the comfort of anonymity from a university in the UK. If you want to be taken seriously, step up, show yourself, have the courage to put your name to your accusations of me. I’m getting tired of wasting time with you. We go through this every few days. Perhaps it is time to part ways permanently. Nobody will miss the angry anonymous rantings of “RW” here.
The paper is still crap, despite your attempts to bring other things into the argument that aren’t relevant. Whether you like my blogging style or not, 13 years isn’t climatology, and that’s a fact. – Anthony
Bruce Cobb,
“Let’s see: “Hotter weather above the oceans causes freshwater to evaporate faster, which leads to thicker clouds unleashing more powerful storms over land.”
It all seems to point towards Willis Eschenbach’s cooling hypothesis. All this extra evaporation raises sensible heat high into the stratosphere and radiates away. A better headline would be: “Scientists discover negative feedback in global warming – climate change may not be as serious as once feared.”
Sounds a lot more accurate, doesn’t it?
I find it funny that they talk about arid areas getting less rain fall. Where I live in southern Alberta, Canada would normally be considered almost dessert conditions if it wasn’t for irrigation. This year we had so much precipitation that farmers fields were flooded for months. Crop planting, where it could be done, was so late that most farmers are just starting to harvest now in stead of being almost finished.
Steven Mosher
October 5, 2010 at 10:26 am
Note please:
they say there is no GLOBAL network of measurement.
it does little good to point out isolated systems.
Imagine if they did a global estimate using only a patchwork or regional systems?
#
It is far better for individual governments to monitor their hydrology because the data they collect HAS to be correct. Immediate life and death decisions are based on this stuff. A one point system will definitely be abused and manipulated for political gain by lefties. They have no qualms about causing death.
The authors of this study are full of it. As it is, there are a lot of records from those “isolated” systems, and considering that which they are measuring is not isolated, and most of the records are long and complete, they are useful in getting a picture of global hydrology. And the hydrologist working with them are professionals who know what they are doing. These guys just want a system that they can control and manipulate to overshadow any data that counteracts the narrative. NASA has lost all credibility on the subject long ago. They have been beating the satellites prove AGW drought message for almost a decade. “Just ignore that old data. And forget about those hydrologists that have been studying the subject for 150 years. They don’t know anything. We have some new data, see? Its so much better then the old. Look it even comes from NASA”. BTW, real hydrologists use a wide variety of information to understand what is happening. Which is very inconvenient from a message control point of view.
Multiple independent measurements are better then a single biased one!
I read the abstract and the paper and most of the comments. Now my two cents: I could not find any reference in the paper to ± 80% of the material in the press release. (I did a rough column inch comparison) Most of it is simply Jay Famiglietti’s musings. Most of those musings are of marginal value, in my view. I thought the paper was well done and could find little to quibble with. I believe the authors presented their work honestly. They did not in the paper draw any conclusions not supported by their data. The technique techniques and methods as described offer another puzzle piece and as suggested offer an opportunity to evaluate trends over time. They were careful to qualify their work by pointing out the time limited nature of available observations and cautioned against over extrapolation. Something J.F. must have missed in the text perpetration. (although this is mentioned in the non-quoted part of the press release
The press release on the other hand misrepresents the underlying work and should be ignored. It is unfortunate that Femiglletti’s coauthors we unable or unwilling to exert more control over his mouth. To be fair, I may not understand the reasoning and culture that underlies press releases. I can say, has this article not come to my attention here at WUWT, I would not have returned to Science Daily to re-read it and get the paper and abstract.
REPLY: My quibble with the paper is figure 2, they are drawing trends on water cycles from 13 years of data, that are overshadowed by longer cycles such as the AMO and PDO. 13 years isn’t much of a data set. We rountinely get yelled at by trolls like RW for looking at trends since 2000, or 1998, and here these authors are drawing conclusions from 13 years of data that can’t be ground truthed (so they say) by the hydrometeorological network. It’s crap IMHO – Anthony
Steven Mosher
October 5, 2010 at 10:26 am
Note please:
they say there is no GLOBAL network of measurement.
it does little good to point out isolated systems.
Imagine if they did a global estimate using only a patchwork or regional systems?
________________________________________________________
And the global estimate of temperature is based on?????????????
¨…a unique 13-year record – the longest and first of its kind.¨
Just a quibble, a nit-pick: my heuristic rules against reading ANYthing with superlatives modifying a posited singularity.
…unique, of its kind… longest and first of its only…..thirteen-year category: unique record,..and it is the longest…and newest,… and first!
“RW says:
October 5, 2010 at 10:44 am
You conflate weather and climate, frequently, possibly with the intention of confusing your weaker-minded visitors”
Gee wizz RW – I be then one of them many millions of weaker minded visitors.
If you can’t at least be polite at WUWT then perhaps its appropriate not to share your opinions on this blog.