'Blind flying pig test' from climate model says islands will lack precipitation while being submerged by sea-level rise

From the University of Colorado at Boulder and “when pigs fly, climate models will capture all the missing details” department comes this oinker of a press release.

Islands facing a dry future

Today’s global climate models do not capture the effects of climate change on islands’ aridity

Jabor-atoll

This is an aerial photo of the town of Jabor on Jaluit Atoll (169.5E, 6N), Republic of the Marshall Islands taken by a drone during recent fieldwork in the western tropical Pacific. CREDIT Kris Karnauskas / CIRES

Island nations could be forgiven for feeling slighted. They already face the brunt of the effects of climate change: Rising sea levels, dwindling resources, threats to infrastructure and economic foundations. But to add insult to injury, thousands of these islands are too small to be accounted for in the global climate models (GCMs) used by scientists to measure the effects of climate change.

In a new study published in the journalNature Climate Change, a new way of modeling the effects of climate change on islands shows that previous analyses underestimated the number of islands that would become substantially more arid by mid century-73 percent, up from an estimate of 50 percent. That leaves the population of those islands–approximately 18 million people–in the position of being what CIRES Fellow Kris Karnauskas, the paper’s lead author, and his coauthors refer to as “computationally disenfranchised.”

It also means that what’s known about the effects of climate change on islands’ freshwater systems may have been woefully incomplete. GCMs show 50 percent of all small islands becoming wetter and 50 percent becoming drier, as far as rainfall goes. But those models by themselves don’t take into account what happens on the surface of these unaccounted-for islands and, in fact, Karnauskas and his coauthors found that 73 percent of islands will actually become more dry as a result of increased evaporation. “Islands are already dealing with sea level rise,” says Karnauskas, also a professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences at the University of Colorado Boulder. “But this shows that any rainwater they have is also vulnerable. The atmosphere is getting thirstier, and would like more of that freshwater back.”

The problem stems from the fact that GCMs aren’t all that fine-grained. These models divide the planet into a grid and each grid box is approximately 240 km by 210 km. That’s a pretty big space and if there’s a tiny island–or even an island chain like French Polynesia–alone in one of those grid boxes, it makes it impractical to include them in the model. “Think of pixels,” says Karnauskas. “If they’re too big to resolve the freckles on someone’s nose, you won’t be able to see those freckles. You have to have super fine pixels to resolve it, and frankly that’s not what global climate models were designed to do.”

The “pixels” of the GCMs are too big and scientists don’t have the computer resources yet to do something on a more refined scale. Take, for example, an island like Easter Island, which is 3,512 kilometres off the coast of Chile in the South Pacific. Easter Island is small and it’s the only spot of land in its GCM grid box. Essentially, it’s a freckle and the GCM can’t get down to that level of detail. So, in the current GCMs, Easter Island doesn’t exist–that whole grid square is just considered open ocean.

That’s the case with islands all over the globe and it’s a real problem when it comes to knowing what climate change will do to islands’ freshwater supplies. Unlike continents or larger islands, the effects of climate change on freshwater for these smaller, isolated islands aren’t being calculated. “Paper after paper in my field show changes in drought or aridity,” says Karnauskas. “But my eye always looks at the maps and graphs in those papers and I wonder why we can’t see islands. Using models, it turns out, is much less straightforward for islands than for places where there are big chunks of land.”

To understand how climate change will affect freshwater, scientists have to understand what’s happening with precipitation and evaporation. The first part is easier: Current GCMs can tell you all about precipitation over land or over the ocean. Even in a grid square like the one that’s home to Easter Island, they can estimate how much precipitation is likely falling from the sky.

But evaporation is another matter. When it comes to those same small islands, the models don’t show how much water is evaporating because those islands don’t exist in the models–it’s all ocean there. Nor can it be calculated using the amount evaporating off the ocean, as ocean evaporation follows different physical principles than water evaporating off land. Without knowing how much water is evaporating off these islands, there’s been no way to know exactly how the freshwater supplies are being affected. So Karnauskas and his former colleagues from the Woods Hole Institute in Massachusetts developed a way to get the information needed to know what’s happening on islands.

Karnauskas draws a diagram of a cube on a white board. “This is a 3-D picture of an ocean grid cell,” he explains. “Say there’s an island in here. The climate model doesn’t have the island but let’s go to the location where there ought to be an island and use the information on the model atmosphere from directly over that cell.” Essentially, they’re looking at the climate above the surface of the island to make an approximation of the island’s actual climate. They can do this because many of the islands are so small that climate above the island isn’t much different from climate above the ocean, especially averaged over a day or longer. That’s been verified even on islands as large as Maui, where data from weather stations at airports shows surprisingly little difference from data from weather stations moored hundreds of kilometers offshore.

“We called it the blind pig test,” explains Karnauskas with a grin. “If you were a blind pig flying in this area, would you know there was an island here? Could you feel a difference in the heat or the humidity?” A “successful” blind pig test means you can’t tell if you’re over land or over ocean. If that’s the case, scientists don’t need to know anything from the land itself to predict evaporation; they just need to know what’s happening in the atmosphere right near the surface. From that information, and some tools borrowed from the engineering field, they can glean how much water is evaporating and, thus, get a more accurate picture of the ratio of precipitation to evaporation in a particular area.

Karnauskas sees this work as extremely important, both for understanding climate change in these regions and in considering human health and safety. A vast majority of the people living on these remote island rely on rainwater as the source of their drinking water. And for those that already have health issues due to water quality, increased pressure on freshwater systems will only exacerbate the problem. Already someone from the Cook Islands, an archipelago in the South Pacific Ocean, saw mention of his research online and reached out for more details. “There’s an opportunity to get important information out there,” Karnauskas says. “This is a framework to provide more accurate information on what to expect.”

###


“…because many of the islands are so small that climate above the island isn’t much different from climate above the ocean, especially averaged over a day or longer.

…That’s been verified even on islands as large as Maui, where data from weather stations at airports shows surprisingly little difference from data from weather stations moored hundreds of kilometers offshore.”.

That might be true for tiny flat atolls, but even they have differences between the ocean. Maui certainly has different weather inland than on the ocean, his statement is just flat wrong.

Apparently, this “climate scientist” never heard of orographic lifting related to wind patterns for islands, and how rainfall is mostly dependent on wind, not the climate of the island. .

Orographic lifting effect in Hawaii. Image: Geography Department - University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa Commission on Water Resource Management, Department of Land and Natural Resources. University of Hawai`i Manoa

Orographic lifting effect in Hawaii. Image: Geography Department – University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa Commission on Water Resource Management, Department of Land and Natural Resources. University of Hawai`i Manoa

Hawaii’s rainfall pattern is spectacularly diverse (above). Annual means range from 204 mm (8 inches) near the summit of Mauna Kea to 10,271 mm (404 inches) near Big Bog on the windward slope of Haleakalā, Maui. In general, high mean rainfall is found on the windward mountain slopes, and low rainfall prevails in leeward lowlands and on the upper slopes of the highest mountains.

When wind blows against the slopes of mountains, air is forced to rise (orographic lifting), producing orographic clouds and rain on the windward slopes. Because “trade winds” in Hawaii blow persistently from the ENE direction, the pattern of cloudy, wet conditions on the windward slopes is familiar to everyone in Hawaii. This simple relationship between wind direction and topography explains much of the pattern of rainfall in Hawaii. These windward mountain slopes receive abundant rainfall throughout the year.

Orographic rainfall patterens of Hawaii

Orographic rainfall patterens of Hawaii Image: Geography Department – University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa Commission on Water Resource Management, Department of Land and Natural Resources. University of Hawai`i Manoa

Source: Giambelluca, T.W., Q. Chen, A.G. Frazier, J.P. Price, Y.-L. Chen, P.-S. Chu, J.K. Eischeid, and D.M. Delparte, 2013: Online Rainfall Atlas of Hawai‘i. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc. 94, 313-316, doi: 10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00228.1.

Advertisements

80 thoughts on “'Blind flying pig test' from climate model says islands will lack precipitation while being submerged by sea-level rise

  1. ..Well, if the island is going to be underwater, I really don’t think rainfall matters very much !!

    • Has a single island yet been submerged by rising sea levels? Any where?
      35 years they’ve been crying the islands are doomed. Can anyone name ONE island that has gone under or even been partially evacuated due to flooding?

  2. Hawaii experiences a Chinook like most of north and south america. Adiabatic cooling precipitates water. There is a dry side to this. The east side. Now, are the Hawaiian islands big enough to fill a GCM pixel? Rain clouds are pretty small in diameter by comparison.

