I introduced my answers and additional questions directly into your text (see below).
For easier readability (my comments / questions in italics + an additional colour highlighting), you can read it (and, if you would like, further comment thereon) in the OrgPad “discussion forum”
—-
@ Tom,
A few more thoughts for entertainment:
When radiation budgets increase, the air warms, yes? and also the evaporation increases.
This heating vs moistening of the air is characterized by the equilibrium partitioning of surface flux. i.e. the ratio of warming vs moistening turbulent fluxes.
TK: Equilibrium? I think that in fact, this partitioning may be defined not only by temperature but also by other conditions, e.g. by the supply rate of water available for evaporation. I have read that a square meter of forest canopies can be doubly as effective in air moistening as the same area of water under the same ambient conditions.
This partitioning is temperature dependent. The principle is that at warmer temperatures a greater proportion of surface net radiation goes into moistening the air, and at colder temperatures a greater proportion goes into heating the air. The temperature dependence of equilibrium partitioning is related to the temperature-entropy (T-S) vapor saturation curve.
TK: Difficult to say so generally, I am afraid. The entire situation is dynamic; I think that both the heat as well as all the involved mass fluxes play a role and will determine the result.
Let us e.g imagine a sunny day and a continuously moistened surface exposed to the sunlight. I have a feeling that if the ambient air is sufficiently dry, warming of the surface by sun may be almost negligible and a vaste majority of the incoming heat flux may be transformed in the latent heat flux (because air with a higher relative humidity is slightly lighter than the air with a lower relative humidity at the same temperature, there will be certain buoyancy of the moist air maintaining the dry air supply to the surface and preventing water vapour saturation even in the extreme case when the latent heat flux from the surface fully compensates the incoming radiative flux and allows maintaining the surface temperature constant).
The sum is the total turbulent flux.
The net transport of heat from the surface into atmosphere by turbulent flux is related to the non-equilibrium (difference) between surface temperature and the effective outgoing radiative emission temperature.
The difference of temperature between the surface (hot) and the emission temperature higher up (cold) induces spontaneous dynamic atmospheric transport. If the slope of the gradient is changed, the dynamic transport must also change to reach a new non-equilibrium steady state.
TK: This may be perhaps true in case that only sensible heat is involved in the convective heat tranfer. It is my feeling that e.g. for the above situation with a significant latent heat flux, the relationship between the heat flux and the said temperature gradients may be quite complicated.
In moist tropical regions, the gradient between surface temperature and the temperature of outgoing flux is large, and so the dynamic heat transport and dissipation is also large.
In warm desert regions, the opposite. With fewer clouds, a greater proportion of surface radiative transmittance naturally reduces the difference between surface temperature and outgoing emission temperature. The temperature difference is relatively small between surface, and that of the chorus of outgoing IR emitters, and so the magnitude of spontaneous dynamic heat transport is relatively small too.
TK: Really? I supposed that it might be true for the average temperature, due to efficient radiative cooling during cloudless nights in deserts, but not for daytime temperatures, wherein in wet tropical region, latent heat flux helps to maintain the surface temperatures lower in comparison with deserts. If so, the main difference between tropical regions and the warm deserts may be in the main driver of the convenction. Isn´t it the latent heat flux in the tropical region and the sensiblöe heat flux in warm deserts?
Nevertheless, near surface temperature in low-mid latitude desert zones average higher than in a moist regime in the same zone. This is because the available surface moisture constrains the actual evapotranspiration vs the potential evaporation. This also constrains the equilibrium partitioning, forcing a greater proportion of sensible heat than there otherwise would be.
In spite of less total turbulent flux in deserts, the sensible kind is higher and the air is likely to be more stable.
More broadly, we know the Earth system in total can never meet the demands potential evaporation. We know that in MIP experiments the rate of actual evaporation(precipitation) does not keep up with the rate of global temperature rise. I think MIP experiments indicate that for a 5C increase of temperature there is only a 12% increase of evaporation or something. This equates to an average of around 2.5% per C. This is in part due to natural and unnatural limitation of surface available moisture in space and time.
The Earth is in part warmer near the surface on average because of the existence of dry regions. With a limitless surface area of endless water availability, the equilibrium partitioning of surface flux would be unconstrained. But, it seems obvious the equilibrium partitioning IS constrained.
I have not yet heard a reason to veto the notion that unnaturally increasing surface dryness must have a warming influence on average near surface temperature.
thank you
TK: In other words, it appears that with the present Earth hydrology, Earth capacity to mitigate increasing IR absorption by increased latent heat flux is quite limited. Novertheless, we have not identified any reason yet, preventing the humanity from improving this mitigation capacity by artificial enhancement of the water cycle intensity.
Thank you too, for this entire discussion!
JCMsays
Hello again Tom!
The driving potential of evapotranspiration is the vapor pressure deficit of air.
In saturated condition this depends only on temperature. As temperature rises, the saturation vapor pressure rises even more, and so the potential evaporative fraction of surface flux increases with rising temperature. Global warming exclusively from GHGs should show an increasing fraction of evaporation in surface partitioning.
In general round numbers, using energy budget diagrams, for a surface net radiation averaging 100 Watts per square metre, about 80 Watts is going into moistening evapotranspiration, and 20 units into heating flux.
Considering we know the relative humidity averages below 100%, the ultimate constraint is coming from surface moisture availability, not due to atmospheric saturation.
If the continents were composed of all forested wetland with high leaf area, the proportion of sensible heating would surely be less than 20/100. In such a case, there is evidence discussed by Hanna Huryna and Jan Pokorny that the increased rate of evapotranspiration would exceed the increase in surface net radiation. Rich ecosystems tend to absorb more solar than deserts, but they tend to be cooler.
the surface net radiation is anomalously low in the hottest and dryest regions. The hot deserts are easy to spot from their blueness. I think this is not adequately discussed in standard climate communications. In spite of high surface albedo, and relatively low surface net radiation, temperatures are higher. It has to do primarily with the partitioning of surface flux.
The net LW radiative flux is highly negative in the hottest regions, 24 hrs a day. The same is true everywhere, that net LW radiative flux is negative. Positive surface net radiation is only caused by solar input.
In hot deserts, the high rate of LW transmittance (net negative LW) coincides with more stable air masses that are less conducive to inflows of moist air. It is a consequence, in part, to the naturally and unnaturally dry landscapes.
Subtropical moist ecosystem regions in the same zone show relatively less LW transmittance, greater cloud formation, higher surface net radiation, and lower average temperature. Imagine that, go figure!
In general, if partitioning of turbulent flux is irrelevant to climatology then we should expect an increasing fraction of moistening fluxes, and a decreasing fraction of heating flux under GHG warming. This due to the general principles of equilibrium partitioning as it relates to increasing temperature. However, as far as I can tell this is not observed. If anything, the partitioning is favoring an increase of sensible heat fraction instead.
It should be recognized that humanity can, and humanity does, impact directly the availability of moisture for surface partitioning. Consensus communication products showing a “modest cooling” effect from land clearing and drainage are surely misleading!! https://twitter.com/CarbonBrief/status/1662255847282470914
zebra says
26 May 2023 at 6:04 AM
Tomas,
My goal, as I said originally, was to help you clarify your thinking and the presentation of your questions, but now we seem to be back to many many words that show confusion.
If you want to engage in a scientific discussion, you have to be willing to address what the other person is saying, and you have to deal with real-world data. Quoting myself:
The EEI is defined as the difference between the radiant energy the climate system is absorbing from the Sun and the radiant energy emitted from the climate system to space. This is quantified by satellite measurement and Ocean Heat Content. It is increasing, according to the measurements.
I should have also included first that we have observed the energy in the climate system to be increasing in the long term… the apparent increase in the EEI is with shorter term measurements.
So I would hope you would offer a concise explanation for what we are observing, given that we also have clear evidence that water vapor has been increasing. There is more and more latent heat contained in the water vapor at higher altitudes, but energy in the system is still increasing. How does that not contradict your analysis?
Dear zebra,
One of my questions I have asked addressed the temporal trend in the observed EEI.
I am not a scientist and it is not my ambition to provide an explanation for the observed effects. In case of the EEI, however, I am really curious what the data say about EEI trends during last 20, 30, 50 or 100 years, simply because everybody speaks about EEI but I have never seen any EEI temporal record.
From your answer, I have a feeling that the data I have asked for were indeed published somewhere. If you know the reference or can add a suitable excerpt of the data directly in the discussion forum
Tomas, I tell my fellow regular commenters here that the best way to determine if someone is (1) serious about improving their understanding, rather than just (2) repeating ideological rhetoric, is to see if they are willing to engage in a real dialogue. The test of that is when I ask a question… if they don’t answer, it is clearly (2).
You say:
I am not a scientist and it is not my ambition to provide an explanation for the observed effects. In case of the EEI,
But just above, Piotr says:
Your latent heat has a minor contribution at best – as Zebra already indicated it does not remove the heat into space, it just puts it higher in the atmosphere, so the only cooling effect would be if a bigger fraction of the IR was re-emitted at that height escaped into the space.
But I doubt it would make a huge difference.
And you respond:
I think that in this third point, both of you may be wrong. As it appears that the view is still shared and spread by some scientists dealing with climate, I would be happy if the topics attracted the attention of moderators on this discussion site. As it has not happened yet, I will strive to do my best and try to explain my present reasoning as well as uncertainties linked thereto myself.
So, you “are not a scientist” but you feel that you can tell people who are that they are wrong??
And “it is not my ambition to explain the observed effects”, but you just provided this long, long, fallacious explanation, that is falsified by observation??
If you want people to take you seriously, you should try to be rationally consistent, at least from one day to the next.
Tomáš Kaliszsays
Dear zebra,
Thank you very much for your feedback.
Unfortunately, I have not grasped yet why my doubts about your picture of the atmosphere as a “closed room”, wherein the latent heat is merely transported from one place to another (and cannot at least parly escape in the Universe at least from the upper layers of the atmosphere) are unsubstantiated.
That is why I try to modify the formulation of my questions as well as to provide various arguments that in my opinion support my doubts.
Greetings
Tom
zebrasays
Tomas, in physics, it is necessary to be very precise in one’s language, as well as very careful in reading.
Latent heat cannot “escape” into space because latent heat is a form of energy that is contained within the water vapor we are discussing. The energy described as latent heat can only be transferred to the surrounding atmosphere as thermal energy.
So the effect of transporting a unit of energy as latent heat to altitude h and transferring it to the atmosphere (at h) is not different from a unit of energy from the surface in the form of radiation being absorbed by GHG molecules and being converted to thermal energy in the atmosphere (at h).
In both cases, the atmosphere at h then radiates some portion of that acquired energy into space. The question, as Piotr says, is whether there is any useful difference in that quantity. I think this has been pointed out more than once.
Now, in a response to JCM, you say:
In other words, it appears that with the present Earth hydrology, Earth capacity to mitigate increasing IR absorption by increased latent heat flux is quite limited. Novertheless, we have not identified any reason yet, preventing the humanity from improving this mitigation capacity by artificial enhancement of the water cycle intensity.
So it sounds like you have a plan for improving this “mitigation”. If you want to share that, everyone would be happy to hear it. But “enhancement of the water cycle intensity” tells us nothing… it’s just vague rhetoric.
If your only idea is to increase evaporation to get more water vapor, I have already provided evidence that water vapor has been increasing naturally, and that has certainly not prevented the energy in the climate system from increasing. What in your approach is going to yield a better result?
As regards the “latent heat transport”, I am aware that condensing water vapor likely does not directly emit IR radiation in the space. The air heated by the released latent heat in heights wherein the clouds form can, however, do so. Apologies for being too short.
As regards the “artificial evaporation management”, please inspect my public orgpage to the topics, by following the link
Using this link, you can also comment directly in the orgpage, and introduce your own content (references, drawings, files) supporting your views.
Greetings
Tom
zebrasays
Tomas,
I looked at your reply to Piotr, and I have to conclude that you are not interested in a serious discussion. You came here and asked for scientific input but you ignore the science if you don’t like what it tells you.
1. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas.
2. You propose reducing the greenhouse effect by increasing water vapor.
3. This makes no sense physically.
4. I provided a paper which concludes with ample evidence that water vapor has been increasing at the same time that the energy in the climate system has been increasing.
Since you are sadly unwilling to address these points, which are consistent with established Climate Theory, I see no purpose in continuing. Perhaps Piotr will find this unfocused discussion worthwhile.
Ray Ladburysays
Tomas,
Consider the column of atmosphere above a particular point on the surface that emits a photon in the CO2 absorption band. Semi-classically, if the photon passes within a wavelength or so of a CO2 molecule, it will likely be . Now, knowing atmospheric pressure and the molar fraction of CO2,we can estimate how many CO2 molecules our photon must get past before it escapes the atmosphere. You can do the math–in fact, I recommend it–but the qualitative answer is “a metric fuckton”. There is virtually no chance that a photon in the CO2 band emitted from Earth’s surface escapes. Now move the emission higher in the atmosphere. How high do you have to go before a photon in this band has a decent chance of escape? I can save you the math–although I still recommend doing it–the answer is 80 km. Adding more CO2 further raises this height.
Unfortunately, the tallest thunderboomies (Cumulonimbus) reach only 75 km, so the photons released as the latent heat warms the upper troposphere, still do not escape. ‘This is in addition to the fact that the water vapor is also acting as a greenhouse gas. But, points for trying.
Tomáš Kaliszsays
Dear Ray,
Apologies for overlooking your answer before I replied to zebra.
If you are correct, then it would be a strong argument why the Earth atmosphere indeed behaves as the “closed room” with respect to latent heat flux (and, I assume, to the sensible heat flux as well).
Nevertheless, I have still a doubt. You say that the absorption at the carbon dioxide wavelengths is practically equally strong (absolute) at the top of the troposphere as at the Earth surface. Carbon dioxide, however, is not the main contributor to the greenhouse eefct in Eearth atmosphere – it is water vapour. Water vapour concentration decreases with altitude quite strongly.
Do you think that although some infrared radiation may be emitted from the altitude wherein clouds form, there may be no “additional capacity” in this “water window”, basically preventing that more water vapour may condense therein if we supply it there?
Thank you in advance an best regards
Tom
Tomáš Kaliszsays
Just a short amendment:
I think you changed feets for meters; thus the altitude, wherein the atmosphere starts to become somewhat transparent in the range of CO2 absorption bands, may be in fact about 24 km, not 80:
This is, however, unsubstantial for our discussion.
Greetings
Tom
Ray Ladburysays
Tomas, you can do the math for water vapor as well with the same assumptions–e.g. if the photon passes within a wavelength or so of a water molecule, it gets absorbed. And I suspect that up to almost 80 km, you will find that little IR radiation in the water bands escapes.. There could be some variation in TOA between water and CO2 bands, but it won’t be that much.. This certainly isn’t a way to cool the planet.
And if there is water vapor at a given altitude to condense and inject heat, there is also water vapor to absorb–there will be an equilibrium between gas and droplets.
Ray Ladburysays
Tomas,
I was going by the biggest thunderheads–which do indeed get up to 75 km.
jgnfldsays
There are no thunderheads going up 75 km. I think you meant 75 kiloFEET.
John Pollacksays
Ray,
Take another look at the height of those thunderstorms, please. 75 km is well into the mesosphere! 20 km is a lot closer to the mark for a really tall thunderstorm.
Ray Ladburysays
Tomas and John,
You are correct–it’s that damn English system. It was 75000 ft. for the highest thunderheads. However, that only makes my point more emphatically–latent heat is not going to inject energy at Top of Atmosphere (TOA), so it plays little to no role in cooling the planet.
F0r real dialogues……………..there are certain premises to be in order first, Premises that you are hardly entitled and qualified to instruct to an open set or class or group of people that you do not know, and that you do not own as your private livestock. You do not even own the classroom or the market square, and you are not entitled to operate as police or fireward.
One of my routine methods, if there is any reasons for doubt, is that I ask possible QVACK– officers and teachers to declare their race, religion and their political opinion first., and even “gender” if necessary, which is alltogether 4 very hot potatoes / tense words.
That is a forbidden desire and question in the labour unions, those who were baptized and inaugurated and drilled and brought up for their “historical” necessary, leading scientific role in their closed society, as given by the Grand Old Party with P.. O=)r elsewhere brought up through obscure, personality strengthening, sales promotion “academies”.
But Race Religion and Political opinion, even “gender” happens to be official and universal human rights, thus I will know first if they are able and willing to aspire under that state religion first, that has been signed and submitted to by the King and by the Pope and by any legal and constitutional Precident in the world.
You see, you should not expect to have people in your own provincial swineyard first.
Thus Race, Religion, Political opinion, and Gender,….. think it thorroughly through, and keep that ready for declaration at any time. ,
It is all your universally declared and guaranteed human rights for which you should not be thrown out, or discriminated in the taverns and on the free market. . .
patrick O'twentysevensays
Re Ned Kelly: “It was not recognized at all that these units (wind turbines, solar panels, etc.) wear out after 10 to 20 years of operation.”
Me: Idk about the turbines, but this is largely not true for solar panels.
Maybe he was thinking of the inverters and batteries, or something else?
Postkeysays
” . . . THE PROBLEM and THE SOLUTION was to generate electricity with wind and solar power to lower emissions. But as we all know, there have been no closures of fossil fuel plants (coal plants were replaced with natural gas plants double their size) because of lack of energy storage for renewables, the inability of wind and solar to scale up, and because fossil plants still supply two-thirds of generation and peak power. Since rebuildables require fossils every single step of their life cycle, they were never were a solution. They were simply a distraction from reality.”? https://energyskeptic.com/2020/climate-change-dominates-news-coverage-at-expense-of-more-important-existential-issues/
nigeljsays
“THE PROBLEM and THE SOLUTION was to generate electricity with wind and solar power to lower emissions. But as we all know, there have been no closures of fossil fuel plants (coal plants were replaced with natural gas plants double their size) because of lack of energy storage for renewables, the inability of wind and solar to scale up, and because fossil plants still supply two-thirds of generation and peak power.”
The article provides no evidence that the slow scaling up of renewables is technical problems or lack of storage or inability to scale. The reasons for the slow scaling up were more likely because wind and solar power has not been cheap enough, and there has not been a sufficiently high price on carbon to force generators to switch to wind or solar power. The generating companies will not switch to a renewables just to be nice.
As prices have started to drop dramatically renewables are now dominating the market:
“Almost All New US Power Plants Built in 2021 Will Be Carbon-Free Federal data reveals that natural gas will supply just 16 percent of new power plants this year as cheap wind and solar power take over the market.”
Clearly a so called lack of energy storage isn’t holding them back any more. And it suggests the problems in the past were indeed high costs.
In countries that have had strong government incentives for wind power it has also started to scale up. In the UK wind power is already 18% of the generation mix.
Of course once the grid gets up towards 80% renewables you need a lot of energy storage, or you have to live with gas fired backup. But either scenario seems better to me than a grid largely comprising fossil fuels.
From Postkeys link “If peak oil happened in 2018, then CO2 ppm levels may be under 400 by 2100 as existing and much lower emissions of CO2 are absorbed by oceans and land. The IPCC never even modeled peak oil in their dozens of scenarios because they assumed we’d be exponentially increasing our use of fossils until 2400. They never asked geologists what the oil, coal, and natural gas reserves were, assumed we’d use methane hydrates, and many other wrong assumptions.”
Regarding the coal issue:
“The worst-case scenario for emissions of CO2 this century is no longer plausible, say researchers. Referred to as “business as usual”, the scenario assumes a 500% increase in the use of coal, which is now considered unlikely. (my comment: other articles mention not enough reserves of coal combined with the shift to gas and renewables.) Climate models suggest that this level of carbon could see warming of up to 6C by 2100, with severe impacts. Researchers say that on current trends, a rise in temperatures of around 3C is far more likely.
However anything over 2 degrees is very dangerous. So we are not out of the woods yet by a long way.
Adam Leasays
“In countries that have had strong government incentives for wind power it has also started to scale up. In the UK wind power is already 18% of the generation mix.”
You are right that wind power in the UK has been on an upward trend. However, there are still issues with intermittency. One contribution to the high energy prices in the UK recently alongside wholesale gas price rises was a reduction in wind power due to a high frequency of calm conditions.
Solar is arguably not the best option for the UK as we do poorly for annual sunshine hours, this spring in SE England has been one of the dullest and wettest for a long time (threatening my allotment productivity again). Locked in weather patterns that brought drought and wildfires last summer brought deluge this year.
“Britain is in the middle of a wind drought – and the timing couldn’t have been worse.
For several days now, the UK and western Europe have been calm, with barely a breeze.
It is not until Wednesday, or even Thursday, that speeds pick up in Scotland and the North Sea, where most of our wind farms are.
That shows in the mix of energy being used in the freezing conditions.
In the past year, wind has produced 28% of our electricity, gas 42% and coal 1.6%.
Yet as people settled down to work on Monday morning, gas power stations had been ramped up, producing 61% of our electricity.
Wind was down to 3.4%, even less than the amount being generated by coal (3.6%).
This snapshot is unusual, but it does show the limitations of renewable energy in some weather conditions.”
——
“Even if the world reaches net zero soon after 2050, limiting the rise in temperature, winds will weaken significantly in the northern hemisphere.
It’s called global stilling. And it’s caused by the rapid warming of the Arctic, which is narrowing the temperature difference with the tropics, a gap that drives wind.
In the UK, the average wind speed is expected to drop by 2% to 3% by 2050, and 10% by the end of the century.
That matters because the UK is taking a big bet on wind.
We have 14.2GW of onshore wind turbines, with another 13.7GW offshore.
The government has a target to increase offshore capacity to 50GW by 2030, and to turn off gas and coal power stations by 2035.”
Geoff Miellsays
Postkey: – “But as we all know, there have been no closures of fossil fuel plants (coal plants were replaced with natural gas plants double their size) because of lack of energy storage for renewables, the inability of wind and solar to scale up, and because fossil plants still supply two-thirds of generation and peak power.”
I’d suggest Australia is on the path to demonstrating otherwise.
Per OpenNEM (an open platform for data from the National Electricity Market in Australia, which includes grid-connected generators in the states of Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia, and the Australian Capital Territory), shows:
* In 2011, renewables provided 20.55 TWh of electrical energy (9.9% share) to the NEM in Australia;
* In 2018, the renewables contribution grew to 41.48 TWh of energy (20.3%); and
* In 2022, then grew further to 72.70 TWh of energy (34.9%). https://opennem.org.au/energy/nem/?range=all&interval=1y
Per the AEMO’s generating unit expected closure year data, the NEM’s coal-fired generator currently expected order of closure includes:
* Liddell, NSW: Unit 3 (420+ MW) closed on 1 Apr 2022, Unit 4 (420+ MW) closed 24 Apr 2023, Unit 2 (420+ MW) closed 26 Apr 2023, Unit 1 (420+ MW) closed 28 Apr 2023;
* Eraring, NSW: (4x 720 MW) announced closure for 2025, Aug 19;
* Callide B, QLD: (2x 350 MW) expected closure in 2028;
* Yallourn W, VIC: (2x 360 MW, 2x 380 MW) expected closure in 2028;
* Vales Point B, NSW: (2x 660 MW) expected closure in 2029;
* Bayswater, NSW: (4x 660 MW) expected closure in 2033;
* Gladstone, QLD: (4x 280 MW) expected closure in 2035;
* Loy Yang A, VIC: (1x 530 MW, 3x 560 MW) expected closure in 2035;
* Tarong, QLD: Units 1 (350 MW) & 2 (350 MW) expected closure in 2036;
* Tarong, QLD: Units 3 (350 MW) & 2 (#50 MW) expected closure in 2037;
* Mt Piper, NSW: (2x 730 MW) expected closure no later than 2040;
* Kogan Creek, QLD: (1x 750 MW) expected closure in 2042;
etc. etc. https://aemo.com.au/en/energy-systems/electricity/national-electricity-market-nem/nem-forecasting-and-planning/forecasting-and-planning-data/generation-information
I’d suggest more renewables + storage in the ‘pipeline’ will drive coal & gas generators still operating in Australia beyond 2030 to likely close sooner due to worsening economics – they’ll go broke.
