Harold Brooks wrote:
In article .com,
says...
So my questions are whether Global Warming forces the JetStream to be
narrow ranged and whether
Rainfall is Zero Sum.
I think there is a cool answer and cool research. We have collected
accurate weather rainfall since
about 1890s in most regions of the Western USA and can send that data
through a computer to
collate whether the rainfall in the Western part of the USA, ie, west
of the Mississippi is Zero-Sum.
My guess is that it is nearly Zero-Sum with only a small gradual
deviation. And because of Global
Warming that the Jet-Stream becomes more narrow in range and hence the
less spreading of
rainfall over larger areas.
The example this year is flooding rain in Texas and Oklahoma and the
drought in northern states such
as South Dakota.
In fact, South Dakota for the past 5 summers has experienced little to
no rainfall in the critical summer
months. If this intensifies then South Dakota and surrounding states
can be called "the land where
it does not rain in the summertime".
So if a computer were to collate the rainfall of much of the USA for
the past 100 years, I am confident
it will find that rain is nearly Zero Sum, which means that if one
spot gets too much rain then another
spot has to be that much dryer. So I suspect the records of the past
100 years can validate that claim
of Zero Sum.
The long-term mean for the US is 29.13 inches with a standard deviation
of 2.18 inches. It's not particularly zero-sum. The calculation you
want done has been done and the annual US mean national precip is
available at
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/...h/cag3/na.html
From there, in inches, the annual precip for the US has been:
1896 26.66
1896 28.68
1897 28.11
1898 28.70
1899 27.43
1900 29.88
1901 26.63
1902 29.46
1903 28.42
1904 26.84
1905 31.84
1906 31.73
1907 30.17
1908 29.17
1909 30.64
1910 24.37
1911 28.94
1912 29.75
1913 29.31
1914 28.27
1915 32.06
1916 28.90
1917 24.44
1918 27.95
1919 30.99
1920 30.39
1921 27.94
1922 29.11
1923 30.75
1924 25.95
1925 25.94
1926 30.12
1927 31.15
1928 28.67
1929 29.50
1930 25.09
1931 26.79
1932 29.60
1933 26.80
1934 25.05
1935 28.85
1936 26.59
1937 29.72
1938 28.85
1939 25.82
1940 29.63
1941 31.85
1942 30.58
1943 26.07
1944 30.08
1945 32.25
1946 30.42
1947 28.57
1948 29.65
1949 29.70
1950 29.99
1951 30.33
1952 25.63
1953 27.51
1954 25.23
1955 26.81
1956 24.57
1957 32.90
1958 29.25
1959 29.88
1960 27.95
1961 30.41
1962 27.80
1963 24.77
1964 29.23
1965 28.95
1966 26.67
1967 28.61
1968 29.52
1969 29.79
1970 28.54
1971 29.29
1972 30.77
1973 33.99
1974 29.72
1975 32.02
1976 25.62
1977 29.62
1978 29.17
1979 32.02
1980 27.38
1981 29.17
1982 32.99
1983 33.81
1984 30.48
1985 29.41
1986 30.61
1987 28.46
1988 25.25
1989 28.42
1990 31.40
1991 31.77
1992 30.67
1993 31.97
1994 30.04
1995 31.69
1996 32.59
1997 31.29
1998 32.97
1999 27.84
2000 27.73
2001 28.58
2002 28.66
2003 29.95
2004 32.88
2005 29.84
2006 29.39
Thanks for the valuable information. I would disagree with your
evaluation that it is not zero-sum. I would say the above supports the
claim that rainfall is very much a zero-sum parameter because in
1905 it was 31.84 and yet over a century later it was 29.39 in 2006.
And keeping in mind that the measuring of the rainfall has steadily
improved in those 100 years of tabulation.
It reached 33 in the 1970s and 1980s but that may have been due to
increased hurricane rainfall and the ability to measure hurricane
rainfall.
I am speculating that as the Global Warming increases, that the melted
ice cap water will make a steady small increase in the yearly
rainfall totals. But because Global Warming affects the Jet-Stream
that the interior of continents become dryer. So the increase in
rainfall occur along coasts and the interior becomes more desert
climate.
I need some physics analogy for why Global Warming decreases the range
of the Jet-Stream.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies