Global Warming has not accelerated the Water Cycle in the last 115 years

Dam Rivers:I like that river in Egypt - De Nile. Fun fact, since 1970 the Nile in Egypt hasn’t done it’s annual floods. Amazing isn’t it? A river iconified in myth, and legend representing the cycles of death and rebirth though its life giving floods depositing fertile silt hasn’t flooded in almost 4 and a half decades. It’s amazing what changes the Aswan Dam has done to the Nile for Egypt.My opponent brings up an important point about the freshwater river mouth surge data, and that it is of a very limited time frame of 1994 to 2006. That wouldn’t actually contradict my data since from 1990 there was in an increasing trend in precipitation due to a reduction in SO2 pollution. However, it has an even bigger flaw. Even if there was an increase in precipitation there is very little reason it would actually increase the outflow of water at a river mouth. Perhaps two centuries ago it would have, but over the last 200 years we have left very few rivers free of hydro engineering[9].Any excess water has a much better chance of being banked into the world's reservoir system then it has of just being flushed downstream. It’s not like we don’t have irrigation networks built to divert overflow in one reservoir into other depleted reservoirs[11][12]."Our reservoir system is built so that as one reservoir fills that water spills over into another reservoir," Libby Pischel[13]So why would we have any increase in river water at the mouth of a river unless we did it deliberately? If the last reservoir on a river overflows then it would have no where to go, but the last reservoir only represents a small fraction of the dammed water. A more likely cause is increased electrical demand. If we want to utilize the water for electricity we have to send it down to the next dam so it can use it for electricity[14]. Then there is fish and wildlife maintenance were we deliberately maintain a higher rate of speed to keep the fish healthy[15]. One may be able to argue that the over dammed waterways are a detriment, or a boom. However, there is hardly a single cubic foot of water that leave waterways that we didn’t intend on it leaving. Had my opponent's source been able to tap into a larger samples with with less of a limited sampling bias by having river data from prior to the rise of dams they may have come to a different conclusion.Global Historical Climatology Network:The advantage to the GHCN data that I’ve processed is that is that is contains all of the world's weather station data. It makes it possible to attempt to verify what is, or is not wrong with my opponent's source that claims that there has been a 12% increase in weather ‘events’. Unfortunately, the actual study is hidden behind a nice pay wall, but the abstract can be read here.http://link.springer.com...It is also cross references another study at the American Meteorological Society[17], and the PDF can be viewed here.http://envsci.rutgers.edu...The first problem with all studies of extreme precipitation events can be summarized by quoting a part of the 2nd page on the study above.These and other studies, which all differ in their methods of analysis, definition of extreme precipitation indices, and/or the observational datasets used, consistently report increases in extreme precipitation in more land locations globally than locations with decreases.In other words the definition of ‘extreme precipitation’ is a cherry picked definition, and all of these are only of ‘extreme’ events, and not a sum, average, or median of the precipitation. The reason they don’t use the far more direct argument is that would be Figure 1, and it disagrees with their world view.Further analysis of my opponents source reveals a claim that shows that their results are nothing more than an anomaly caused by their statistical methodology. To quote his sourceThe average increase is 12 percent globally – but 56 percent in South East Asia56% is an outlier nearly 4 and a half times away from the average, and should have flagged the results for closer scrutiny. A closer examination of the South East Asia, SEA, precipitation data in GHCN data shows the cause as limited sampling bias. In other words, SEA has about 369 weather stations reporting precipitation data. However, the earliest weather stations started reporting in 1943: SONGKHLA, DON MUANG, CHIANG MAI, and UDON THANI. A statistically viable sample doesn’t even exist until 1950 when about 30 to 100 stations are reporting. That puts the majority of SEA’s measurements after Global Dimming had reduced the precipitation rate so it stands to reason that they’d see an increase in ‘extreme’ precipitation when rain started to return to normal in 1990.By including weather station with varying limited sampling bias like SEA they induced a non response bias into their 12% figure. This kind of bias is actually addressed in my analysis in step 4. By restricting the analysis to only include those that existed at the start, and at the end non response bias is mitigated only to events that may have shut a station down for a period of time. Limited sampling bias is also addressed by using the largest date range, and maintain a suitably large sample size.Humidity:As for my opponents 3rd source that attempts to prove that humidity has escalated due to global warming it suffers from the same deficiencies as his other sources. Namely limited sampling bias. The study uses only time period of 1973 to 2007 which means that it falls completely under the Clean Air Act of 1970 where SO2 emissions were held back and then reduced in the 90’s. Because of their samples limited score they’d be unable to determine if the cause was out of line with an atmosphere returning more to a 1930’s era, or if it was global warming.[9] http://www.bbc.com...[10] http://www.nsf.gov...[11] http://www.usbr.gov...[12] http://www.usbr.gov...[13] http://abc7news.com...[14] http://water.usgs.gov...[15] http://fishandgame.idaho.gov...[16] http://www.pbs.org...[17] http://journals.ametsoc.org...