What is the correct value of Climate Sensitivity?

[On Guard for Thee]

Droughts that California has experienced in the past 1000 years and will experience again.

I think it worth remembering that 10 years ago Australians were so convinced that they had entered a period of endless droughts. Then the drought ended...

Where did you get the idea the drought in Aus. has ended

[TimG]

Where did you get the idea the drought in Aus. has ended

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000s_Australian_drought

End declared in 2012.

The California drought is well within natural weather variations for the area and there no measurable link to climate change.

[On Guard for Thee]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000s_Australian_drought

End declared in 2012.

The California drought is well within natural weather variations for the area and there no measurable link to climate change.

In your mind perhaps.

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/drought/

[TimG]

In your mind perhaps.

If you actually understood the information on that page you would realize it confirms my statement that the "perpetual drought" that people claimed existed ended in 2012. That does not mean other areas of the country have not experienced droughts because guess what: Australia is a drought prone continent. There have always been and always will be periodic droughts. Edited April 15, 2015 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

If you actually understood the information on that page you would realize it confirms my statement that the "perpetual drought" that people claimed existed ended in 2012. That does not mean other areas of the country have not experienced droughts because guess what: Australia is a drought prone continent. There have always been and always will be periodic droughts.

Not hard to understand at all. Long term rain deficiencies. Whats so difficult.

[TimG]

Not hard to understand at all. Long term rain deficiencies. Whats so difficult.

In a different region than was affected by the 2000-2012 drought. Australia is a continent. It has many different regions with different weather patterns.

[On Guard for Thee]

In a different region than was affected by the 2000-2012 drought. Australia is a continent. It has many different regions with different weather patterns.

I dont think global warming cares whether it impacts a continent or your hometown The word global should be a hint.

[-1=e^ipi]

On Guard for Thee - how do you reconcile your beliefs on Droughts & Climate change with the empirical evidence I have presented in this thread (vegetation changes since the last glacial maximum, the 4.2, 5.9 and 8.2 kiloyear events, plus desertification since the Holocene Climate Optimum) as well as the physical mechanism I explained where by the Clausius-Clapeyron relation the rate of moisture transfer between oceans and continents should increase due to global warming, which should make continents wetter on average even after taking into account evaporation?

With respect the the Australian Drought, Australia was much more desertified during the last glacial maximum when global temperatures were 4 C cooler than today. Although, if the Earth warms due to global warming, then the Southern Tropical Jetstream should move southward, which may change wind patterns over the south of the continent to be more Easterly and less Westerly. If you look at a contour map of Australia, you will notice that Australia's main mountain range is the Great Dividing Range along the East Coast.

One of the reasons why Australia is such a dry continent is because the Great Dividing Range prevents moisture from traveling from the Pacific Ocean to areas west of the Great Dividing Range (another reason is that it is located at a latitude of the Southern Tropical Jetstream). Now if the Southern Tropical Jetstream moves southward and winds become more Easterly along the south of the continent, then this could cause Southern Australia west of the Great Dividing range to get drier since they will receive less moisture from the Indian & Southern Oceans due to changing wind patterns (but more from the Pacific, although most of this is blocked off). Though the Northern two thirds of the Continent should get wetter since wind is primarily Easterly there already and the Great Dividing Range is lower. So this might mean that we can expect everything East of the Great Dividing Range + Everything North of ~ 30 S to get wetter, but maybe a portion of Australia South of ~30 S and West of the Great Dividing Range to get drier.

With respect to California, it's an interesting case. One of the reasons for the current drought is arguably because the Northern Polar Jetstream is stuck in a resonant state where a High Pressure system is over California and a lot of the moisture that would normally travel towards California from the Pacific is being diverted Northward to Washington, BC and Alaska. Now it is true that climate change can increase the frequency at which the North Polar Jetstream gets 'stuck' (see my thread here http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/23461-effectsimplications-of-climate-change-on-jetstreams/),but California is currently at the southern tip of influence from the Northern Polar Jetstream, and if climate change causes the Northern Polar jetstream to shift Northward, then it becomes a priori indeterminant if California will be more greatly influenced by these resonant phenomena.

However, California is also at a latitude where it is strongly influenced by the Northern Tropical Jetstream; if that shifts Northward due to climate change then winds will become more Easterly and less Westerly over California. Since the North American Cordillera is to the East of California (thus blocks a lot of moisture traveling Eastward towards California) this change in weather patterns could make California more dry. However, if that occurs then Texas should become more wet, so it is a bit of a tradeoff.

So overall, the continents should become more wet due to climate change, but some places might become more dry such as California or South Western Australia. Anyway, perhaps I need to perform some more calculations to get a better idea of expected changes to rainfall and evaporation changes.

[On Guard for Thee]

On Guard for Thee - how do you reconcile your beliefs on Droughts & Climate change with the empirical evidence I have presented in this thread (vegetation changes since the last glacial maximum, the 4.2, 5.9 and 8.2 kiloyear events, plus desertification since the Holocene Climate Optimum) as well as the physical mechanism I explained where by the Clausius-Clapeyron relation the rate of moisture transfer between oceans and continents should increase due to global warming, which should make continents wetter on average even after taking into account evaporation?

With respect the the Australian Drought, Australia was much more desertified during the last glacial maximum when global temperatures were 4 C cooler than today. Although, if the Earth warms due to global warming, then the Southern Tropical Jetstream should move southward, which may change wind patterns over the south of the continent to be more Easterly and less Westerly. If you look at a contour map of Australia, you will notice that Australia's main mountain range is the Great Dividing Range along the East Coast.

One of the reasons why Australia is such a dry continent is because the Great Dividing Range prevents moisture from traveling from the Pacific Ocean to areas west of the Great Dividing Range (another reason is that it is located at a latitude of the Southern Tropical Jetstream). Now if the Southern Tropical Jetstream moves southward and winds become more Easterly along the south of the continent, then this could cause Southern Australia west of the Great Dividing range to get drier since they will receive less moisture from the Indian & Southern Oceans due to changing wind patterns (but more from the Pacific, although most of this is blocked off). Though the Northern two thirds of the Continent should get wetter since wind is primarily Easterly there already and the Great Dividing Range is lower. So this might mean that we can expect everything East of the Great Dividing Range + Everything North of ~ 30 S to get wetter, but maybe a portion of Australia South of ~30 S and West of the Great Dividing Range to get drier.

With respect to California, it's an interesting case. One of the reasons for the current drought is arguably because the Northern Polar Jetstream is stuck in a resonant state where a High Pressure system is over California and a lot of the moisture that would normally travel towards California from the Pacific is being diverted Northward to Washington, BC and Alaska. Now it is true that climate change can increase the frequency at which the North Polar Jetstream gets 'stuck' (see my thread here http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/23461-effectsimplications-of-climate-change-on-jetstreams/),but California is currently at the southern tip of influence from the Northern Polar Jetstream, and if climate change causes the Northern Polar jetstream to shift Northward, then it becomes a priori indeterminant if California will be more greatly influenced by these resonant phenomena.

However, California is also at a latitude where it is strongly influenced by the Northern Tropical Jetstream; if that shifts Northward due to climate change then winds will become more Easterly and less Westerly over California. Since the North American Cordillera is to the East of California (thus blocks a lot of moisture traveling Eastward towards California) this change in weather patterns could make California more dry. However, if that occurs then Texas should become more wet, so it is a bit of a tradeoff.

So overall, the continents should become more wet due to climate change, but some places might become more dry such as California or South Western Australia. Anyway, perhaps I need to perform some more calculations to get a better idea of expected changes to rainfall and evaporation changes.

Yeah well your jetstream nonsense has proven itself to be faulty, just look at last winter. But I know from looking at how you drone on page after page with little formulae here and the others there. Luckily people who really understand the science are actually trying to do something to deal with the obvious problem

[-1=e^ipi]

Yeah well your jetstream nonsense has proven itself to be faulty, just look at last winter.

You mean how the jetstream had a larger amplitude than normal and a smaller wavelength than normal and was arguably in a resonant state for a while? That is expected from theory. Also weather != climate.

Luckily people who really understand the science are actually trying to do something to deal with the obvious problem

Alarmism != Science.

But it is your choice if you wish to let your Just Cause Corruption blind your reason.

[eyeball]

On Guard for Thee - how do you reconcile your beliefs on Droughts & Climate change with the empirical evidence I have presented in this thread (vegetation changes since the last glacial maximum, the 4.2, 5.9 and 8.2 kiloyear events, plus desertification since the Holocene Climate Optimum) as well as the physical mechanism I explained where by the Clausius-Clapeyron relation the rate of moisture transfer between oceans and continents should increase due to global warming, which should make continents wetter on average even after taking into account evaporation?

How will our economy and civilization adapt to and reconcile it's more immediate needs with the kilo-year timescales you're discussing?

[-1=e^ipi]

How will our economy and civilization adapt to and reconcile it's more immediate needs with the kilo-year timescales you're discussing?

I don't understand your question and I'm not sure if you do either.

The kilo-year events I was referring to were events that occurred 4.2, 5.9 and 8.2 thousand years ago. They didn't last for thousands of years or have kilo-year timescales.

[-1=e^ipi]

I'm starting to get skeptical that a cost-benefit analysis is the best way to determine optimal policy (despite my earlier claims in this thread). Some of the assumptions that go into justifying cost-benefit analysis might be violated when it comes to climate change. In particular, the magnitude of impact of policy on the global economy can be quite large and there appears to be a fairly large amount of uncertainty when it comes to the impacts of different policy choices. Traditional cost-benefit analysis is basically risk neutral and tries to determine if a policy is potentially pareto improving (and it generally relies on having a low level of uncertainty). Perhaps a method that better takes into account risk aversion and preference for equality should be used.

[TimG]

Perhaps a method that better takes into account risk aversion and preference for equality should be used.

No matter what methodology you use the choices come down to a question of what is feasible. i.e. if current or probable technology cannot allow for significant reductions in CO2 then it makes no difference what the cost benefit says - adaption is the only option on the table.

I am still digesting this essay: http://www.ecomodernism.org/

Climate change and other global ecological challenges are not the most important immediate concerns for the majority of the world's people. Nor should they be. A new coal-fired power station in Bangladesh may bring air pollution and rising carbon dioxide emissions but will also save lives. For millions living without light and forced to burn dung to cook their food, electricity and modern fuels, no matter the source, offer a pathway to a better life, even as they also bring new environmental challenges.

Plenty of good ideas and a rational perspective.

[-1=e^ipi]

No matter what methodology you use the choices come down to a question of what is feasible.

It is feasible to run the world's economy into the toilet. It is just not preferable.

[-1=e^ipi]

I thought I would do a rough upperbound of the timescale of the ice-albedo feedback. The upperbound should roughly be the time it takes the increase in radiative forcing from melting an ice cap to melt that ice cap.

Mean annual solar insolation at the poles is ~ 55 W/m^2.

The albedo of an ice cap is roughly 0.8.

The albedo of water (which is what would replace the ice caps of Antarctica and Greenland if they all melted) depends on the latitude and other factors because reflectivity depends on the Fresnel equations, but is roughly 0.1 at high latitudes.

This means that a lower bound for the increase in energy absorbed by the earth from melting a square metre of ice cap is (0.8-0.1)*55 W/m^2 = 38.5 W/m^2.

The thicknesses of the Greenland and Antarctica ice caps are roughly 2 km.

The density of ice is ~ 934 kg/m^3.

The enthalpy of melting ice is 333550 J/kg.

This means that it would take 2000*934*333550 = 623071400000 J to melt a square kilometre of Greenland/Antarctica ice cap.

So it takes 623071400000/38.5 = 16183672727 s = 513 years to melt a square kilometre of Greenland/Antarctica ice cap with the feedback that would result from melting that ice.

Given that the shortest feedback is roughly 0.5 years, this suggests that an Van Hateren impulse response function with decay times ranging from 0.5 years to say 1024 years should be more than sufficient coverage to represent the true impulse response function.

Edited April 19, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[-1=e^ipi]

Another thought:

If Greenland and Antarctica completely melted, sea levels would rise by ~ 68 m.

If they have a 513 year decay time, this would suggest an upper bound on the rate of sea level rise of ~ 0.13 m per year (even if GHG levels became very high).

Realistically, sea level rise is expected to be ~ 0.5 m this century.

Edit: the 0.13m per year would be ~ the maximum sea level rise you would get if the ice albedo feedback where 'self-perpetuating', which it clearly isn't.

Edited April 20, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[-1=e^ipi]

More on Sea Level:

During the Eemian (interglacial 120,000 years ago), global temperature was ~2 C warmer than the Holocene and sea levels were ~ 6 m higher than the Holocene. This would suggest that the equilibrium change in global sea levels is roughly 3 m per degree of warming (and of course getting to this would take a millennia or two because it takes a long time for the ice cap feedbacks).

Edit: But the Pliocene had ~24m higher sea levels at 3 C higher temperatures, which would indicate roughly 8m per degree of warming. However, the Pliocene did not have as strong Antarctic circumpolar current and the Americas were not joined either due to differences in the positions of the continents, so a lot of the higher Pliocene sea levels may be due to the positions of the continents (which allowed for a more equitable climate for the same global average temperature) rather than due to changes in the global average temperature.

Edited April 23, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[-1=e^ipi]

I tried to estimate the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) from Pleistocene data again.

I used the same data as post #371, and I used the de Boer 2010 sea level data (http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~boer0160/Model_output/BdeBoer_etal_ANICE_5Myr_output.txt) rather than the Bintaja 2005 sea level reconstruction.

For the sake of simplicity (and the fact that Pleistocene data occurs over such a long time period that I can use this simplified model), I use the simple linear model:

T_t+10 = β₀ + β₁*(GHG forcing + Solar forcing due to eccentricity changes + Albedo forcing) + β₂*Obliquity_Index + β₃*Precession_Index + model error

The lag of 10 years is to try to take into account the fact that it takes some time for climate to change temperature due to a change in forcing and the value of 10 years is based upon Ricke and Caldeira 2014 (http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/9/12/124002/article) . Given the large timescale of ice ages, the choice of the lag doesn't significantly affect the results and some individuals such as James Hansen neglect time delays completely when obtaining estimates of ECS.

I tried to combine GHG forcing, solar forcing and albedo forcing into a single parameter to make the model easier to estimate and to take advantage of a priori information.

If I go with the claims of Hansen 2013 (http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/371/2001/20120294), the albedo forcing (ice-albedo, sea level changes, vegetation changes) are roughly a linear function of sea level changes and the difference in albedo from the Holocene to the last glacial maximum is roughly 3.4 W/m^2 with an error of roughly 20%, then I can replace the albedo forcing in the regression with (1 +/- 0.2)*3.4/105*Sea_Level (105m is the change in sea level for the LGM according to the de Boer data).

Earlier I argued that the effectiveness of solar forcing relative to GHG forcing would be less than 0.7/4 since solar forcing has a stronger effect in equatorial regions (thus by the Stefan-Boltzman law, the change in global temperature would be less than if solar irradiance were distributed more evenly). Based on calculations I have done earlier in this thread, plus all my earlier regression results, I think it is reasonable to suggest that to convert changes in solar irradiance to GHG forcing I can multiply by a factor of (0.10 +/- 0.05). This confidence interval seems a bit arbitrary (and I am sort of doing what James Hansen does), but the error isn't that large; it doesn't matter that much since eccentricity changes aren't that big.

Anyway, performing a linear regression gives me estimates to my model. Climate sensitivity can then be calculated as β₁*5.35*ln(2). My actual error is going to be model error + temperature error (which I can get from Annan and Hargreaves 2013) + error on solar parameter + error on albedo parameter.

Overall, my 95% confidence interval for ECS based on this model is (2.46 +/- 0.48) C.

However, this may be an overestimate of ECS because my estimate of the effect of the albedo feedback may be an underestimate. The reason I may be underestimating the effect of my albedo forcing is because in addition to causing less incoming solar radiation to be absorbed during an ice-age, the albedo effect will increase the unevenness of the distribution of incoming absorbed sunlight across the surface of the Earth. The reason for this is because the ice-albedo feedback occurs in polar regions, which already receive less sunlight than equatorial regions. The effect of this unevenness may be quite large as indicated by the strength of obliquity on explaining temperature changes (as obliquity affects the sunlight distribution).

Another thing I would like to mention is that there may be a far amount of specification error for this model, so the above confidence interval is an underestimate of the true uncertainty.

Though it does look like 1.5 C < ECS < 3 C.

Edited April 21, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[-1=e^ipi]

I guess I need to consider permafrost as well, otherwise the 16.5 value in my last post is an underestimate.

There are 1400-1700 billion tons of carbon in permafrost (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permafrost); I'll use the central estimate of 1550 billion tons. Due to lack additional a priori knowledge, I'll assume that the permafrost has a similar behaviour as the oceans (so 1 degree celcius increase releases ~1.26% of the carbon). Also, permafrost is located primarily in polar regions, so I should take into account polar amplification. The global polar amplification factor is ~2.0 (note that in the jetstream thread, I eventually used a polar amplification of 2.5; the reason was because I was considering the northern hemisphere, which has a higher polar amplification factor than the southern hemisphere). Putting these factors together (plus the assumption of 2.9 billion tons of carbon corresponding to 1 ppm) suggests that I should increase the 16.5 by ~13.5 to ~30.

Note that if the equilibrium climate sensitivity is approximately 3 celcius then this suggests that doubling CO2 concentrations should release an additional 3*30 = 90 ppm of CO2 in the long run (due to ocean warming and permafrost melting). Note that this corresponds very well with the approximately 87 ppm value that is the central estimate of the ranges in the IPCC's AR4 (chapter 7).

So the value of C in the previous regressions I did should be ~ 30.

Some more thoughts on this:

If I look at pleistocene ice core data, the CO2 difference between glacials and interglacials is ~100 ppm.

But by Annan and Hargreaves 2013 the change in global average temperature is (4.0 +/- 0.8) C.

This suggests that the CO2-temperature feedback is roughly (25 +/- 5) ppm/C.

However, due to the non-linear temperature relationship of the CO2 in water Henry's constant, this is probably a slight overestimate of the temperature-CO2 feedback. Looking at the effect of water solubility alone suggests that as water holds 1.26% more dissolved CO2 as you decrease temperature (and the glacial periods are roughly 4C colder), one should multiply the above number by ~ 0.9874^2, which suggests that the CO2-temperature feedback at current temperatures is ~(24.4 +/- 4.9) ppm/C (95% confidence interval).

Edit: now that I think about it, the CO2-temperature feedback that one obtains empirically from the pleistocene ice core data is the equilibrium change. However, for melting permafrost, that CO2 will first go into the atmosphere before the atmosphere has time to reach equilibrium with the ocean, so it might be possible for the short term feedback to be larger than the long term feedback (although not necessarily since it also takes time for the ocean to release CO2 to the atmosphere).

Edited April 22, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[jbg]

Is loading up a general forum with reams of mathematical formulas much different than trolling? I don't care whether or not you get all this published or want it published and peer-reviewed. I want to know what it has to do with the real life climate model that we all have to live in? That has been the primary criticism of Richard Lindzen and the rest of the very small minority of climate research claiming low carbon sensitivity - why doesn't the new models match historic evidence?

I don't know if its trolling or not, but it certainly seems to make most people just ignore the entire thread.

I think everyone knows where I stand on these issues, but I think these formulas belong on a technical forum. I do not consider myself to be stupid but I don't pretend to have the expertise to evaluate the formulas or effectively critique them. Nor do most users of this forum on either side of the climate change issue.

Right now, glaciers are melting...even in the Antarctic...CO2 levels are accelerating at the same time we are being told that human carbon emissions have fallen...other negative effects of carbon like ocean acidification, aren't addressed, and rainforests and every other non-human related ecological niches are in rapid decline....hence the accelerating rates of species extinctions. So, we may have lots of environmental crises all happening together at the same time....besides rising CO2 levels. So, whether our atmosphere is higher/or lower than previous estimates on sensitivity to carbon, will it even matter that much and why?

I will be posting on the "change" issues in response to the next two posts. Suffice it to say that it is important to determine whether CO2 is a non-factor, minor factor or major factor in driving climate change, and how much of that C02 is produced by changeable human activity.

Yet no one can demonstrate that any of these things is a concern without using computer models which have a horrible track record when it comes to predicting simple things like temperature change. Why should be believe that the predictions of doom are any more credible when dealing with much more complex phenomena?

As I said I will post more on the issue. But I agree with you that a "doomsday" response to a speculative concern is likely not in order. And one does need to be mindful of the role played by the redistributive agenda of the people pushing "action." More on that below.

[jbg]

Yet no one can demonstrate that any of these things is a concern without using computer models which have a horrible track record when it comes to predicting simple things like temperature change. Why should be believe that the predictions of doom are any more credible when dealing with much more complex phenomena?

I dont think anyone needs some long winded nonsensical endless ream of formulae to figure out that ice, such as in glaciers, melts only when the temperature rises above freezing. A lot of people get their water from glacial fed rivers. As they melt faster than they can be restocked due to those warmer temps., you get flooding followed by drought. Take a look at Pakistan for instance.

Climate has always changed. With little or no help from humans we've had Ice Ages and interglacial periods. Some of the intermediate transitions have been quite sudden. We had the Younger Dryas period, a rapid and destructive cooling period. There was the Medieval Optimum, that greenlighted settlement in Greenland; quite short lived. Thus, there is nothing we can do that would shut down these transitions. As far as the example you gave of Pakistan the world has always had climate disasters. The stories of Gilgamesh and Noah's Ark memorialize one of those (likely the same event).