  3. I don’t know about their island…but on my island we have not been able to grow tomatoes in the winter because it is now raining all winter

  4. Praise be. I was worried that enough rain would fall on Guam so that it would flip over under the load. Gotta be careful with these models too. If too much rain falls in the northern hemisphere the entire world will tip over and the north pole will be the south pole.
    In models, anything can happen. In the real world, global climate varies, but man has very little to do with it outside of his local population centers.

    • “Current GCMs can tell you all about precipitation over land or over the ocean.”
      How about this weekend? Just try to get that right, ok?

  5. suppose all of these things are absolutely true.
    the only way it would make sense to use these findings as a rationale for cutting fossil fuel emissions is to show empirical evidence that global warming is related to fossil fuel emissions.
    the IPCC did present this evidence
    it is a correlation between cumulative emissions an cumulative warming
    this correlation is spurious
    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2725743

    • Precisely. And we must also note that the opposite correlation – i.e. a negative correlation between industrialization and temperature – would also have satisfied the needs of the U.N. for a global catastrophe that threatened mankind unless power to control national governments was ceded to the pan-global elite.
      In other words, had the opposite correlation been discerned – then they would currently be “saving the world” from global cooling.
      So – not only is the correlation spurious and of no note – but there is no alternative, as any correlation can spawn a myth of global apocalypse.

  6. Wow. Making shit up out of thin air has never been easier.
    My wife often complains that I ignore her, and pay more attention to global warming skepticism.
    But then she is smaller than the GCM grid cell, so in that sense she does not exist.
    So, I am conveniently excused, because I’m not a blind pig. Even though I do behave like one sometimes.
    At least according to my non-existent wife.
    On a more sensible note, didn’t we recently learn that land precipitation records had failed to show the variations predicted by GCM’s. i.e. even at a global scale these “hypothesis generators” a.k.a. models are dishing out disprovable hypotheses:
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/7/climate-change-models-wrong-predicting-rain-drough/

  7. Evil Modeling with supercomputers is an advanced class at Boulder. Some of the main prerequisites include advanced headline writing from the Journalism Dept. and most of the offerings of the Political Science Dept.

    • When I was at CU in the 60’s the entire university had a computer. As in one. We learned straight off that SISO ruled. Seems now they have lots more computers but SISO still rules.

  8. “Current GCMs can tell you all about precipitation over land or over the ocean.”
    That is the most hubristic statement I have heard in quite a while. Any serious climate modeller would express themselves in more humble terms. I trust this press release was written by someone with very limited knowledge about the large amount of uncertainties involved in climate modelling.
    Qualified (or, alas, sometimes semi-qualified) guesswork is not, in my dictionary, the same as telling one “all about precipitation over land or over the ocean.”

  9. If they really want to convince me that their puters can really work, give me 6 numbers on the lottery & then I might, just!

  10. “become more dry as a result of increased evaporation. “Islands are already dealing with sea level rise,””
    I’ve come to notice that socialists never finish their thoughts. Why? They lead to unwanted conclusions.
    1. In the above, what do you suppose happens to the water of this increased evaporation which is mainly taking place in the surrounding ocean waters? I leave this as homework for the reader.
    2. How are the islands dealing with sea level rise. The islands are a product of living creatures. Coral. Drill a hole down in any of these islands and you will pass through ~120meters of limestone – ancient remains of coral reefs that grew up as sea level rose 120meters after the melting of the continental glaciers of the last glacial maximum. Then you go into basaltic lava, the original island. This was known by Charles Darwin 150yrs ago.
    3. Here’s a clever model to use for the computationally disenfranchised which seems to be an affliction suffered by many climate scientists as well. Put a rain guage on the island! Wow, sometimes I scare myself.

  11. “The problem stems from the fact that GCMs aren’t all that fine-grained.
    I think the problem stems rather from the fact that the modelers have lost sight of their own basic assumptions and basic physics too. The greenhouse effect from CO2 isn’t strong enough by itself to produce significant global warming, so the GCMs assume that the warming from CO2 is “enhanced” by a positive-feedback from water-vapour coming from increased evaporation of surface-water. But that implies increased precipitation too after the increased water-vapour has condensed into clouds and fallen back to the surface in completion of the water-cycle. Increased precipitation means wetter islands, not drier ones as this paper reports the GCMs contend.
    So, which way do the GCMs want it, more evaporation producing more global warming and more precipitation, or less evaporation producing less global warming and less precipitation? It’s got to be one way or the other, not both – or at least, not in a rational universe, I would have thought.

    • The problem is NOT with the model. The problem is that they just don’t sample the global Temperature at points that are closer than the half cycle of the fastest (spatial) changing frequency.
      Hansen says that you only need one thermometer every 1200 km; or words to that effect.
      So my back yard thermometer is a good Temperature for Isla Carmen, in the Sea of Cortez off of Loreto.
      If you had been lucky enough to drill down 18 meters in South Africa, and happen to strike the Cullinan Diamond that was just sitting there, you should not conclude that the whole of Africa has a big sheet of Type IIa diamond just 18 meters under the surface.
      G

      • Thanks for reminding me of the sample cell-size problem, George, but that’s an empirical problem whereas I’m referring to a theoretical one concerning the logic (or rather, the apparent lack of it) of the models.
        The article asserts that the GCMs estimate that 50% of islands will be made wetter by global warming and 50% will be made drier. That estimate is nonsense to start with surely, because the GCMs have assumed (quite reasonably, in my opinion, although I would probably disagree with the numbers) that global warming implies a wetter atmosphere and more precipitation globally. On balance of probabilities, then, more islands should experience wetter conditions under global warming than experience drier ones and the percentage of “wetter” islands should increase as the global mean temperature increases. A constant 50:50 ratio thus appears to defy logic and has no scientific basis as far as I can see.
        Now Prof. Karnauskas et als’ new model proposes to alter that (constant!) ratio to 27:73 in favour of islands becoming drier, which seems even more illogical to me.

  12. These models are great !
    “GCMs show 50 percent of all small islands becoming wetter and 50 percent becoming drier, as far as rainfall goes”
    So on average things are the same.
    It’s like the warmist that told me that the problem with AGW is we would have increased droughts and flooding. I asked hi if these were contradictory, and how you could have them both. He answered, droughts some of the time, flooding other times, or flooding in some places and drought in others.
    So, just like normal !

  13. They put horse-blinders on horses to keep going in the same direction without distraction.
    The scientist in this article is like a horse with horse blinders on, There is a set direction, with set results and the blinders conveniently prevent seeing anything contrary to certain doom for in this case islands.
    I understand what led the scientist to state that land has no effect on weather data; it’s the horse-blinders. What I don’t understand is how he still has a job when making such a statement.

  14. I’m extremely skeptical of the whole flying blind pigs thing. For starters, how could they see the instrument panel?

    • Blind pigs represent a problem for scientists.
      You see living things are supposed to have two of everything. Two eyes, two ears, two nostrils, two of those B thingies, or two of those b thingies, etc etc.
      You see that is how you tell what’s animal, what’s vegetable, and what’s mineral.
      Animals have two of everything. Plants don’t have two of anything. And minerals just don’t have anything; they are like rocks.
      Besides animals, nothing else in the universe has two of anything. That’s what makes two a Royal number, because it was the discovery of two, that made mathematicians start doing mathematics. They started to realize that without two, you can’t even begin to count sheep. so they invented counting , by moving from one to two.
      And after that everybody got into the game of inventing mathematics.
      Can you believe that there are actually mathematicians who really believe that mathematics is some universal truth, and all because two doesn’t exist out there anywhere.
      They can’t accept that we simply made it all up ourselves.
      So are blind pigs animal, vegetable or mineral ?
      g
      PS Yes mathematics truly is esoteric wonderment; but that doesn’t alter the fact that we just made it all up, and NONE of it really exists anywhere. Mathematics is exact; reality is only approximately exact. For engineers, near enough is good enough, even if you are trying to soft land on Mars.

  15. “Computationally disenfranchised” baaahahahahahaha
    “The Sims Arid island” There’s another Sims title for you. They take a fiction or two, make a new fiction and call it science.

  16. and of course there is reports of erosion and storm flooding of these islands going back quite a few decades.
    Storm surges carry away a lot of coral when the waters retreat. This erosion is actually a big problem for some Islands, especially that one with the huge lagoon, cant remember the name, every storm surge carries away an unknown number of tonnes of coral sand with every surge.
    The same issue polluted their fresh water. But as long as they get big bucks they sorely need for their Island infrastructure they are more than happy to play Climate change poster boys, the Maldives has done quite well out of it, but the Maldives wont be the ones suffering from disastrous policies will they.
    They say “china is serious on Climate change” intentionally misleading as they are combating pollution, not CO2 and isn’t there more runways at sea level going down in the maldives, a Chinese venture?
    Hilarious. While I am no climate scientist, I am not an idiot either.