Meanwhile, RenewEconomy provides information of renewable projects in operation or under construction:
As regards Energy Vault and similar electricity storage solutions in “mechanical batteries”, the advantage is a decent efficiency, the disadvantage relatively high price for a unit storage capacity which is comparable with chemical batteries. This is due to low energy density of gravitational storage in relatively weak gravitational field of Earth, and huge masses of necessary material resulting from this circumstance.
For these reasons, neither chemical nor “mechanical” batteries are suitable for a cheap storage of large quantities of electricity – a yet missing technology that may be essential for a complete transition of electricity production and use towards renewable energy sources on an economically feasible basis.
Greetings
Tom
Adam Leasays
That is how pump and storage hydro works, store water in a reservoir at altitude, release that water into a lower reservoir or lake through a turbine during high electricity demand, pump water back to the upper reservoir overnight when demand is low and electricity is cheap.
Geoff Meill,
The comment paper from Hansen Equilibrium Warming = Committed Warming?</b is basically saying the criticism he is facing on twitter is nonsense. He was not “indicating that the world is committed to warming of 10°C”, that he was not suggesting the answer to the posed question in the title was ‘Yes!! when it is obviously the answer is ‘No!! It is not’. There is no disagreement. All are in agreement although I would suggest in the pre-published paper Global warming in the pipeline; Hansen et al, do not make this agreement explicit (although it should be evident to any serious commentator) and as the title suggests, a lot of Hansen et al was talking of the “pipeline” concept without that explicit comment.
My own criticism of Hansen et al is in its exclusively adopting a high ECS through the analysis. In simplistic terms, the projected warming from 2010-on shown in Fig25 of +0.27ºC/decade (a 50% increase on previous rates) is unmerited.
My view of the message overall from Hansen et al, is to rephrase it: there is a massive mismatch between global political policy on AGW and the message from climatology. The net zero emissions by 2050 was only part of that scientific message. There is (now ‘was’) a need to begin halving those net emission by 2030 and that has not happened and the halving is apparently not going to happen. Plus the part of the message saying there is also a need for massive net negative emissions post-2050 is seeming also not understood by policy-makers.
I perhaps should also mention the tweet by emeritus Prof. Eliot Jacobson you link-to.
The graphic presented showing the Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI) trebling through the period 2003-23 is pure fairytaleland.
The EEI measurements are by nature very wobbly and also subject to a lot of imprecision over a very short record. Thus Fig 26 in Hansen et al is less definitive than the in-situ measurements of heat uptake (mainly OHC), although now good agreement has been reached in some analyses (eg eg here).
But this is all at odds with the Jacobson graphic.
The reference given as “Quote source” by Jacobson is von Schuckmann et al (2023) ‘Heat stored in the Earth system 1960–2020: where does the energy go?’ but that data lacks the agreement with EEI and thus suggests no such doubling-plus of EEI 2003-2020. Simply, the data presented by von Schuckmann is at odds with Jacobson’s graph. von Schuckmann et al.s Fig 8 (a familiar graphic) shows data with the rolling 5-yr average 2016-20 is +12.8Zj/yr while the rolling 5-yr average 2003-07 is 11.4Zj/yr. And that’s with the 2003 being itself a big cherrypick. Indeed, over the longer period 1990-2020 (prior to which there was an indicated increase in EEI) the von Schuckman data fits very well with constant EEI of +11.8Zj/yr(+/-0.5 2sd) so using such data, the red lie in Jacobson’s graph should be flat.
Geoff Miellsays
MA Rodger: – “My own criticism of Hansen et al is in its exclusively adopting a high ECS through the analysis. In simplistic terms, the projected warming from 2010-on shown in Fig25 of +0.27ºC/decade (a 50% increase on previous rates) is unmerited.”
Perhaps you missed part of my earlier comments? I repeat what I stated earlier:
In other words, it seems we/humanity will likely see a clear indication of how close to reality the estimates of accelerated global warming by Dr. Hansen & colleagues are in the next 18 months or so.
* The daily average sea surface temperature (SST) for 60°S- 60°N latitude exceeded 21 °C earlier this year for the first time in the instrumental record. El Niño has not started yet, but global SSTs have been running at record seasonal highs for two months now. https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/
* The daily average 2 m air temperature for 90°S-90°N latitude, 0°-360° longitude is tracking at seasonal highest levels in the instrumental record. https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/t2_daily/
* Prof Eliot Jacobson tweeted on May 29:
Unofficially — so far for the period Jan. 1 – May 27, the year 2023 is running 1.268°C above the 1850-1900 IPCC baseline.
By comparison, as of May 27, the year 2016 was running 1.297°C above the 1850-1900 IPCC baseline.
In 2016, El Niño was ending. In 2023, El Niño lies ahead.
Barring multiple nuclear weapons airbursts, major volcanic eruptions, and/or major meteor surface impact event(s) here on Earth, I would not be at all surprised to see:
* An overshoot (temporary) of the +1.3 °C global mean surface temperature threshold for this calendar year (2023);
* An overshoot (temporary) of the +1.4 °C global mean surface temperature threshold for the next calendar year (2024).
We’ll know soon enough!
MA Rodger: – “My view of the message overall from Hansen et al, is to rephrase it: there is a massive mismatch between global political policy on AGW and the message from climatology.”
I agree.
It seems to me, based on the evidence/data I see, that many governments are effectively facilitating civilisation collapse before the end of this century.
One of the co-authors of the Global Warming in the Pipeline preprint paper, Leon Simons, tweeted on May 26 (bold text my emphasis):
James Hansen clears up confusion about our draft paper on warming in the pipeline.
We are not yet committed to 10°C warming, but we are also not committed to make sure that we don’t!
There are already many signs of accelerating warming, as GHGs increase and aerosols decrease.
Meanwhile, it seems multiple governments are rolling out copycat anti-protest legislation, as more & more people are waking-up to humanity’s trajectory towards civilisation collapse in the coming decades. https://twitter.com/thejuicemedia/status/1663040071573082112
Geoff Miell,
I noted your comment did indeed paraphrase the Hansen comment paper that the next 18 months will show us something. The graphic in that Hansen comment paper would put 2024 plotting “clearly above the yellow region”, so being plotted in excess of +1.50ºC above pre-industrial, or +0.21ºC above 2020, so GISTEMP +1.23ºC.
I would myself suggest caution in using such a measure to provide, as Hansen puts it, “confirmation of the acceleration” in global temperature increase. The 2024 temperature is surely far too dependent on the strength of the coming El Niño to be used in such a manner.
My own point in the comment above was that Hansen’s exclusive use of ECS=4.5ºC in his analysis is not merited, which is somewhat different from predicting the 2024 temperature.
Your “Meanwhiles” I fear need a bit of work.
☻ The SST are certainly at the “scorchyisimo!!!” level with the NOAA showing April 2023 with “scorchyisimo!!!” Oceans. But NOAA also show the global average is significantly depressed by the Land, enough to prevent a global “scorchyisimo!!!”. Myself, I was surprised it didn’t even get close
☻ Arctic SIE is certainly not at any “seasonal record low” (see Charctic. Click all years) although Antarctic SIE certainly is (102 days below all previous years on record, out of 149 days of the year so far) but Antarctic SIE is a poor measure of the global climate.
☻ The daily global temperature value at climateanalyzer is tracking below previous years so not “seasonal highest levels in the instrumental record” although it did manage a handful of days at “scorchyisimo!!!”.
☻ I don’t think I’m interested in the pronouncements of Prof Eliot Jacobson. I would suggest that from a ranking of 5th for the Jan-Apr 2023 global temperature, to get to within +1.23ºC of the 2016 temperature a month later would require a May GISTEMP anomaly of +1.91ºC which would certainly be astounding.
☻ I’m not sure of the anomaly base of your 2023 +1.3ºC & 2024 +1.4ºC. The projections suggest it is possible 2023 could become warmest year (currently GISTEMP 2020 = +1.02ºC is warmest) but some say it is more likely not. If 2023=2020, the additional increase to get to Hansen’s “clearly above the yellow region” would be an additional +0.21ºC. The additonal El Niño-induced global temperature 2015-to-2016 was about half that.
We appear in agreement in the lacklustre response of government to AGW. Here in UK the government and the media are happy to discuss the antics of folk stocking themselves to the outside of tube trains or practicing the orange power dance on snooker tables, but somehow the reason for these antics is beyond their comprehension.
Geoff Miellsays
MA Rodger: – “The 2024 temperature is surely far too dependent on the strength of the coming El Niño to be used in such a manner.”
In your opinion, what would? How many more ongoing observations do you think needs to be done (& how much more time) before you would agree the warming rate is accelerating? When do you call “fire”?
Meanwhile, atmospheric GHG levels continue to rise – per NOAA, the atmosphere in 2022 contained the CO₂ equivalent of 523 ppm, of which 417 is CO₂ alone. https://gml.noaa.gov/aggi/
MA Rodger: – “☻ The SST are certainly at the “scorchyisimo!!!” level with the NOAA showing April 2023 with “scorchyisimo!!!” Oceans.”
Thanks for the link to NOAA’s Global Time Series. I note that the global ocean temperature anomaly (for 90°S- 90°N latitude) for Jan 2016 was at +0.87 °C (highest in the series) and for Apr 2023 was at +0.86 °C (second highest, at 0.01 °C difference). It will be interesting to see where the May 2023 average sits – a new instrumental record perhaps?
MA Rodger: – “☻ Arctic SIE is certainly not at any “seasonal record low” (see Charctic. Click all years)…”
Thanks for the link. I correct my previous statement to; near seasonal record low. I note that the Arctic SIE for year 2023 is tracking below the 2016 curve – the year of the record minimum SIE – and an anticipated super El Niño hasn’t begun yet. http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/model-summary/#tabs=Bureau-model®ion=NINO34
MA Rodger: – “…although Antarctic SIE certainly is (102 days below all previous years on record, out of 149 days of the year so far) but Antarctic SIE is a poor measure of the global climate.”
I’d suggest it’s still an indicator that warming in the region is occurring.
MA Rodger: – “☻ I don’t think I’m interested in the pronouncements of Prof Eliot Jacobson.”
Noted. I think it’s worth considering “outlier” perspectives at times.
MA Rodger: – “☻ I’m not sure of the anomaly base of your 2023 +1.3ºC & 2024 +1.4ºC.”
I apologize for not making that explicit. My comments relate to the baseline in Figure 25 in the Hansen et. al. 23 May 2023 (version 3) preprint paper Global Warming in the Pipeline – the 1880-1920 baseline. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2212.04474
Per communications by James Hansen, Makiko Sato and Reto Ruedy, dated 12 Jan 2023, the top 10 hottest years in the GISS analysis instrumental record include:
#01: 2020: +1.29 °C
#02: 2016: +1.28 °C
#03: 2019: +1.24 °C
#04: 2017: +1.19 °C
#05: 2015 & 2022: +1.16 °C
#07: 2021 & 2018: +1.12 °C
#09: 2014: +1.01 °C
#10: 2010: +0.99 °C
MA Rodger: – “…but somehow the reason for these antics is beyond their comprehension.”
I have no doubt the elites know why.
Professor Julia Steinberger tweeted a thread on May 19, including (bold text my emphasis):
As floods & fires rise, oceans boil & ice melts, and “safe” temperatures are breached, something momentous just happened in the heart of the EU. No one has heard about it: journalists were present, but their editors refused to publish .
, please RT.
#BeyondGrowth2023
1/
= = = = =
For 3 full days the EU parliament hosted thousands of scientists, activists and policy-makers charting a future beyond growth. The talks & discussions were recorded and are now available to all. Thousands attended, thousands more followed online.
2/ https://beyond-growth-2023.eu/programme/
= = = = =
Topics covered planetary boundaries, trade, finance, fiscal policy, global South, decolonisation, gender, justice, well-being, social policies. Every panel included major advances in understanding. Together, the conference represents a monumental coming of age of post-growth.
3/
= = = = =
Being part of this event was a privilege and an honour. I wish I could share with you what being in such a space opens up in terms of determination to collaborate for a liveable world. The sheer electric energy of being in a room with so many young, critical, dedicated humans.
4/
= = = = =
Because here is the thing. Every. Single. Journalist. who was there (and there were many, from major outlets all over Europe and the world) that I spoke to, said “my editor refuses to print any story critical of economic growth.”
Every.
Single.
One.
#BeyondGrowth2023
7/
= = = = =
This is insane verging on criminal and shows the dangerous ideology of economic growth as our secular religion, completely blinding us to the possible economic alternatives that could preserve a liveable planet. But it is the current reality.
So please. I am not good at this.
8/
“Because here is the thing. Every. Single. Journalist. who was there (and there were many, from major outlets all over Europe and the world) that I spoke to, said “my editor refuses to print any story critical of economic growth.”
I would say this is because the media are mostly owned by corporate leaning interests and certainly derive their income partly from advertisments, and businesses and advertisers have a vested interest in seeing economic growth continue. “He who pays the piper calls the tune.”
This is unfortuante because we do need a public debate about a zero growth economy. The high growth economy is obviously putting huge pressure on the environment that cannot be ignored.
That said I think its unlikely the majority of people would vote for a zero growth strategy. Our whole system is so dependent on growth including peoples jobs that it might be hard to get people to deliberately wind it down, despite the strain on the environment.
However a high growth economy is impossible forever on a finite planet (at least that sort of growth that is based on resource extraction). And rates of economic growth have been falling in developed countries since the 1970’s. Back then post war gdp growth hit about 6% per annum and has gradually tended down to 3% and seems to now be slipping under this, despite attempts to stimulate growth with low interest rates and quantitative easing.
It just looks like economic growth is naturally falling towards zero, driven by demographic changes, market saturation, and possibly the first signs of increasing mineral extraction costs. I dont think we will hit zero growth in the next couple of decades but after that I suspect it could happen. Or it will get close to zero.
We may find we are forced to adapt to a low growth or zero growth world sooner than we might think. Japan has lived with decades of low growth and survived and has a good quality of life. This gives some insight.
But we have the climate problem and the need for a new energy system that will tend to generate some economic growth short to mid term. So many complexities influencing the issue.
There are many reasons why the wealthy accept the need for economic growth as an axiom. Certainly, a growing opportunity likely provides the best opportunities for them to become even more obscenely wealthy. Even for the billionaires for whom their wealth is just a way of keeping score, there’s a reluctance to admit that the party is over.
However, as long as the economy is growing, they can continue to pretend that–at least in principle–anyone can become wealthy. If growth ends, then inequality becomes cemented in place unless government intervenes–and they really hate that idea. In practice, even in a growing economy, the wealthy gobble up most of the added wealth unless government intervenes. In fact, the wealthy have become wealthier in every society and at every period in human history except those of severe upheaval–e.g. the middle of the 20th century, where a depression, the Second World War and a second industrial revolution combined with government policies to actually give the middle class a slightly bigger slice of the pie.
Societies in which the economy is not growing tend to become stratified unless they adopt policies to redistribute the ill gotten gains of the wealthy. (Remember: behind every great fortune is a great crime.)
Geoff Miell,
It is a valid question for all of us. How would you confirm an acceleration in the rate of AGW other than to wait and see?
There is signs of acceleration, in that a plot of, say, 5-year rolling averages of global temperature is sitting above the long-term average linear rate (say the 1975-2015 average rate, in GISTEMP that was +0.18ºC/dacade) and has been for some years. (in GISTEMP, since mid-2013). But it doesn’t take much to undermine such an analysis as being significant.
On the use of an El Niño-boosted 2024, to get “clearly above the yellow region” in Hansen’s Fig25 would require the full +1.5ºC for 2024 with a 1880-1920 anomaly base (= +1.23ºC with the usual 1951-80 anomaly base).
I think the question we should be asking is whether AGW is under control or not.
My own view of how to demonstrate that AGW is not under control is the carbon budget which is fast running out, even when massive negative net emissions are added to the equation.
Or alternatively, there is the rate of CO2 emissions. Thus the GCP put 2021’s CO2 emissions as 10.13Gt(C) FF + 1.08Gt(C) LUC = 11.21Gt(C) = 41.1Gt(CO2) with no reduction expected for 2022 and lkely none in 2023 as well. Yet under SSP1-1.9 we see annual CO2 emissions peaking at 39.7Gt(CO2) in 2020 then dropping at 1.7Gt(CO2)/yr to 2030. So 2023 should have seen us down at 35Gt(CO2)/yr.
A similar analysis could also be made comparing the SSPs with the annual increase in positive forcing due to increasing GHGs (thus the NOAA AGGI) which would also pick up on the increasing rise in CH4 & in N2O. If you seek acceleration, post-CFCs the AGGI is accelerating, so going in the wrong direction.
On the subject of Arctic/Antarctic SIE, I maintain graphs of the year-on-year JAXA record but with the annual cycle removed (fig 1 & fig 3a here.
Geoff Miellsays
nigelj: – “Our whole system is so dependent on growth including peoples jobs that it might be hard to get people to deliberately wind it down, despite the strain on the environment.”
I’d suggest if we/humanity don’t, then we/humanity likely won’t have a viable civilisation beyond this century. Continual growth leads to overshoot and collapse.
Published yesterday (May 31) at Climate Code Red was a piece by David Spratt headlined Why markets fail on fossil fuel pollution, heralding an era of climate disruption. It concluded with (bold text my emphasis):
The global economy relies on endless layers of systems that were built within the stable climate of the past, but “investing in an environment where tomorrow doesn’t look like today is very tricky,” as Dickon Pinner, a senior partner at global management consultants McKinsey, acknowledges. Pinner says that if investors do not change direction now, then governments will likely “have to pull that lever hard […] and I think that would cause a lot of massive, massive disruption.”
Climate change is not a market optimisation problem, it’s a risk problem — the risk of the loss of capitalism — says Spencer Glendon. He also notes that the economics of climate change “will be seen as one of the worst mistakes humans have made.”
Thus the current, market-dominated approaches to managing climate risks are not efficacious, and another approach — that of state-led mobilisation — is necessary but barely on the agenda.
Ray Ladbury; – “Even for the billionaires for whom their wealth is just a way of keeping score, there’s a reluctance to admit that the party is over.”
I’d suggest money only has value while our civilisation prevails. Where there is no complex civilisation, relevant skills and available physical resources count.
MA Rodger: – “There is signs of acceleration, in that a plot of, say, 5-year rolling averages of global temperature is sitting above the long-term average linear rate (say the 1975-2015 average rate, in GISTEMP that was +0.18ºC/dacade) and has been for some years. (in GISTEMP, since mid-2013). But it doesn’t take much to undermine such an analysis as being significant.”
Paraphrasing: you agree there are signs of warming acceleration above the GISSTEMP +0.18 ºC/decade trend, but you don’t yet accept the Hansen et. al. estimates for at least +0.27 ºC/decade post-2010, unless you see “the full +1.5ºC for 2024 with a 1880-1920 anomaly base”. Would that be fair?
MA Rodger: – “My own view of how to demonstrate that AGW is not under control is the carbon budget which is fast running out, even when massive negative net emissions are added to the equation.”
Evidence/data I see indicates:
• There is NO CARBON BUDGET REMAINING for a safe climate for humanity.
• Overshooting the +1.5 °C warming threshold (relative to 1880-1920 baseline) is not safe.
• Decarbonisation is not enough.
• Reducing the level of atmospheric GHG concentrations by carbon drawdown is now vital.
• Unfortunately, it seems large-scale carbon drawdown technologies don’t yet exist.
What will it take to get AGW “under control”?
I think it can’t be resolved without large-scale disruption.
If we/humanity fail to act rapidly and effectively, then increasing disruptions/chaos ensue as the Earth System becomes increasingly incompatible for our current complex civilisation.
History shows governments can be willing to spend money/resources to do what is required. In the YouTube video titled Climate Emergency: Is 1.5º really safe?, from time interval 0:23:11, David Spratt presents a table of military spending for years 1939-44 (military outlays as % of national income):
Geoff Miell, “Would that be fair?” you ask. Hansen’s fig 25 shows the yellow region which is a 50% to 100% acceleration in warming post-2010 so the “at least” +0.27ºC/decade is presented by that fig 25. But the +1.5ºC for 2024 (which appears unlikely to me) represents just +0.27ºC/decade on 2016.
And whatever the eventual 2024 temperatures, I am not at all convinced of the wisdom of using the impact on 2024 temperatures of an El Niño of unknown strength as being an arbiter of where AGW is going for the next few decades. Indeed, the El Niño predictions have not-so-long-ago been showing a 10% chance of the El Niño not arriving at all this year. Whatever the outcome of 2024, this is the same old issue of using a short section of a wibbly-wobbly line inappropriately.
I would pick up on your comment that “it seems large-scale carbon drawdown technologies don’t yet exist.”
Obviously no large-scale process is in operation but there are the building blocks. CO2 is being drawn from the atmosphere at costs which are arguably affordable and not too energy sapping. And there are plenty of saline aquifers dotted around the world that seemingly could be used to store vast amounts of CO2. So a future operating large-scale process is not all fantasy. The question is perhaps whether that “Make it so, Number One!” moment will remain science fiction for longer than it should. Or perhaps ‘much longer than it should’ as it is already late. As is the FF phase-out.
Many thanks for your comments. My hope that my posts attract an attention of moderators might have been indeed quite presumptuous, I admit. Therefore, I am really happy that you invest your effort and continue providing your feedback.
According to this scheme, the average upward longwave infrared radiation flow from the surface in the year 2020 was 400.2 W.m-2 and the latent heat flux 85.54 W.m-2. Whereas the infrared radiation flow increase since the year 2000 was, according to this source, about 2 W.m-2 (what seems to be in accordance with the trend of the increasing average surface temperature), it appears that the latent heat flow slightly decreased (0.9 W.m-2) what seems to be in disaccord with other sources reporting some increase in global annual precipitation during the last two decades.
I do not know how accurate the data is and whether the discrepancy may be real. There already was some discussion on this site
that focused especially on the interesting detail that, according to this diagram, about 75 % was a contribution from increased shortwave absorption and only 25 % from back radiation.
I asked a slightly different question:
Was it theoretically possible, by providing enough water for evaporation, that the infrared radiation flux from the surface remained constant, and the increasing power input was fully transformed in an increase in the latent heat flux?
For transforming 2 W.m-2 into latent heat flux, we should artificially create ca 25 mm increase to global annual mean precipitation, what corresponds ca 12750 km3 evaporated and condensed water.
Should the corresponding evaporation come from “mere” 10 million km2 land instead fo the entire Earth surface 510 million km2 (maybe current hot deserts would be preferable for this – see in more detail below), it would mean ca 1250 mm water column annual evaporation from this restricted, artificially “irrigated” area.
I am well aware of the engineering effort that would be required if we wished to transport about 13000 km3 sea water into current hot deserts, cool therewith solar panels producing the necessary electricity and return the remaining brine back into ocean (or create artificial terrestrial salt deposits therefrom). Nevertheless, I have a feeling that other projects that shall mitigate the “climate emergency”, like direct air capture of carbon dioxide (DAC), may be even more difficult and expensive.
I would like to just find out which climate change mitigation scenario may result in a more habitable Earth in the near future – whether following Carl Sagan’s proposal to cool the Earth by transformation of continents into dry hot deserts, or rather the above described “artificial evaporation management” scenario assuming that artificial evaporative land cooling (that migh perhaps cause a corresponding precipitation increase in present arid areas, due to the yet hypothetic “biotic pump” mechanism), might lead to Earth “greening” and create new habitable areas in present deserts.
Greetings
Tom
JCMsays
@ Tom,
we see plainly that the rate of surface evapotranspiration flux is matching pretty closely the atmospherical solar reflected – this is probably within the bounds of surface budget uncertainty.
Roughly speaking, about 80 Wm-2 surface latent flux is associated with 80 Wm-2 of reflected solar by the clouds. Is it a coincidence, do you think?
We also see over time, that the unnatural reduction of surface evaporative fraction corresponds pretty well with the reduction of atmospherical reflection.
You could say, a 1 Wm-2 reduction of surface evaporative flux is associated with a 1 Wm-2 reduction of cloud albedo.
In sum, the surface is “warmed” directly by 1 Wm-2 of reduced evaporative cooling PLUS the surface is warmed by 1 Wm-2 by reduced cloud albedo.
Under a global warming scenario unrelated to massive disruption of surface flux partitioning by humanity, by any means, the rate and fraction of surface evaporative flux really should be increasing.
The concept is discussed only by those ecologists and hydrologists who are somehow dismissed as allegedly unqualified to comment on climate science. The cooling influence of evapotranspiration is well known in classic boundary layer concepts and to naturalists more broadly. It is known even to cattle herders, shepherds, and even tenant cash croppers! Rural conservative folk more generally (deemed “bad people” in stereotype by US urban political commenters). It is perhaps even known somehow to the extirpated ecosystem engineers (“pests”) co-evolved such as the beaver..
“We find that globally adding a uniform 1 W m − 2 source of latent heat flux along with a uniform 1 W m − 2 sink of sensible heat leads to a decrease in global mean surface air temperature of 0.54 ± 0.04 K.”
It is all really quite simple to understand conceptually without need for profound complexity and astrophysics.
By whatever means necessary, the 342 Wm-2 or so of the solar beam reaching into the depths of atmosphere including surface and cloud tops must be sent back out. Much of these dynamics are involving water, phase transformation, and atmospheric transport.
In the process, it is shifting the absorbed portion of the high energy, low entropy solar beam into low energy, high entropy longer waves. Kleidon describes it as few high energy photons absorbed and many low energy photons emitted. And so also a dynamic temperature of peak emission, certainly not limited to terrestrial temperature. A slight shift in emission temperature via water vapor.
It really is the radiation enthusiasts who should be most qualified to discuss the mechanisms of what is observed in nature. i.e. that the evaporative fraction is critical to regulating earth system climates. But somehow they wish only to discuss the subject within a very narrow scope. The problem definition is quite limited in their view caused by the UNFCC frameworks from which modern climate science has exploded. And so, a limited scope of system conceptual view has been unnaturally imposed from outside the scientific realm.
TY
Piotrsays
JCM: The concept is discussed only by those ecologists and hydrologists who are somehow dismissed as allegedly unqualified to comment on climate science.
A plumber is bitter that his lifetime experience in plumbing is somehow dismissed as allegedly unqualifying him to comment on heart surgery techniques?
Piotrsays
Tomáš Kalisz: “ Was it theoretically possible, by providing enough water for evaporation, that the infrared radiation flux from the surface remained constant, and the increasing power input was fully transformed in an increase in the latent heat flux?
“Theoretically” pigs could fly, provided you supply enough thrust, or in your case – find inexpensive source of freshwater large enough INCREASE annual evaporation by 1250 mm from 10 mln km2 , actually much more since before you could start precipitating it you would have to bring relative humidity above 100%.
But even then your pig would not take off – because of your stubborn refusal to acknowledge the facts, that – each time you evaporate water – you increase the water vapour concentration in atm and therefore its greenhouse warming effect, almost certainly LARGER than your latent heat – that’s why, at a least in the glacial /interglacial cycles, evaporation was involved in POSITIVE feedback with temperatures. Or in terms of your pig, your thrusters thrust backwards.
If somebody else planted in your head the idea that we don’t have to decarbonize economy because we could cancel global warming simply with an increase in evaporation – then they played a cruel, cruel, joke on you.
Or if you came up with it yourself, then if something looks too good to be true it usually is.
If you pulled a Homer Simpson and invented by accident onto an easy fix of AGW – then Russia and Saudi Arabia, whose economies, stability of the regimes, wealth of their oligarchs and international influence – all depend on their oil and gas exports – would pay your weight in gold.
But since they know that they are no such fixes, they pay their trolls to suggest that they might be, so we shouldn’t do anything until we explore these “other options”.
Thank you for your reply. Even though you think it was not worth of your effort anymore, I think it helped to clarify the difference in our views. Please let me explain in more detail and correct me wherever I reproduced your view inaccurately:
Contrary to your opinion, I do not suggest “increasing water vapour”, if you understand water vapour concentration (absolute humidity) thereunder. It is because I assume, contrary to you, that increasing intensity of water evaporation from the surface may not necessarily increase water vapour concentration in the atmosphere. It is because that I oppositely assume that the evqaporated water may condense (and precipitate back on the Earth surface) at a commensurately increased rate, thus keeping the average humidity basically unchanged.
I think the difference is understandable if you still maintain the opinion that the latent heat released by vapour condensation just heats the air on another place and cannot “escape” as an infrared radiation into space. I assume that should this view be correct, it might be indeed so that, in average, the increased evaporation will NOT result in an increased condensation. In such case, the additional water vapour rather remains in the heated atmosphere and will further strengthen the absorption of the infrared radiation from the surface.
Nevertheless, I still have not understood WHY it MUST be so. I think that your reference (which in my understanding merely confirms that the rise in average absolute humidity is commensurate to the rise of average surface temperature) does not disprove my view that if we prevented the rise of the average surface temperature (irrespective of the method used therefor), there might be no rise in the average absolute humidity anymore.
Moreover, I still do not see a strong argument why the heat transported by water vapour condensation into upper layers of the atmosphere cannot “escape” in the space much easier than from the surface, thus enabling that (if the increased water evaporation will be intense enough to prevent a surface temperature increase) the additional water vapour may fully convert into a commensurately increased global precipitation.
Thus, if we succeeded to intensify the water cycle sufficiently, I can imagine that we could keep the average surface temperature constant even though the power input rises. And, should we perhaps be able to STOP the power input rise during a few coming decades, then I can imagine that the intensified water cycle could REVERSE the sign of EEI – in other words, we might be able to COOL the Earth this way.
These thoughts arose from the simple question whether or not the “2.0” solar panels designed for evaporative cooling and a massive use thereof may have a positive or a negative impact on regional and global climate. This is the starting point of my orgpage https://orgpad.com/s/6jf-rtG8wUP – have you already looked thereon?
You conclude that covering Sahara and other deserts with such 2.0 solar power plants will shift the climate towards further warming, because it will cause a massive increase of both regional as well as global absolute humidity, resulting in further intensification of the greenhouse effect. Am I right? If so, do you know a study that checked and confirmed this scenario using state-of-art computational tools?
Greetings
Tom
zebrasays
Tomas,
Please look up the terms “Argument From Ignorance” and “Argument From Incredulity”.
It is up to you to explain “why”, consistent with the laws of physics, the water vapor from your project will condense and fall as rain at some rate or “intensity” that is different from what is happening now.
And if you can’t do that in a short paragraph, without using equivocal language like “might”, that should tell you that you need to reconsider your speculations and perhaps review your basic education on the topic.
Your section 3 from below, “Thus if we succeeded…”
There are several physical model theories that can be applied.
It is obvious that under a thunderstorm and hailstorm and even a tropical hurricane, the situation on ground and at sea is dramatically cooled down as the “water cycle” also intensifies in a dramatic way with bitties of water and even hails over you. It is one of the fameous chilling and cooling effects of common water, and an obvious negative and stabilising feedback reaction to summer warmth.
But then the question comes: Does it then heat up more elsewhere? as we should also have the whole global budget of it.
Al in all, water vapour is a strongest greenhouse gas that follows and amplifies the effect of CO2. by a positive feedback. But then, when it has become warm enough and the air is moist enough, the opposite effect of water sets in, and cools down the situation again.
Thus common water as such seems to have rather a most important thermo- static effect for the earth.
It is further a very magnificant example of how le Chateliers principle works in a multi causal and multi- dimensional, presumably stable equilibrium.
And then people have been discussing disc0ntinuities, unlinear effects, and possible catastrophic tipping points also in that naturally amplitude-stabilized, swinging weather- situation.
Snow and even snowstormjs is a typical negative and warming freedback reaction to winter frost and chill that else would have been much worse..
nigeljsays
Geoff Miell
Yes I acknowledge its possible that current CO2 concentrations and warming levels could get us to 1 metre sea level rise by the end of this century. However just eye balling the 100 year sea level rise trend below and extrapolating to the end of this century it looks more like 500mm to me:
The recent 5mm / year tend is also a rather short period and so we might be jumping to conclusions about it being the new norm.
To get to 1000 mm this century looks like it will require higher CO2 concentrations and thus a bit more warming, so an “acceleration of the acceleration”. If we continue emissions largely unabated the IPCC predict 1 – 2 metres this century. Please note that their 2 metres assumes a physical destabilisation of the Antarctic ice sheets along the lines Hansen mentions.
Hansen is just calculating it could be 5 metres by the end of this century, from my recollection. I do wonder about the realism of that. Meltwater pulse A after the last ice age is associated with 5 metre rise in sea level and destabilisation of ice sheets but there was much more ice back then to melt / fall apart and different conditions generally.
IMO sea level rise in the order of 500mm per century looks like something we could adapt to although at considerable cost. I used to design infrastructure so Im just thinking about it and what it does to low lying areas. Settlements could move inland in a reasonably orderly way. 1000mm would be borderline in terms of reasonably cost effective adaptation.
Sea level rise above one metre per century looks like a huge problem. I don.t see how we can easily adapt anything over one metre. The costs would be horrendous. Buildings would have to be simply abandoned well before their use by date. Drainage systems and roads would simply fail to work, with no easy fix. Just my opinion of course based on my experience.
I agree rising temperatures are the bigger problem incoming decades. This puts lives at risk by exacerbating heat waves. But sea level rise is a close second – because of the huge costs of adaptation, and this means its harder to fund healthcare, again putting lives at risk.
nigeljsays
Geoff Miell ( up the page), yes if economic growth doesn’t stop it will have severe environmental consequences, so ideally we should persuade people it needs to stop. Or at least slow right down.
However as I said this is a huge challenge, because our whole system including jobs is dependent on economic growth. So its its not clear HOW we would persuade people economic growth should stop, as it would put their immediate financial security at risk. People are addicted to consumption, it is a means of demonstrating status, and human brains are also psychologically hardwired to respond best to immediate severe problems rather than slow, longer term or future environmental threats:
And as I said previously, we might not even need a plan to stop economic growth. Economic growth in developed countries has been slowing down for decades and it will likely stop of its own accord. It looks like there may be nothing we can do to stop economic growth ending. The de-growth advocates cant see this right under their noses!
And if people vote for good environmental legislation, this will help make economic growth stop even sooner as a side effect, by constraining industry. Its probably smarter politically and psychologically to promote good strong environmental legislation, recycling, and good personal environmental behaviour, than anti growth policies as such such as using monetary policy. The end result would hopefully still be economic growth stopping.
You are certainly aware that your explanation may be of a crucial importance not only for me, but likely also for other participants in Real Climate forum who so far have not heard a plausible reasoning why the water evaporation from the Earth surface and the subsequent vapour condensation in Earth troposphere should merely transport heat from one place to another and have no influence on the global energy budget and on the Earth energy imbalance.
You assert that the opinion of my discussion opponent zebra (that the Earth troposphere behave as a “closed room”) is correct, because the escape of the heat therefrom is, equally as the escape of the heat from the Earth surface, fully controlled by the greenhouse effect of the upper atmosphere layers beneath the troposphere.
Unfortunately, I am afraid that I have not a capacity to do the recommended “math” myself. It would be great if you could do this favour for me and persuade me by mathematical arguments, as I still have some doubts that your assertion is indeed correct.
I will try to present some grounds for these doubts:
1) When I, as a boy, read a book Vesmír (Universe) written by a Czech astronomer Jiří Grygar some 45 years ago, I was quite impressed by the information that a telescope installed in an airplane allows infrared astronomical observations because at its usual flying altitude about 10 km, about 99 % water vapour is below it.
This information, however, seems to be in contradiction to your assertion which sounds rather that the „atmospheric window“ (according to Trenberth’s diagrams, about 5 % of the longwave infrared radiation passes from the Earth surface directly to the Universe) is, actually, completely „closed“ (in sense of 0 % infrared transparency of the atmosphere) even at the top of the troposphere in altitudes about 80 000 feet.
2) I assume that if you were correct and the entire troposhere was completely opaque for infrared radiation as you assume, the troposphere must have been much warmer than it actually is. In such case, I would have expected an average tropopause temperature that would have been actually higher than the present average temperature of the Earth surface.
Should your draft be too complex to be presented herein, please feel free to use the link https://orgpad.com/s/6jf-rtG8wUP and insert the evidence for your assertion in my public orgpage wherein I strive to keep an overview about various threads of this discussion.
Replying to JCM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/05/unforced-variations-may-2023/#comment-811777
Dear colleague,
Thank you very much for your comments.
I introduced my answers and additional questions directly into your text (see below).
For easier readability (my comments / questions in italics + an additional colour highlighting), you can read it (and, if you would like, further comment thereon) in the OrgPad “discussion forum”
https://orgpad.com/s/6jf-rtG8wUP
Greetings
Tom
—-
@ Tom,
A few more thoughts for entertainment:
When radiation budgets increase, the air warms, yes? and also the evaporation increases.
This heating vs moistening of the air is characterized by the equilibrium partitioning of surface flux. i.e. the ratio of warming vs moistening turbulent fluxes.
TK: Equilibrium? I think that in fact, this partitioning may be defined not only by temperature but also by other conditions, e.g. by the supply rate of water available for evaporation. I have read that a square meter of forest canopies can be doubly as effective in air moistening as the same area of water under the same ambient conditions.
This partitioning is temperature dependent. The principle is that at warmer temperatures a greater proportion of surface net radiation goes into moistening the air, and at colder temperatures a greater proportion goes into heating the air. The temperature dependence of equilibrium partitioning is related to the temperature-entropy (T-S) vapor saturation curve.
TK: Difficult to say so generally, I am afraid. The entire situation is dynamic; I think that both the heat as well as all the involved mass fluxes play a role and will determine the result.
Let us e.g imagine a sunny day and a continuously moistened surface exposed to the sunlight. I have a feeling that if the ambient air is sufficiently dry, warming of the surface by sun may be almost negligible and a vaste majority of the incoming heat flux may be transformed in the latent heat flux (because air with a higher relative humidity is slightly lighter than the air with a lower relative humidity at the same temperature, there will be certain buoyancy of the moist air maintaining the dry air supply to the surface and preventing water vapour saturation even in the extreme case when the latent heat flux from the surface fully compensates the incoming radiative flux and allows maintaining the surface temperature constant).
The sum is the total turbulent flux.
The net transport of heat from the surface into atmosphere by turbulent flux is related to the non-equilibrium (difference) between surface temperature and the effective outgoing radiative emission temperature.
The difference of temperature between the surface (hot) and the emission temperature higher up (cold) induces spontaneous dynamic atmospheric transport. If the slope of the gradient is changed, the dynamic transport must also change to reach a new non-equilibrium steady state.
TK: This may be perhaps true in case that only sensible heat is involved in the convective heat tranfer. It is my feeling that e.g. for the above situation with a significant latent heat flux, the relationship between the heat flux and the said temperature gradients may be quite complicated.
In moist tropical regions, the gradient between surface temperature and the temperature of outgoing flux is large, and so the dynamic heat transport and dissipation is also large.
In warm desert regions, the opposite. With fewer clouds, a greater proportion of surface radiative transmittance naturally reduces the difference between surface temperature and outgoing emission temperature. The temperature difference is relatively small between surface, and that of the chorus of outgoing IR emitters, and so the magnitude of spontaneous dynamic heat transport is relatively small too.
TK: Really? I supposed that it might be true for the average temperature, due to efficient radiative cooling during cloudless nights in deserts, but not for daytime temperatures, wherein in wet tropical region, latent heat flux helps to maintain the surface temperatures lower in comparison with deserts. If so, the main difference between tropical regions and the warm deserts may be in the main driver of the convenction. Isn´t it the latent heat flux in the tropical region and the sensiblöe heat flux in warm deserts?
Nevertheless, near surface temperature in low-mid latitude desert zones average higher than in a moist regime in the same zone. This is because the available surface moisture constrains the actual evapotranspiration vs the potential evaporation. This also constrains the equilibrium partitioning, forcing a greater proportion of sensible heat than there otherwise would be.
In spite of less total turbulent flux in deserts, the sensible kind is higher and the air is likely to be more stable.
More broadly, we know the Earth system in total can never meet the demands potential evaporation. We know that in MIP experiments the rate of actual evaporation(precipitation) does not keep up with the rate of global temperature rise. I think MIP experiments indicate that for a 5C increase of temperature there is only a 12% increase of evaporation or something. This equates to an average of around 2.5% per C. This is in part due to natural and unnatural limitation of surface available moisture in space and time.
The Earth is in part warmer near the surface on average because of the existence of dry regions. With a limitless surface area of endless water availability, the equilibrium partitioning of surface flux would be unconstrained. But, it seems obvious the equilibrium partitioning IS constrained.
I have not yet heard a reason to veto the notion that unnaturally increasing surface dryness must have a warming influence on average near surface temperature.
thank you
TK: In other words, it appears that with the present Earth hydrology, Earth capacity to mitigate increasing IR absorption by increased latent heat flux is quite limited. Novertheless, we have not identified any reason yet, preventing the humanity from improving this mitigation capacity by artificial enhancement of the water cycle intensity.
Thank you too, for this entire discussion!
Hello again Tom!
The driving potential of evapotranspiration is the vapor pressure deficit of air.
In saturated condition this depends only on temperature. As temperature rises, the saturation vapor pressure rises even more, and so the potential evaporative fraction of surface flux increases with rising temperature. Global warming exclusively from GHGs should show an increasing fraction of evaporation in surface partitioning.
In general round numbers, using energy budget diagrams, for a surface net radiation averaging 100 Watts per square metre, about 80 Watts is going into moistening evapotranspiration, and 20 units into heating flux.
Considering we know the relative humidity averages below 100%, the ultimate constraint is coming from surface moisture availability, not due to atmospheric saturation.
If the continents were composed of all forested wetland with high leaf area, the proportion of sensible heating would surely be less than 20/100. In such a case, there is evidence discussed by Hanna Huryna and Jan Pokorny that the increased rate of evapotranspiration would exceed the increase in surface net radiation. Rich ecosystems tend to absorb more solar than deserts, but they tend to be cooler.
Notice here….
https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/3-s2.0-B9780124095489103653-f10365-30-9780128032206.jpg
the surface net radiation is anomalously low in the hottest and dryest regions. The hot deserts are easy to spot from their blueness. I think this is not adequately discussed in standard climate communications. In spite of high surface albedo, and relatively low surface net radiation, temperatures are higher. It has to do primarily with the partitioning of surface flux.
Notice here…
https://www.cen.uni-hamburg.de/28061704/pic-news-20211029-d75a31825e18b7873e8c1ca686fd58a20dfb4702.jpg
The net LW radiative flux is highly negative in the hottest regions, 24 hrs a day. The same is true everywhere, that net LW radiative flux is negative. Positive surface net radiation is only caused by solar input.
In hot deserts, the high rate of LW transmittance (net negative LW) coincides with more stable air masses that are less conducive to inflows of moist air. It is a consequence, in part, to the naturally and unnaturally dry landscapes.
Subtropical moist ecosystem regions in the same zone show relatively less LW transmittance, greater cloud formation, higher surface net radiation, and lower average temperature. Imagine that, go figure!
In general, if partitioning of turbulent flux is irrelevant to climatology then we should expect an increasing fraction of moistening fluxes, and a decreasing fraction of heating flux under GHG warming. This due to the general principles of equilibrium partitioning as it relates to increasing temperature. However, as far as I can tell this is not observed. If anything, the partitioning is favoring an increase of sensible heat fraction instead.
It should be recognized that humanity can, and humanity does, impact directly the availability of moisture for surface partitioning. Consensus communication products showing a “modest cooling” effect from land clearing and drainage are surely misleading!! https://twitter.com/CarbonBrief/status/1662255847282470914
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/05/unforced-variations-may-2023/#comment-811784
zebra says
26 May 2023 at 6:04 AM
Tomas,
My goal, as I said originally, was to help you clarify your thinking and the presentation of your questions, but now we seem to be back to many many words that show confusion.
If you want to engage in a scientific discussion, you have to be willing to address what the other person is saying, and you have to deal with real-world data. Quoting myself:
The EEI is defined as the difference between the radiant energy the climate system is absorbing from the Sun and the radiant energy emitted from the climate system to space. This is quantified by satellite measurement and Ocean Heat Content. It is increasing, according to the measurements.
I should have also included first that we have observed the energy in the climate system to be increasing in the long term… the apparent increase in the EEI is with shorter term measurements.
So I would hope you would offer a concise explanation for what we are observing, given that we also have clear evidence that water vapor has been increasing. There is more and more latent heat contained in the water vapor at higher altitudes, but energy in the system is still increasing. How does that not contradict your analysis?
Dear zebra,
One of my questions I have asked addressed the temporal trend in the observed EEI.
I am not a scientist and it is not my ambition to provide an explanation for the observed effects. In case of the EEI, however, I am really curious what the data say about EEI trends during last 20, 30, 50 or 100 years, simply because everybody speaks about EEI but I have never seen any EEI temporal record.
From your answer, I have a feeling that the data I have asked for were indeed published somewhere. If you know the reference or can add a suitable excerpt of the data directly in the discussion forum
https://orgpad.com/s/6jf-rtG8wUP
I will highly appreciate your help.
Thank you in advance and greetings
Tom
Tomas, I tell my fellow regular commenters here that the best way to determine if someone is (1) serious about improving their understanding, rather than just (2) repeating ideological rhetoric, is to see if they are willing to engage in a real dialogue. The test of that is when I ask a question… if they don’t answer, it is clearly (2).
You say:
But just above, Piotr says:
And you respond:
So, you “are not a scientist” but you feel that you can tell people who are that they are wrong??
And “it is not my ambition to explain the observed effects”, but you just provided this long, long, fallacious explanation, that is falsified by observation??
If you want people to take you seriously, you should try to be rationally consistent, at least from one day to the next.
Dear zebra,
Thank you very much for your feedback.
Unfortunately, I have not grasped yet why my doubts about your picture of the atmosphere as a “closed room”, wherein the latent heat is merely transported from one place to another (and cannot at least parly escape in the Universe at least from the upper layers of the atmosphere) are unsubstantiated.
That is why I try to modify the formulation of my questions as well as to provide various arguments that in my opinion support my doubts.
Greetings
Tom
Tomas, in physics, it is necessary to be very precise in one’s language, as well as very careful in reading.
Latent heat cannot “escape” into space because latent heat is a form of energy that is contained within the water vapor we are discussing. The energy described as latent heat can only be transferred to the surrounding atmosphere as thermal energy.
So the effect of transporting a unit of energy as latent heat to altitude h and transferring it to the atmosphere (at h) is not different from a unit of energy from the surface in the form of radiation being absorbed by GHG molecules and being converted to thermal energy in the atmosphere (at h).
In both cases, the atmosphere at h then radiates some portion of that acquired energy into space. The question, as Piotr says, is whether there is any useful difference in that quantity. I think this has been pointed out more than once.
Now, in a response to JCM, you say:
So it sounds like you have a plan for improving this “mitigation”. If you want to share that, everyone would be happy to hear it. But “enhancement of the water cycle intensity” tells us nothing… it’s just vague rhetoric.
If your only idea is to increase evaporation to get more water vapor, I have already provided evidence that water vapor has been increasing naturally, and that has certainly not prevented the energy in the climate system from increasing. What in your approach is going to yield a better result?
Dear zebra,
Many thanks for your feedback.
As regards the “latent heat transport”, I am aware that condensing water vapor likely does not directly emit IR radiation in the space. The air heated by the released latent heat in heights wherein the clouds form can, however, do so. Apologies for being too short.
As regards the “artificial evaporation management”, please inspect my public orgpage to the topics, by following the link
https://orgpad.com/s/6jf-rtG8wUP
Using this link, you can also comment directly in the orgpage, and introduce your own content (references, drawings, files) supporting your views.