Where the alarmists have a point is that it may be more difficult to shift population centers such as Toronto or New York City north or south to accommodate climate shifts. But nothing in Kyoto or Copenhagen addresses this. What these treaties do accomplish is to provide for a massive wealth redistribution. Since no leader in their right mind is going to shut down industry, the fallback is to pay credits, that in theory wind up going to countries "impacted" by climate change. Those are generally Fourth World countries. Where the leaders spend or secrete the moneys is anyone's guess.

Edited April 23, 2015 by jbg

[jbg]

As a result, melting of sea ice has no significant impact on sea level. Melting of continental ice sheets such as Greenland and Antarctica do have a significant impact on sea level however.

Was Beringia's submersion the result of man-made climate change? (note, Beringia is the technical name for the "land bridge" that once connected eastern Siberia with Alaska. It was quite wide for a bridge; more like a normal land mass area, all now under the waves and ice of the Bering Sea).

On the idea that a cooler global climate = drier and more desert like conditions, where as a warmer global climate = wetter and less desert like conditions, I would like to point to the 4.2 kiloyear event, the 5.9 kiloyear event and the 8.2 kiloyear event.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4.2_kiloyear_event

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.9_kiloyear_event

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8.2_kiloyear_event

In all 3 cases, global cooling, specifically in the North Atlantic, caused increased aridisation of the Sahara, Arabia and elsewhere. This had many detrimental effects on civilizations in those areas.

Also, if you look at the first ancient civilizations (Ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, Persia, Indus Valley) these places were a lot wetter and less arid during the mid-Holocene. Today, conditions are much drier and these areas are very desert-like. Since the Holocene optimum, eccentricity, precession and obliquity of the Earth's orbit have all changed to make the Earth gradually cooler (without human GHG emissions, Earth would start to go into an ice age in ~1500 years). So perhaps the increased desertification of these areas is due to Milankovitch effects.

If you look at those ancient civilizations, with the exception of Persia which was and is a bit higher in elevation and wetter, they were clustered around river valleys. Outside of the river valleys there does not seem to have been much activity.

As global warming continues to rear its ugly head, and California enters its fourth year of severe drought, the locals there are figuring out maybe it would be a good idea to stop watering their lawns so much, especially at midday. The good news is Quebec, Ontario, and California are now joining hands on cap and trade programs. Lets hope its not too late.

I wish those entities well. Israel has four methods that have helped it cope and build a civil society in an arid land with far less wasted (link to article, excerpts below):

1. Israeli cities recycle three-quarters of their water.

Israeli farms don’t just use less water than their American counterparts, much of their water is reused. Three-quarters of the water that runs through sinks, showers, washing machines and even toilets in Israeli cities is recycled, treated and sent to crops across the country through specially marked purple tubes.

(snip)

2. Israel gets much of its water from the Mediterranean Sea.

Israelis now have a much bigger water source than Lake Kinneret: the Mediterranean Sea. Four plants on Israel’s coast draw water from the sea, take out the salt, purify the water and send it to the country’s pipes — a process called desalination.

The biggest of the four plants, opened in 2013, can provide nearly 7 million gallons of potable water to Israelis every hour. When a fifth opens as soon as this year near the Israeli port city of Ashdod, 75 percent of Israel’s municipal and industrial water will be desalinated, making Israelis far less reliant on the country’s fickle rainfall.

(snip)

3. Israelis irrigate through pinpricks in hoses, not by flooding.

No innovation has been more important for Israel’s desert farms than drip irrigation. Most of the world’s farmers water their crops by flooding their fields with sprinklers or hoses, often wasting water as they go. With drip irrigation, a process pioneered in Israel 50 years ago, water seeps directly into the ground through tiny pinpricks in hoses, avoiding water loss through evaporation.

(snip)

4. Israel’s government owns all of the country’s water.

Israel treats water as a scarce national resource. The government controls the country’s entire water supply, charging citizens, factories and farmers for water use. Residents pay about one cent per gallon, while farmers pay about a quarter of that.

(snip)

[eyeball]

I do not consider myself to be stupid but I don't pretend to have the expertise to evaluate the formulas or effectively critique them. Nor do most users of this forum on either side of the climate change issue.

I guess that's why we have no business discussing the issue never mind voting on it.

[-1=e^ipi]

Was Beringia's submersion the result of man-made climate change?

No, it was a result of the melting of the North American, Eurasian and other ice caps + glaciers at the end of the ice age, which was caused by Milankovitch cycles + the GHG & albedo feedbacks, which increased sea levels by 105-120 m. Is this supposed to be a rhetorical question?

Edited April 23, 2015 by -1=e^ipi