  17. “. . .while being submerged by sea-level rise”
    Are any populated islands actually being submerged by sea-level rise? If so, which ones?
    /Mr Lynn

    • Not to my knowledge. maybe there are some places literally an inch or two above water, tho not populated.
      But they keep banging on about average sea level rise to avoid discussing any empirical science being employed in any one place, that is why they switched from tide gauge (direct observation at coast lines where it actually matters) to satellite data that measures ocean levels were it doesn’t really matter thus upping the average and providing a scare factor usefulness.
      The pacific Islands and Coral atolls are not examples of sea level rise disaster, they are a result of a long history of storms and erosion going back 100 years or more in isolated reports. While anecdotal evidence from first hand accounts and news reports is not science, it does show that such things are in no way related to man burning fossil fuels.

      • In other words, it’s all scare-mongering without any empirical evidence to substantiate it. Yet it’s promulgated throughout the mainstream and popular science media as if such disasters were occurring all the time. You would think at least one MSM reporter would think to actually take a look and see for himself. But I guess the days of real reporting are long gone.
        /Mr Lynn

      • You will find a lot of these islands that were used as bases for the Americans to fly planes out of were dredged of coral breakwater material to be used as runways ,presumably the Japanese were also doing it .
        No protection against the waves means erosion not sinking and the poster child for this is Kirabati (hope I spelt that right) .

  18. “That might be true for tiny flat atolls, but even they have differences between the ocean. Maui certainly has different weather inland than on the ocean, his statement is just flat wrong.
    Apparently, this “climate scientist” never heard of orographic lifting related to wind patterns for islands, and how rainfall is mostly dependent on wind, not the climate of the island. ”
    You are talking about where the rain falls.
    He is talking about how much.
    Also.
    Its easy to prove him wrong. Go find an island. Go find environmental buoys located off shore
    Compare. Remember he is talking about period over a day. (see his quote, you have to look at monthly
    and longer averages)
    See if you can find a difference.
    publish.
    Hint… There are tons of Islands in the Berkeley Earth dataset. buoys too.
    heck you can even compare island data to ship data ( work in progress… hehe )
    [once again a taunting drive-by from Steven Mosher, he claims I’m not talking about “how much” but ignores the second graph of rainfall totals- Anthony]

    • Yep another stone thrower, casting doubt in opposition but never questioning the claims he is backing.
      Mosher, that is not how it works lad, you are supposed to try break hypothesis to test their strength.
      You are transparent mate.
      Mind you stone throwers have it easy, they just spew disingenuous nonsense that makes honest people have to actually work to make rebuttals to such one eyed thinking.
      In the end Mosher this is another could maybe can scenario that cannot be falsified. Not that you even attempt to falsify it.

    • or more to the point the study should also point out reasons why they could be wrong.. that is how it works lad

  19. Hmmm. A grid cel of 50,400’sq km. How well do you think the UHI effect for, say, Boulder Colorado would show up, or the orographic effect of Pikes Peak, for that matter.

  20. Just love Anthony’s rant at the end. A practicing meteorologist takes an academic climatologist to school for a class in rainfall in the Hawaiian Islands…I bet the Climatologist has even been there on vacation and still couldn’t see how ridiculous his blind pig test thesis is.

  21. islands will actually become more dry as a result of increased evaporation
    {and further down}
    A “successful” blind pig test means you can’t tell if you’re over land or over ocean. If that’s the case, scientists don’t need to know anything from the land itself to predict evaporation

    So what he is really saying is that increased ocean evaporation leads to tropical island desertification.
    A more clear example of absolutely insane illogical climatology would be hard to find.
    The guy just has to get out more, and maybe spend a week in the Caribbean. Interesting that the entire West Indies are too small to show up on his map. Poor guy has never seen a tropical downpour, or if he did, he had no idea where the water came from.

  22. Interesting that so many of the projections show that wet places get wetter and dry places get drier. Not much of dry places get wetter or wet places get drier.
    Supporting the case for extreme weather to increase…………even while extremes for many weather types of weather(violent tornadoes, mid latitude cyclone strength, jet streams, wind, hurricanes, diurnal temperature swings, meridional temp gradient) has decreased.
    One scientific fact not getting enough weighting related to the increase in CO2 is that green places are getting greener and brown places are also getting greener……….even some white places are getting greener.
    Brilliant scientists and their models have projected increasing drought, more extreme weather, with reduced crop yields and world food production for decades now.
    The planet, instead, continues to green up. Life is speaking loud and clear but the cognitive biases of many, just won’t allow them to listen.

