New Paper: Increasing Rain Fall

[LowDown]

I can't figure this paper out.

They claim that annual average global precipitation has increased by 0.34 inches per year for the last 110 years.

But annual average global precipitation currently is about 39 inches.

So 110 years ago there was no rain anywhere?

But at least it agrees with the climate models!

 

[faithful_servant]

I can't figure this paper out.

They claim that annual average global precipitation has increased by 0.34 inches per year for the last 110 years.

But annual average global precipitation currently is about 39 inches.

So 110 years ago there was no rain anywhere?

But at least it agrees with the climate models!

I'd like to see just how they got that average. With the number of samples needed for accuracy at this level, they must have a couple hundred thousand sampling sites scattered across the entire world. That would require a level of international cooperation unheard of in recorded human history.

 

[votemout]

I can't figure this paper out.

They claim that annual average global precipitation has increased by 0.34 inches per year for the last 110 years.

But annual average global precipitation currently is about 39 inches.

So 110 years ago there was no rain anywhere?

But at least it agrees with the climate models!

Dude its JUNK science is rooted in no facts and is only a way to get more taxes. To stop economic growth and begin the depopulation agenda.

 

[ecofarm]

I can't figure this paper out.

They claim that annual average global precipitation has increased by 0.34 inches per year for the last 110 years.

But annual average global precipitation currently is about 39 inches.

So 110 years ago there was no rain anywhere?

But at least it agrees with the climate models!

?

Our reconstructed time series of the global average annual precipitation shows a 0.024 (mm/day)/100a trend, which is very close to the trend derived from the mean of 25 models of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5.

That's like 8mm/year.

I see your conversion now. I dunno. I'd have to look at more than the abstract.

Do you have a link to the actual paper, or are we to figure it out by the abstract?

I'd like to see just how they got that average. With the number of samples needed for accuracy at this level, they must have a couple hundred thousand sampling sites scattered across the entire world. That would require a level of international cooperation unheard of in recorded human history.

One need only read the abstract to get that info:

The Global Precipitation Climatology Project (GPCP) precipitation data from 1979-2008 are used to calculate the empirical orthogonal functions (EOFs). The Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) gridded data (1900-2011) are used to calculate the regression coefficients for reconstructions.

 

[LowDown]

?



That's like 8mm/year.

I see your conversion now. I dunno. I'd have to look at more than the abstract.

Do you have a link to the actual paper, or are we to figure it out by the abstract?





One need only read the abstract to get that info:

The paper isn't out yet.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

I can't figure this paper out.

They claim that annual average global precipitation has increased by 0.34 inches per year for the last 110 years.

But annual average global precipitation currently is about 39 inches.

So 110 years ago there was no rain anywhere?

But at least it agrees with the climate models!

It seems so!
LOL

 

[Lord of Planar]

The paper isn't out yet.

Isn't this it:

http://sdsu-dspace.calstate.edu/bit...15520/Tafolla_sdsu_0220N_10138.pdf?sequence=1

 

[Visbek]

Isn't this it:

Close. That was the graduate thesis of the lead authors. It looks like a slightly modified version is being published.

Anyway... The paper indicates how daily precipitation anomalies have increased by about 0.02mm/day since 1900. Not absolute amounts.

Does that clarify things?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Close. That was the graduate thesis of the lead authors. It looks like a slightly modified version is being published.

Anyway... The paper indicates how daily precipitation anomalies have increased by about 0.02mm/day since 1900. Not absolute amounts.

Does that clarify things?

I don't know. I haven't read any of it yet. I haven't developed an opinion yet. The link to the abstract was in fractions of a mm/day, and I didn't do any calculations.

Using 20 micrometers a day seems kind if odd to me.

 

[HonestJoe]

The paper isn't out yet.

Doesn't that pose the question of where you got the figures you stated in your OP then?

 

[LowDown]

Isn't this it:

http://sdsu-dspace.calstate.edu/bit...15520/Tafolla_sdsu_0220N_10138.pdf?sequence=1

That's the one. It's not published in print yet, this appears to be a draft.

According to the text, their claim is actually that precipitation has increased by 0.024 mm per day over the entire 100 years, not per year. So it's 0.34 inches per year total increase since 1900. That's an increase of less than 1% in 100 years. That seems too small. Too small to be accurate and too small to be measured.

Elsewhere people are claiming increases of 7% per year for the previous 10 or 20 years.

 

[Ockham]

That's the one. It's not published in print yet, this appears to be a draft.

According to the text, their claim is actually that precipitation has increased by 0.024 mm per day over the entire 100 years, not per year. So it's 0.34 inches per year total increase since 1900. That's an increase of less than 1% in 100 years. That seems too small. Too small to be accurate and too small to be measured.

Elsewhere people are claiming increases of 7% per year for the previous 10 or 20 years.

I demand global warming give me 1/2 inches of rainfall every other day minimum so I don't have to haul my hose out to the garden every two days and water everything.

 

[HonestJoe]

According to the text, their claim is actually that precipitation has increased by 0.024 mm per day over the entire 100 years, not per year.

I'm pretty sure you're misreading it. Understandable as the text is really dense and difficult to read but the graphs make this fairly clear.

For a start, it isn't an increase of 0.024mm every day, it's an increase of 0.024mm over the 111 year period. It's also it's a measurement of precipitation per 100 acres, not over the entire planet.

More significantly, it's a measure of mean precipitation anomalies, that is the difference between the precipitation at a particular time compared to the average over a longer period. In simple terms, the difference between rainfall in 2011 and the average between 1900 and 2011 is 0.024mm higher than the difference between the rainfall in 1900 and the average between 1900 and 2011.

Finally, it's the whole point of the paper to suggest these figures could be in error anyway (though not of orders of magnitude I don't think)?

 

[Visbek]

That's the one. It's not published in print yet, this appears to be a draft.

Close. The paper was her thesis. It's being published, with a couple of co-authors, one was a thesis advisor.

According to the text, their claim is actually that precipitation has increased by 0.024 mm per day over the entire 100 years, not per year. So it's 0.34 inches per year total increase since 1900. That's an increase of less than 1% in 100 years. That seems too small. Too small to be accurate and too small to be measured.

So, let me get this straight.

First, you think the author predicts too big a change. Now it's too small? There's no pleasing some people.

Anyway. She's pretty clear about her data sources, and obviously it's likely to be more accurate with more recent data. The goal is to make a model which matches all the variables, and fits the data. From there, you enter new variables, and use that as the basis of predictions. Not that complicated.

Elsewhere people are claiming increases of 7% per year for the previous 10 or 20 years.

Ah yes, the unspecified "elsewhere."

If you look at figure 1.2 (precipitation over land), you'll see a big dip in the 70s, followed by a big increase. That's probably what the "elsewhere" is talking about.

 

[Visbek]

it's the whole point of the paper to suggest these figures could be in error anyway (though not of orders of magnitude I don't think)?

It appears to be a very small difference. But the goal is to improve the existing models, to improve predictions.

 

[Deuce]

I demand global warming give me 1/2 inches of rainfall every other day minimum so I don't have to haul my hose out to the garden every two days and water everything.

Also if it could scoop up the dog poo for me because i swear my dog is violating conservation of mass.

 

[Jack Hays]

Also if it could scoop up the dog poo for me because i swear my dog is violating conservation of mass.

Yup. I have a Bernese Mountain Dog. They specialize in that violation.:shock: