By J. Richard Wakefield
June 30, 2016
In this Part I want to go into more depth about the claim that there will be more violent storms dropping more rain in them. The short reply to that statement is it is false. Not only that, it is a prediction that violates physics.
You will recall this graph from Part One.
This is the percent of time (X-Axis) vs each millimetre rain drop on any given day (Y-Axis). In Part One I used Woodstock. In this case I used data from Bellville as it has a very long unbroken record of data. (I was going to use Toronto, as per the report’s claim that their data was from Pierson Airport, but that data is too short and has gaps in it.)
What is interesting is the two graphs are identical. That means, the percent of time of each daily rain drop is the same across the province. The equation that follows that graph is the same regardless of location. We will expand on this in a moment, but I want to also show that there is no over all trend in Bellville of total precipitation.
Notice the clear 30 year cycles, which means we are just leaving the latest, with the next cycle repeating in some 15 years. But over all there is no increase in the amount of precipitation since 1902. Also notice the two years in the late 1940s that had more rain in those years than the high in 2006. Note also the drought year in 2009.
The interesting thing to remember is the high amount of precipitation in 2006 would have been blamed on global warming as an indication of things to come. Also, the 2009 drought year was blamed on global warming as an indication of things to come.
So, back to the decay curve and the claim that there will be more rain, and more in one day, in the future. What would that mean for that curve? There are three possibilities, but as you will see all three are physically impossible.
The first is their direct claim. That rain in the future will be heavier, and more frequent, at the high end.
However, so-called “25-year” and “100- year storms” have become more frequent in recent decades. Traditionally, “25-year storms” have a 4 percent chance of being equalled or exceeded in any given year and, therefore, an average recurrence interval of 25 years. Similarly, “100- year storms” have a 1 percent annual probability of being equalled or exceeded. That is, they have (or had) a probability of occurring just once every century, although cities are now experiencing them in shorter intervals.34
(Reference 34 is just this, which isn’t a study at all, but an opinion by the City of Toronto Water Works manager. The last part of the quote, “cities are now experiencing them in shorter intervals” is absolutely false. There is no evidence in the data from Environment Canada for that, anywhere in Ontario. Welland and Woodstock have seen a reduction in rainfall in the last 25 years.)
With 100 years of data, even a significant increase at the high end would hardly be seen in that graph of percent probability, so I used only the last 25 years data to make high end events show better. This is what that looks like:
As the graph states, if there is more heavy rain more often, that end line would have to be higher. But how? This?
To get that blip, I had to have 30 days in that 25 year period of a day of 100mm of rain, and another 30 days of 110mm of rain on one day. That’s not an exaggeration to some of the alarmist claims of more rain, one or two per year.
But clearly, that bump violates the mathematical equation that produces the graph of regular rain fall pattern. Hence that isn’t going to happen in the future. To follow the laws of physics, the integrity of the line must be preserved.
The second possibility is this:
But for this to happen, total rain would have to increase, substantially. Which it isn’t anywhere. Two other problems with this scenario is at the low end of rain, say one millilitre per year, would have to happen more often than today. That means we would have to have more rainy days in the future. The other problem with this scenario is the right end. To tapper off to zero percent we would have to see rain days of more than 120mm.
Not one day in the entire data set has rain in one day more than 130mm that I have seen so far. There appears to be a limit to how much rain can fall in one day. We will get to that in a moment.
The third scenario is that the lower end rain days don’t change, but the higher amount days do, like this:
Even this scenario has problems. It expects there to be more rain at the higher rates only, without affecting lower rates that have the higher probability. Doesnt make sense either. And it still has the same problem at the right side of the graph as the second scenario. Where is the upper limit? Is there an upper limit?
That brings us to a little bit of meteorology so you understand why it rains in the first place, and why higher rates in one day are so rare.
The main cause of rain in Ontario is when a moist warm air mass from the Gulf of Mexico collides with a cold dry air mass that drops down from the Arctic. A low pressure system is created at the centre of that collision, which produces this map that you have seen so many times on the Weather Channel.
The greater the temperature and moisture content between those colliding air masses, the more violent the storms it produces. Those fronts travel from west to east, and within a day, the storm front passes us in London, and moves off to drop east ward all the way to the Atlantic.
So it’s all over within a day or so. The atmosphere can only hold so much moisture in the warm air mass. So the amount of rain cannot go above that. Hence the claim of more intense rain violates the laws of physics.
But what about those real heavy days then? When it rains all day for days in a row? That happens when the jet stream passes right over us, with a low bulge to our west, and a high bulge into Quebec.
If the jet stream is stationary (doesnt move eastward) and the low pressure system follows that line, we can get days of rain, and a lot of it if the conditions are just right (big temperature difference between the air masses, and a lot of moisture from the Gulf.).
Clearly, because of the chaotic nature of the climate system, that is a rare event. Climate change isn’t going to make that worse.
If anything, global warming should make storms less violent with less rain in them, if one follows the laws of physics. The claim of the global warming people is that the Arctic would warm faster than the tropics. Recall that the intensity of a storm is directly in relation to the difference in temperature of the colliding air masses. The lower the different in the two, the less violent the storms, and the less amount of rain would fall.
In their zeal to scare you into submission because of human caused climate change, the High Priests of Global Warming are violating basic physics.
The bottom line is it is physically impossible for there to be more rain per day in the future. There is no evidence anywhere in the world, let alone Ontario, of any increase in precipitation beyond the normal variation we have seen in the last 100 years.
These predictions are based on flawed computer models, and are not evidence. Yet our politicians plow ahead as if things will actually become that worse case scenario.
Part five I will sum up.