  23. “Current GCMs can tell you all about precipitation over land or over the ocean.”
    Well yes, and I can call spirits from the vasty deep. But do they come when I do call?

  24. So now they use computer models of blind flying pigs to determine the climate? They’ve long been divorced from reality, so why not?

  25. A lot of small islands don’t have mountains of any consequence. Maui’s highest point is 10,800 ft and Hawaii’s is 13,800 ft. That’s dramatically higher than the peak elevations on many of the small islands referenced in the paper. The articles about the paper make no mention of the Hawaiian Islands, so it’s not clear if those were even part of the island groups analysed.

  26. What are they worried about?
    All they need is a windmill, a couple of solar panels and a desalination plant. There is no problem that can’t be solved with renewable energy. 🙂

  27. With all this talk of flying pigs, there has got to be some bacon around here somewhere.
    Maybe the guy does know what he is doing and just does not want to share.

  28. Temperature rises, glaciers melt, seas rise, more water, less land.
    Do some islands get wetter because they get submerged?
    More water causes some islands to get dryer? Is this logic similar to global warming increases snowfall?
    smaller pixels = bigger errors with their unskilled models.

  29. It must be seas retreating in that other big policy chess game. Or maybe it was adaptation that seems impossible in DC.
    WSJ:
    SHANGHAI—Armed only with a set of revolving teeth, the Tian Jing Hao, Asia’s largest dredger, has pulled off a stunning naval upset.
    Under the noses of the U.S. Seventh Fleet, this Chinese vessel led a civilian armada that built almost 3,000 acres of land atop submerged reefs in the Spratly Islands, altering a strategic balance that has held since the great naval battles of World War II established U.S. primacy in the western Pacific.

  30. of course all those Islands Dubai have built just above sea level, on sand, is because they are seeing increased sea level rises there 🙂

  31. ‘global climate models (GCMs) used by scientists to measure the effects of climate change.’
    Measure.
    CIRES Fellow Kris Karnauskas put his name on this.

  32. They seem to make the claim that there will be more rain, but higher rates of evaporation will more than counter that increase. I thought that on most islands rainwater is collected in cisterns and pumped as needed. Kind of tough to evaporate much from a concrete box.

  33. Hold on, don’t models have real problems predicting Monsoons?
    So wouldn’t any prediction based off of models be in effect useless?

    • to that little snippet avoids the fact we cant model monsoons very well, and this “new model” is better 😀
      They are either very sly or self delusional.

  34. Oh let’s just belabor evaporation rates for a while now. The number one evaporation on a tropical or semitropical island tends to be transpiration from all the plant life. What happens to transpiration in plants when CO2 levels increase? They decrease. Now there may be a very small increase in evaporation based on the world being 2C warmer, but it will likely be offset by the higher productivity of the plant life.
    I am not sure this pig actually has wings at all.

    • Plus these Islands have a lot of sandy soil which is also not great for retaining moisture.
      Humidity there now is 74%. Lots of evaporation going on as it has done since there were atoll islands

  35. Islands are certain to be overwhelmed by rising sea levels, except that they are not. Islands are certain to have lower rainfalls, except that they are not. I hope that makes the situation clear.

    • Many of these islands are being overwhelmed by rising populations. So X fresh water divided among X+++ people should be less water per person regardless of how much it rains.

