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

” truth says:
October 5, 2010 at 7:25 am
Chris1958;
I live in Sydney, and have done so for decades—and visited often from Queensland before that, and I’ve never ever seen Sydney Harbour a ‘silty-brown’ colour—and nor have any other Sydneysiders that I know.”
I have lived in Sydney all my life and have seen Sydney harbour turn brown after extreme rain events several times.
This October has been the wettest of the decade beginning in 2010. No October has been wetter within that decade.
I should also point out that this October has been the driest of the decade beginning in 2010. No October has been drier within that decade.
These statements are undeniable. No scientist or model could contradict them.
If my comment seems juvenile, consider the pronouncements we hear so frequently concerning “records” for thirty – or thirteen! – year periods. Consider particularly those pronouncements which contain the word “record” and niftily omit all reference to the period covered.
Does my comment still seem juvenile? Are we living in a post-Enlightenment where people calling themselves scientists have an infinite appetite for data and no capacity whatever for verbal clarity or rational thought?
rcw says:
October 5, 2010 at 1:56 pm (Edit)
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?????????????
################
Depends:
for ground stations it is based on a network that covers around 50% of the land. The temperatures found in this 50% sample, dont change even if you decrease that to 25% or if you look at other sources that sample outside the area. The measure given by this 50% sample is insensitive to the systematic removal of stations. While the temperature does vary considerably over land the spatial correlation is good. meaning that we can reliably estimate trends from a sample that is this size or smaller.
For SST, it depends on the years you are talking about. In the past it is derived from ship/abd bouy data, supplanted by Satillite.
To calibrate how well these two sampling approaches work, we only need compare them to global or near global products from RSS and UHA. The agreement, while not perfect, is good and trend estimates over similar periods while not perfect, are good enough to suggest that the sampling of the land product and the SST product does not unduly bias the answer.
My take is that there not:
1 a similarly extensive coverage of global rivers
2. NO product like RSS or UHA to compare it to.
Does that answer your question
DesertYote :
well if you believe the hydrology records are out there in an open accessible form, point them out and I can certainly download the data. And then suggest a hypothesis and we can test it.
As for speculations about why data isnt used? dunno, suggest a test that allows us to determine the intentions of those involved.
4. lets just blow a hole through the sierra nevada and turn the great basin back into a giant lake.
cool.
Reply to RW, James Allison said it pretty well above.
Since you’ve refused to answer to the ugly issues related to the “you and your ilk” comment you made, and because you repeatedly insult people, and want to run the discussion on your terms, then shape-shift them when they don’t suit the moment, I’ve decided it is best for you to leave my living room. You join a small but illustrious group of angry cowards that have been dis-invited from WUWT. Congratulations.
Go waste the taxpayers money of the UK funding your university position day job someplace else. You’ve been dis-invited from my “home on the Internet” as a bad dinner guest.
Moderators have been advised.
“Too much fresh water!”
Quick everyone, get to a river bank and take a piss!
DR says:
October 5, 2010 at 6:07 am
PNAS = the Big Box Mart for pal review tabloid science.
Too true.
Steven Mosher says:
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?
Aren’t you usually telling us what a wonderful job GISS does with a patchwork system for global temperature estimation?
Anthony Watts says: at 5:08 pm
John says: Thank you.
Wow. Another NASA funded study of irrelevance. Does Hansen or any of the TEAM pick who gets funded by NASA? Does it all smell “alarmingly” bad to you too? Excuse me, but in my opinion, this press release based post is so crappy, its an amazing example of how our tax $’s are funding the wrong jobs. Appalling, we’re paying for hot exhaled CO2 instead of productive work. Great photo, maybe he has an agent.
Anthony,
RW, harsh, but he appeared to be an ignoble, incessant, irritant. Does this mean he has been cast through the bottom of the troll bin? Its tough on this site to rise to that standard.
I wonder too if I will now be hounded by his ghost for this comment, as I am sure you will be too.
Bill Illis says:
October 5, 2010 at 5:21 am
Trenberth has a new paper which shows nothing is really going on with global precipitation numbers (since 1980) or global river discharge and land precipitation levels (since 1950).
I wish all these so called experts could get their stories straight. Isn’t this how they usually catch crooks on TV shows!
It seems rather strange to me that they can say a huge amount of fresh water is flowing into the ocean without a historical sequence of declining salinity measurements. Perhaps just as much water is evaporating as is coming in.
Spector says:
October 5, 2010 at 10:50 pm
“It seems rather strange to me that they can say a huge amount of fresh water is flowing into the ocean without a historical sequence of declining salinity measurements. Perhaps just as much water is evaporating as is coming in.
Good point Spector. The return of water from land back to sea is a complicated process, but the net salinity shouldn’t change too much as the extra flow of fresh water came from the sea in the first place.
There could be a slight increase in salinity caused by some of the extra water vapour being held in the atmosphere. Rain also gets trapped in ground pockets like dams e.t.c. and won’t start to be return until it is filled enough to overflow. My water supply, along with that of another one million or so users, comes from the Sussex chalk down aquifers and it can take a long period of decent rain to refill these following a dryer period.
Jim Barker says:
October 5, 2010 at 9:09 am
Is the next paper going to tell us what the normal amount of rainfall is and where the right places are?”
Here in Philly, according to a book published in 1847, the proper amount of rain is 40-46 inches per year. They noted a minimum rainfall of 23.25 inches in 1819 and a maximum rainfall of 55.5 inches in 1841. Now in the 21st century we experience 42.05 inches of rain per year. 1998 (the alleged hottest year on record) had 31.66 inches, 1999 had 48.5 inches, and 2000 had 44.2 inches. So in my estimationg, statistically speaking, the yearly precipitation has not change Philadelphia comparing the range 1796-1847 and the last decade (2000-2010). So I wouldn’t guess the Delaware river is any higher than it used to be, nor is it spilling too much fresh water in the Chesapeake Bay.
I’ve got to admit that this press release leaves me gobsmacked. It emphasizes that more water is discharging into the oceans each year and the rate of change is increasing but never mentions that the article indicates at the same time global ocean evaporation is increasing even more and at a greater rate. That is, if you believe a 13 year trend.
Additionally, if you examine all three parts of Figure 2, there appears to be an inverse correlation between precipitation and both discharge and evaporation ( just by visual comparison of Figure 2C to Figures 2A and 2B). WUWT?
Wow, a 1.5% rise from 1994 to 2006, that must have been that really wet Autumn in 2000.
I confused by this. Why? See below with links:
Similar stories below:
http://www.eoearth.org/article/Greening_of_the_Sahel
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/greeningTheDesert.php