Greetings
Tom
Tomas,
I looked at your reply to Piotr, and I have to conclude that you are not interested in a serious discussion. You came here and asked for scientific input but you ignore the science if you don’t like what it tells you.
1. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas.
2. You propose reducing the greenhouse effect by increasing water vapor.
3. This makes no sense physically.
4. I provided a paper which concludes with ample evidence that water vapor has been increasing at the same time that the energy in the climate system has been increasing.
Since you are sadly unwilling to address these points, which are consistent with established Climate Theory, I see no purpose in continuing. Perhaps Piotr will find this unfocused discussion worthwhile.
Tomas,
Consider the column of atmosphere above a particular point on the surface that emits a photon in the CO2 absorption band. Semi-classically, if the photon passes within a wavelength or so of a CO2 molecule, it will likely be . Now, knowing atmospheric pressure and the molar fraction of CO2,we can estimate how many CO2 molecules our photon must get past before it escapes the atmosphere. You can do the math–in fact, I recommend it–but the qualitative answer is “a metric fuckton”. There is virtually no chance that a photon in the CO2 band emitted from Earth’s surface escapes. Now move the emission higher in the atmosphere. How high do you have to go before a photon in this band has a decent chance of escape? I can save you the math–although I still recommend doing it–the answer is 80 km. Adding more CO2 further raises this height.
Unfortunately, the tallest thunderboomies (Cumulonimbus) reach only 75 km, so the photons released as the latent heat warms the upper troposphere, still do not escape. ‘This is in addition to the fact that the water vapor is also acting as a greenhouse gas. But, points for trying.
Dear Ray,
Apologies for overlooking your answer before I replied to zebra.
If you are correct, then it would be a strong argument why the Earth atmosphere indeed behaves as the “closed room” with respect to latent heat flux (and, I assume, to the sensible heat flux as well).
Nevertheless, I have still a doubt. You say that the absorption at the carbon dioxide wavelengths is practically equally strong (absolute) at the top of the troposphere as at the Earth surface. Carbon dioxide, however, is not the main contributor to the greenhouse eefct in Eearth atmosphere – it is water vapour. Water vapour concentration decreases with altitude quite strongly.
Do you think that although some infrared radiation may be emitted from the altitude wherein clouds form, there may be no “additional capacity” in this “water window”, basically preventing that more water vapour may condense therein if we supply it there?
Thank you in advance an best regards
Tom
Just a short amendment:
I think you changed feets for meters; thus the altitude, wherein the atmosphere starts to become somewhat transparent in the range of CO2 absorption bands, may be in fact about 24 km, not 80:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumulonimbus_cloud
This is, however, unsubstantial for our discussion.
Greetings
Tom
Tomas, you can do the math for water vapor as well with the same assumptions–e.g. if the photon passes within a wavelength or so of a water molecule, it gets absorbed. And I suspect that up to almost 80 km, you will find that little IR radiation in the water bands escapes.. There could be some variation in TOA between water and CO2 bands, but it won’t be that much.. This certainly isn’t a way to cool the planet.
And if there is water vapor at a given altitude to condense and inject heat, there is also water vapor to absorb–there will be an equilibrium between gas and droplets.
Tomas,
I was going by the biggest thunderheads–which do indeed get up to 75 km.
There are no thunderheads going up 75 km. I think you meant 75 kiloFEET.
Ray,
Take another look at the height of those thunderstorms, please. 75 km is well into the mesosphere! 20 km is a lot closer to the mark for a really tall thunderstorm.
Tomas and John,
You are correct–it’s that damn English system. It was 75000 ft. for the highest thunderheads. However, that only makes my point more emphatically–latent heat is not going to inject energy at Top of Atmosphere (TOA), so it plays little to no role in cooling the planet.
Personal incredulity is not evidence.
Zebra
F0r real dialogues……………..there are certain premises to be in order first, Premises that you are hardly entitled and qualified to instruct to an open set or class or group of people that you do not know, and that you do not own as your private livestock. You do not even own the classroom or the market square, and you are not entitled to operate as police or fireward.
One of my routine methods, if there is any reasons for doubt, is that I ask possible QVACK– officers and teachers to declare their race, religion and their political opinion first., and even “gender” if necessary, which is alltogether 4 very hot potatoes / tense words.
That is a forbidden desire and question in the labour unions, those who were baptized and inaugurated and drilled and brought up for their “historical” necessary, leading scientific role in their closed society, as given by the Grand Old Party with P.. O=)r elsewhere brought up through obscure, personality strengthening, sales promotion “academies”.
But Race Religion and Political opinion, even “gender” happens to be official and universal human rights, thus I will know first if they are able and willing to aspire under that state religion first, that has been signed and submitted to by the King and by the Pope and by any legal and constitutional Precident in the world.
You see, you should not expect to have people in your own provincial swineyard first.
Thus Race, Religion, Political opinion, and Gender,….. think it thorroughly through, and keep that ready for declaration at any time. ,
It is all your universally declared and guaranteed human rights for which you should not be thrown out, or discriminated in the taverns and on the free market. . .
Re Ned Kelly: “It was not recognized at all that these units (wind turbines, solar panels, etc.) wear out after 10 to 20 years of operation.”
Me: Idk about the turbines, but this is largely not true for solar panels.
Maybe he was thinking of the inverters and batteries, or something else?
” . . . THE PROBLEM and THE SOLUTION was to generate electricity with wind and solar power to lower emissions. But as we all know, there have been no closures of fossil fuel plants (coal plants were replaced with natural gas plants double their size) because of lack of energy storage for renewables, the inability of wind and solar to scale up, and because fossil plants still supply two-thirds of generation and peak power. Since rebuildables require fossils every single step of their life cycle, they were never were a solution. They were simply a distraction from reality.”?
https://energyskeptic.com/2020/climate-change-dominates-news-coverage-at-expense-of-more-important-existential-issues/
“THE PROBLEM and THE SOLUTION was to generate electricity with wind and solar power to lower emissions. But as we all know, there have been no closures of fossil fuel plants (coal plants were replaced with natural gas plants double their size) because of lack of energy storage for renewables, the inability of wind and solar to scale up, and because fossil plants still supply two-thirds of generation and peak power.”
The article provides no evidence that the slow scaling up of renewables is technical problems or lack of storage or inability to scale. The reasons for the slow scaling up were more likely because wind and solar power has not been cheap enough, and there has not been a sufficiently high price on carbon to force generators to switch to wind or solar power. The generating companies will not switch to a renewables just to be nice.
As prices have started to drop dramatically renewables are now dominating the market:
“Almost All New US Power Plants Built in 2021 Will Be Carbon-Free Federal data reveals that natural gas will supply just 16 percent of new power plants this year as cheap wind and solar power take over the market.”
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/almost-all-new-us-power-plants-in-2021-will-be-carbon-free
Clearly a so called lack of energy storage isn’t holding them back any more. And it suggests the problems in the past were indeed high costs.
In countries that have had strong government incentives for wind power it has also started to scale up. In the UK wind power is already 18% of the generation mix.
Of course once the grid gets up towards 80% renewables you need a lot of energy storage, or you have to live with gas fired backup. But either scenario seems better to me than a grid largely comprising fossil fuels.
From Postkeys link “If peak oil happened in 2018, then CO2 ppm levels may be under 400 by 2100 as existing and much lower emissions of CO2 are absorbed by oceans and land. The IPCC never even modeled peak oil in their dozens of scenarios because they assumed we’d be exponentially increasing our use of fossils until 2400. They never asked geologists what the oil, coal, and natural gas reserves were, assumed we’d use methane hydrates, and many other wrong assumptions.”
Regarding the coal issue:
“The worst-case scenario for emissions of CO2 this century is no longer plausible, say researchers. Referred to as “business as usual”, the scenario assumes a 500% increase in the use of coal, which is now considered unlikely. (my comment: other articles mention not enough reserves of coal combined with the shift to gas and renewables.) Climate models suggest that this level of carbon could see warming of up to 6C by 2100, with severe impacts. Researchers say that on current trends, a rise in temperatures of around 3C is far more likely.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-51281986
However anything over 2 degrees is very dangerous. So we are not out of the woods yet by a long way.
“In countries that have had strong government incentives for wind power it has also started to scale up. In the UK wind power is already 18% of the generation mix.”
You are right that wind power in the UK has been on an upward trend. However, there are still issues with intermittency. One contribution to the high energy prices in the UK recently alongside wholesale gas price rises was a reduction in wind power due to a high frequency of calm conditions.
Solar is arguably not the best option for the UK as we do poorly for annual sunshine hours, this spring in SE England has been one of the dullest and wettest for a long time (threatening my allotment productivity again). Locked in weather patterns that brought drought and wildfires last summer brought deluge this year.
https://news.sky.com/story/future-of-renewable-energy-in-balance-as-uk-suffers-wind-drought-with-global-stilling-to-come-12766917 (December 2022)
“Britain is in the middle of a wind drought – and the timing couldn’t have been worse.
For several days now, the UK and western Europe have been calm, with barely a breeze.
It is not until Wednesday, or even Thursday, that speeds pick up in Scotland and the North Sea, where most of our wind farms are.
That shows in the mix of energy being used in the freezing conditions.
In the past year, wind has produced 28% of our electricity, gas 42% and coal 1.6%.
Yet as people settled down to work on Monday morning, gas power stations had been ramped up, producing 61% of our electricity.
Wind was down to 3.4%, even less than the amount being generated by coal (3.6%).
This snapshot is unusual, but it does show the limitations of renewable energy in some weather conditions.”
——
“Even if the world reaches net zero soon after 2050, limiting the rise in temperature, winds will weaken significantly in the northern hemisphere.
It’s called global stilling. And it’s caused by the rapid warming of the Arctic, which is narrowing the temperature difference with the tropics, a gap that drives wind.
In the UK, the average wind speed is expected to drop by 2% to 3% by 2050, and 10% by the end of the century.
That matters because the UK is taking a big bet on wind.
We have 14.2GW of onshore wind turbines, with another 13.7GW offshore.
The government has a target to increase offshore capacity to 50GW by 2030, and to turn off gas and coal power stations by 2035.”
Postkey: – “But as we all know, there have been no closures of fossil fuel plants (coal plants were replaced with natural gas plants double their size) because of lack of energy storage for renewables, the inability of wind and solar to scale up, and because fossil plants still supply two-thirds of generation and peak power.”
I’d suggest Australia is on the path to demonstrating otherwise.
Per OpenNEM (an open platform for data from the National Electricity Market in Australia, which includes grid-connected generators in the states of Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia, and the Australian Capital Territory), shows:
* In 2011, renewables provided 20.55 TWh of electrical energy (9.9% share) to the NEM in Australia;
* In 2018, the renewables contribution grew to 41.48 TWh of energy (20.3%); and
* In 2022, then grew further to 72.70 TWh of energy (34.9%).
https://opennem.org.au/energy/nem/?range=all&interval=1y
From little things, big things grow!
In 2009, Bluewaters Power Station in Western Australia (2 units x 208 MW) was the last coal-fired plant built in Australia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluewaters_Power_Station
Per the AEMO’s generating unit expected closure year data, the NEM’s coal-fired generator currently expected order of closure includes:
* Liddell, NSW: Unit 3 (420+ MW) closed on 1 Apr 2022, Unit 4 (420+ MW) closed 24 Apr 2023, Unit 2 (420+ MW) closed 26 Apr 2023, Unit 1 (420+ MW) closed 28 Apr 2023;
* Eraring, NSW: (4x 720 MW) announced closure for 2025, Aug 19;
* Callide B, QLD: (2x 350 MW) expected closure in 2028;
* Yallourn W, VIC: (2x 360 MW, 2x 380 MW) expected closure in 2028;
* Vales Point B, NSW: (2x 660 MW) expected closure in 2029;
* Bayswater, NSW: (4x 660 MW) expected closure in 2033;
* Gladstone, QLD: (4x 280 MW) expected closure in 2035;
* Loy Yang A, VIC: (1x 530 MW, 3x 560 MW) expected closure in 2035;
* Tarong, QLD: Units 1 (350 MW) & 2 (350 MW) expected closure in 2036;
* Tarong, QLD: Units 3 (350 MW) & 2 (#50 MW) expected closure in 2037;
* Mt Piper, NSW: (2x 730 MW) expected closure no later than 2040;
* Kogan Creek, QLD: (1x 750 MW) expected closure in 2042;
etc. etc.
https://aemo.com.au/en/energy-systems/electricity/national-electricity-market-nem/nem-forecasting-and-planning/forecasting-and-planning-data/generation-information
I’d suggest more renewables + storage in the ‘pipeline’ will drive coal & gas generators still operating in Australia beyond 2030 to likely close sooner due to worsening economics – they’ll go broke.