  36. The journal is called “Nature Climate Change” which tells you what their prejudice is right up front. They left just one thing out: the word “Anthropogenic” should also be added to the title so as to more accurately describe their aim. This being the case, it is not surprising that if a survey shows that climate in 50 percent of the islands will become wetter and in 50 percent it will become drier with climate change they want to stretch it to 73 percent getting drier by mid-century, not 50 percent as the survey shows. That is because small islands were not counted, they say, when that 50-50 split was determined. Bear in mind here two things: first, that 73 percent is a pure guesswork made necessary to get the paper into this journal. And second, but not least, global temperature has not increased since 1997. This last fact makes this particular journal only suitable for happenings before that fateful year of 1997. But let us follow hem anyway. “…The… Islands are already dealing with sea level rise,” says professor Karnauskas, the lead author. That is not new because it has been going on for years and years. In the year 2008 it was determined ib fact that global sea level rise had been linear for the previous eighty years, with a slope if 2.46 millimeters per year. Anything that has been linear this long is not about to change anytime soon. 2.46 millimeters a year works out to approximately ten inches per century. The global ocean and its islands just have to wait patiently for that ten inch sea rise to reach them. And then, the good professor complains that: “… in the current GCMs, Easter Island doesn’t exist–that whole grid square is just considered open ocean…. That’s the case with islands all over the globe…” So true.What he is asking for is to further extend the capabilities of GCMs so he can better evaluate what is happening in the islands.. I am not opposed to more and better research tools for scientists. I am The journal is called “Nature Climate Change” which tells you what their prejudice is right up front. They left just one thing out: the word “Anthropogenic” should also be added to the title so as to more accurately describe their aim. This being the case, it is not surprising that if a survey shows that climate in 50 percent of the islands will become wetter and in 50 percent it will become drier with climate change they want to stretch it to 73 percent getting drier by mid-century, not 50 percent as the survey shows. That is because small islands were not counted, they say, when that 50-50 split was determined. Bear in mind here two things: first, that 73 percent is a pure guesswork made necessary to get the paper into this journal. And second, but not least, global temperature has not increased since 1997. This last fact makes this particular journal only suitable for happenings before that fateful year of 1997. But let us follow them anyway. “…The… Islands are already dealing with sea level rise,” says professor Karnauskas, the lead author. That is not new because it has been going on for years and years. In the year 2008 it was determined in fact that global sea level rise had been linear for the previous eighty years, with a slope if 2.46 millimeters per year. Anything that has been linear this long is not about to change anytime soon. 2.46 millimeters a year works out to approximately ten inches per century. The global ocean and its islands just have to wait patiently for that ten-inch sea rise to reach them. And then, the good professor complains that: “… in the current GCMs, Easter Island doesn’t exist–that whole grid square is just considered open ocean…. That’s the case with islands all over the globe…” So true. What he is asking for is to further extend the capabilities of GCMs so he can better evaluate what is happening in the islands. I am not opposed to more and better research tools for scientists. I am simply opposed to financing such tools as a mission creep using the billions and trillions of global warming dollars that are illegitimately obtained by lying about the coming dangerous global warming. This well-organized theft of national treasure started with the Kyoto Protocol and continued with the Copenhagen and Paris conferences where huge chunks of western wealth were shifted to UN control without the people being fully informed of the consequences for their way of life. The boogey-man that was and is involved is greenhouse warming by carbon dioxide. It is not well known that most of the twenty-first century has been a hiatus period. During a hiatus period atmospheric carbon dioxide keeps increasing but global temperature does not. This goes against the Arrhenius greenhouse theory that is used by IPCC. The only greenhouse theory that correctly explains this observation is the Miskolczi greenhouse theory or MGT. According to MGT, carbon dioxide cannot warm the atmosphere because water vapor in the atmosphere blocks the greenhouse warming by carbon dioxide that supposedly is the cause all the warming those three conferences were about. GCM is almost childishly small project compared to those moneys collected to save the world but serves as an example of what is happening. The only legitimate use for a GCM is climate forecasting. Climate warming propaganda is good and has managed to attach “dangerous” to “climate change.” It used to be called simply “global warming.” But how did it become believable? Part of it is incessant propaganda and part of it is global temperature forecasts that give wrong information. Every single forecast since Hansen started it in 1988 has been wrong. In the direction of predicting more warming than we got. They have been at it for 27 years by now and there is no improvement compared to the very first fiasco from Hansen. During this time there have been numerous opportunities to cross check predictions with reality. It is fairly certain that this cannot happen by accident. There is no doubt about it now – the climate projections/predictions are so bad that their entire computer system should be shut down. This includes the CMIP5 system as well that produces those worthless horse whips that have nothing to do with reality.

  37. If you were a blind pig flying in this area, would you know there was an island here? Could you feel a difference in the heat or the humidity?
    A few questions:
    1)a) What does feminist glaciology have to say about pigs?
    b) What does glacial feminism have to say about pigs?
    2) And what if it’s a female pig?
    3) Will climatologists catapult blinded Pachauris to study climate?
    4) Will the statistics be biased by “pigs” trying to find a wet and warm places?

    • Are the Hawaiian Islands part of the paper? I don’t think so, the paper is focused on primarily low elevation islands, and so the orographic point is not relevant to rainfall on those islands.

  38. ” GCMs show 50 percent of all small islands becoming wetter and 50 percent becoming drier,”
    That is how it has been the last 4,3 billion years on earth. No matter when or where you meassure rainfall you will roughly get this number. there has allways been some places that will becomne wetter the next 100 year period compared to the previous one, no matter if it was 100, 1000 or 1 million years ago.
    Rainfall has never been the same on any area and never will be,

  39. Not all rain comes from orogenic uplift. The global circulation models simply do not have the sophistication to include ‘convection cells’, a major contributor to rain and the reason that the classic ‘greenhouse effect’ is IRRELEVANT to atmospheric physics. All of the rain that falls on low-lying islands and atolls comes from condensation that occurs in convection cells.

  40. This is a shorter version of my comment published April 12th at 6:37 pm. Nothing wrong with the original, just annoying duplication of the starting section that has nnow been removed.
    **********************************************************************************************************************
    The journal is called “Nature Climate Change” which tells you what their prejudice is right up front. They left just one thing out: the word “Anthropogenic” should also be added to the title so as to more accurately describe their aim. This being the case, it is not surprising that if a survey shows that climate in 50 percent of the islands will become wetter and in 50 percent it will become drier with climate change they want to stretch it to 73 percent getting drier by mid-century, not 50 percent as the survey shows. That is because small islands were not counted, they say, when that 50-50 split was determined. Bear in mind here two things: first, that 73 percent is a pure guesswork made necessary to get the paper into this journal. And second, but not least, global temperature has not increased since 1997. This last fact makes this particular journal only suitable for happenings before that fateful year of 1997. But let us follow them anyway. “…The… Islands are already dealing with sea level rise,” says professor Karnauskas, the lead author. That is not new because it has been going on for years and years. In the year 2008 it was determined in fact that global sea level rise had been linear for the previous eighty years, with a slope if 2.46 millimeters per year. Anything that has been linear this long is not about to change anytime soon. 2.46 millimeters a year works out to approximately ten inches per century. The global ocean and its islands just have to wait patiently for that ten-inch sea rise to reach them. And then, the good professor complains that: “… in the current GCMs, Easter Island doesn’t exist–that whole grid square is just considered open ocean…. That’s the case with islands all over the globe…” So true. What he is asking for is to further extend the capabilities of GCMs so he can better evaluate what is happening in the islands. I am not opposed to more and better research tools for scientists. I am simply opposed to financing such tools as a mission creep using the billions and trillions of global warming dollars that are illegitimately obtained by lying about the coming dangerous global warming. This well-organized theft of national treasure started with the Kyoto Protocol and continued with the Copenhagen and Paris conferences where huge chunks of western wealth were shifted to UN control without the people being fully informed of the consequences for their way of life. The boogey-man that was and is involved is greenhouse warming by carbon dioxide. It is not well known that most of the twenty-first century has been a hiatus period. During a hiatus period atmospheric carbon dioxide keeps increasing but global temperature does not. This goes against the Arrhenius greenhouse theory that is used by IPCC. The only greenhouse theory that correctly explains this observation is the Miskolczi greenhouse theory or MGT. According to MGT, carbon dioxide cannot warm the atmosphere because water vapor in the atmosphere blocks the greenhouse warming by carbon dioxide that supposedly is the cause all the warming those three conferences were about. GCM is almost childishly small project compared to those moneys collected to save the world but serves as an example of what is happening. The only legitimate use for a GCM is climate forecasting. Climate warming propaganda is good and has managed to attach “dangerous” to “climate change.” It used to be called simply “global warming.” But how did it become believable? Part of it is incessant propaganda and part of it is global temperature forecasts that give wrong information. Every single forecast since Hansen started it in 1988 has been wrong. In the direction of predicting more warming than we got. They have been at it for 27 years by now and there is no improvement compared to the very first fiasco from Hansen. During this time there have been numerous opportunities to cross check predictions with reality. It is fairly certain that this cannot happen by accident. There is no doubt about it now – the climate projections/predictions are so bad that their entire computer system should be shut down. This includes the CMIP5 system as well that produces those worthless horse whips that have nothing to do with reality.

    • Arno, good response. My thought is that if they keep saying that there is an increase in evaporation and the island will become arid, well what the heck is happening to all the evaporation in the ocean. How can you have dangerous evaporation only on the island and not in the ocean? WHAT? So the sea level rise will not be effected by the evaporation! If all this precipitation is leaving the planet then there should be no sea level rise, right? Or is this OL’ country boy missin’ somethin’. Can them thar smart fella’s and feller’s assist please.

Comments are closed.