Meanwhile, RenewEconomy provides information of renewable projects in operation or under construction:
* Large Scale Wind Farm Map of Australia (utility scale wind projects of 10 MW or above):
https://reneweconomy.com.au/large-scale-wind-farm-map-of-australia/
* Large Scale Solar Farm Map of Australia (utility scale solar projects of 10 MW or above):
https://reneweconomy.com.au/large-scale-solar-farm-map-of-australia/
* Big Battery Storage Map of Australia (of 10 MW or 10 MWh and above):
https://reneweconomy.com.au/big-battery-storage-map-of-australia/
* Pumped Hydro Energy Storage Map of Australia
https://reneweconomy.com.au/pumped-hydro-energy-storage-map-of-australia/
Per the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO), gas-powered electricity generation has been trending downwards since 2010 – see Figure 1 at:
https://johnmenadue.com/we-love-you-gas-we-do-oh-gas-we-love-you/
Postkey: – “Since rebuildables require fossils every single step of their life cycle, they were never were a solution.”
Then what is “a solution”, Postkey? Are you suggesting there isn’t “a solution”?
Meanwhile, Prof Eliot Jacobson tweeted earlier today (May 29):
https://twitter.com/EliotJacobson/status/1662874894269546497
Storage?
“The basic idea behind a gravity battery system is to lift a heavy object, such as a large mass of concrete or a weight, on a pulley, using energy from a power source. When energy is needed, the thing can fall, and the potential energy is converted back into electricity.?
https://interestingengineering.com/innovation/two-massive-gravity-batteries-are-nearing-completion-in-the-us-and-china
Dear Postkey,
As regards Energy Vault and similar electricity storage solutions in “mechanical batteries”, the advantage is a decent efficiency, the disadvantage relatively high price for a unit storage capacity which is comparable with chemical batteries. This is due to low energy density of gravitational storage in relatively weak gravitational field of Earth, and huge masses of necessary material resulting from this circumstance.
For these reasons, neither chemical nor “mechanical” batteries are suitable for a cheap storage of large quantities of electricity – a yet missing technology that may be essential for a complete transition of electricity production and use towards renewable energy sources on an economically feasible basis.
Greetings
Tom
That is how pump and storage hydro works, store water in a reservoir at altitude, release that water into a lower reservoir or lake through a turbine during high electricity demand, pump water back to the upper reservoir overnight when demand is low and electricity is cheap.
https://www.sse.com/news-and-views/2023/03/britain-s-largest-pumped-hydro-scheme-in-40-years-gets-100m-investment-boost/
Geoff Meill,
The comment paper from Hansen Equilibrium Warming = Committed Warming?</b is basically saying the criticism he is facing on twitter is nonsense. He was not “indicating that the world is committed to warming of 10°C”, that he was not suggesting the answer to the posed question in the title was ‘Yes!! when it is obviously the answer is ‘No!! It is not’. There is no disagreement. All are in agreement although I would suggest in the pre-published paper Global warming in the pipeline; Hansen et al, do not make this agreement explicit (although it should be evident to any serious commentator) and as the title suggests, a lot of Hansen et al was talking of the “pipeline” concept without that explicit comment.
My own criticism of Hansen et al is in its exclusively adopting a high ECS through the analysis. In simplistic terms, the projected warming from 2010-on shown in Fig25 of +0.27ºC/decade (a 50% increase on previous rates) is unmerited.
My view of the message overall from Hansen et al, is to rephrase it: there is a massive mismatch between global political policy on AGW and the message from climatology. The net zero emissions by 2050 was only part of that scientific message. There is (now ‘was’) a need to begin halving those net emission by 2030 and that has not happened and the halving is apparently not going to happen. Plus the part of the message saying there is also a need for massive net negative emissions post-2050 is seeming also not understood by policy-makers.
I perhaps should also mention the tweet by emeritus Prof. Eliot Jacobson you link-to.
The graphic presented showing the Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI) trebling through the period 2003-23 is pure fairytaleland.
The EEI measurements are by nature very wobbly and also subject to a lot of imprecision over a very short record. Thus Fig 26 in Hansen et al is less definitive than the in-situ measurements of heat uptake (mainly OHC), although now good agreement has been reached in some analyses (eg eg here).
But this is all at odds with the Jacobson graphic.
The reference given as “Quote source” by Jacobson is von Schuckmann et al (2023) ‘Heat stored in the Earth system 1960–2020: where does the energy go?’ but that data lacks the agreement with EEI and thus suggests no such doubling-plus of EEI 2003-2020. Simply, the data presented by von Schuckmann is at odds with Jacobson’s graph. von Schuckmann et al.s Fig 8 (a familiar graphic) shows data with the rolling 5-yr average 2016-20 is +12.8Zj/yr while the rolling 5-yr average 2003-07 is 11.4Zj/yr. And that’s with the 2003 being itself a big cherrypick. Indeed, over the longer period 1990-2020 (prior to which there was an indicated increase in EEI) the von Schuckman data fits very well with constant EEI of +11.8Zj/yr(+/-0.5 2sd) so using such data, the red lie in Jacobson’s graph should be flat.
MA Rodger: – “My own criticism of Hansen et al is in its exclusively adopting a high ECS through the analysis. In simplistic terms, the projected warming from 2010-on shown in Fig25 of +0.27ºC/decade (a 50% increase on previous rates) is unmerited.”
Perhaps you missed part of my earlier comments? I repeat what I stated earlier:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/05/unforced-variations-may-2023/#comment-811799
Meanwhile:
* The daily average sea surface temperature (SST) for 60°S- 60°N latitude exceeded 21 °C earlier this year for the first time in the instrumental record. El Niño has not started yet, but global SSTs have been running at record seasonal highs for two months now.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/
* The Arctic & Antarctic sea ice extents are tracking at seasonal record lows.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
* The daily average 2 m air temperature for 90°S-90°N latitude, 0°-360° longitude is tracking at seasonal highest levels in the instrumental record.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/t2_daily/
* Prof Eliot Jacobson tweeted on May 29:
https://twitter.com/EliotJacobson/status/1662890108817907712
Barring multiple nuclear weapons airbursts, major volcanic eruptions, and/or major meteor surface impact event(s) here on Earth, I would not be at all surprised to see:
* An overshoot (temporary) of the +1.3 °C global mean surface temperature threshold for this calendar year (2023);
* An overshoot (temporary) of the +1.4 °C global mean surface temperature threshold for the next calendar year (2024).
We’ll know soon enough!
MA Rodger: – “My view of the message overall from Hansen et al, is to rephrase it: there is a massive mismatch between global political policy on AGW and the message from climatology.”
I agree.
It seems to me, based on the evidence/data I see, that many governments are effectively facilitating civilisation collapse before the end of this century.
One of the co-authors of the Global Warming in the Pipeline preprint paper, Leon Simons, tweeted on May 26 (bold text my emphasis):
https://twitter.com/LeonSimons8/status/1661741858366853123
Meanwhile, it seems multiple governments are rolling out copycat anti-protest legislation, as more & more people are waking-up to humanity’s trajectory towards civilisation collapse in the coming decades.
https://twitter.com/thejuicemedia/status/1663040071573082112
Geoff Miell,
I noted your comment did indeed paraphrase the Hansen comment paper that the next 18 months will show us something. The graphic in that Hansen comment paper would put 2024 plotting “clearly above the yellow region”, so being plotted in excess of +1.50ºC above pre-industrial, or +0.21ºC above 2020, so GISTEMP +1.23ºC.
I would myself suggest caution in using such a measure to provide, as Hansen puts it, “confirmation of the acceleration” in global temperature increase. The 2024 temperature is surely far too dependent on the strength of the coming El Niño to be used in such a manner.
My own point in the comment above was that Hansen’s exclusive use of ECS=4.5ºC in his analysis is not merited, which is somewhat different from predicting the 2024 temperature.
Your “Meanwhiles” I fear need a bit of work.
☻ The SST are certainly at the “scorchyisimo!!!” level with the NOAA showing April 2023 with “scorchyisimo!!!” Oceans. But NOAA also show the global average is significantly depressed by the Land, enough to prevent a global “scorchyisimo!!!”. Myself, I was surprised it didn’t even get close
☻ Arctic SIE is certainly not at any “seasonal record low” (see Charctic. Click all years) although Antarctic SIE certainly is (102 days below all previous years on record, out of 149 days of the year so far) but Antarctic SIE is a poor measure of the global climate.
☻ The daily global temperature value at climateanalyzer is tracking below previous years so not “seasonal highest levels in the instrumental record” although it did manage a handful of days at “scorchyisimo!!!”.
☻ I don’t think I’m interested in the pronouncements of Prof Eliot Jacobson. I would suggest that from a ranking of 5th for the Jan-Apr 2023 global temperature, to get to within +1.23ºC of the 2016 temperature a month later would require a May GISTEMP anomaly of +1.91ºC which would certainly be astounding.
☻ I’m not sure of the anomaly base of your 2023 +1.3ºC & 2024 +1.4ºC. The projections suggest it is possible 2023 could become warmest year (currently GISTEMP 2020 = +1.02ºC is warmest) but some say it is more likely not. If 2023=2020, the additional increase to get to Hansen’s “clearly above the yellow region” would be an additional +0.21ºC. The additonal El Niño-induced global temperature 2015-to-2016 was about half that.
We appear in agreement in the lacklustre response of government to AGW. Here in UK the government and the media are happy to discuss the antics of folk stocking themselves to the outside of tube trains or practicing the orange power dance on snooker tables, but somehow the reason for these antics is beyond their comprehension.
MA Rodger: – “The 2024 temperature is surely far too dependent on the strength of the coming El Niño to be used in such a manner.”
In your opinion, what would? How many more ongoing observations do you think needs to be done (& how much more time) before you would agree the warming rate is accelerating? When do you call “fire”?
Meanwhile, atmospheric GHG levels continue to rise – per NOAA, the atmosphere in 2022 contained the CO₂ equivalent of 523 ppm, of which 417 is CO₂ alone.
https://gml.noaa.gov/aggi/
MA Rodger: – “☻ The SST are certainly at the “scorchyisimo!!!” level with the NOAA showing April 2023 with “scorchyisimo!!!” Oceans.”
Thanks for the link to NOAA’s Global Time Series. I note that the global ocean temperature anomaly (for 90°S- 90°N latitude) for Jan 2016 was at +0.87 °C (highest in the series) and for Apr 2023 was at +0.86 °C (second highest, at 0.01 °C difference). It will be interesting to see where the May 2023 average sits – a new instrumental record perhaps?
MA Rodger: – “☻ Arctic SIE is certainly not at any “seasonal record low” (see Charctic. Click all years)…”
Thanks for the link. I correct my previous statement to; near seasonal record low. I note that the Arctic SIE for year 2023 is tracking below the 2016 curve – the year of the record minimum SIE – and an anticipated super El Niño hasn’t begun yet.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/model-summary/#tabs=Bureau-model®ion=NINO34
MA Rodger: – “…although Antarctic SIE certainly is (102 days below all previous years on record, out of 149 days of the year so far) but Antarctic SIE is a poor measure of the global climate.”
I’d suggest it’s still an indicator that warming in the region is occurring.
MA Rodger: – “☻ I don’t think I’m interested in the pronouncements of Prof Eliot Jacobson.”
Noted. I think it’s worth considering “outlier” perspectives at times.
MA Rodger: – “☻ I’m not sure of the anomaly base of your 2023 +1.3ºC & 2024 +1.4ºC.”
I apologize for not making that explicit. My comments relate to the baseline in Figure 25 in the Hansen et. al. 23 May 2023 (version 3) preprint paper Global Warming in the Pipeline – the 1880-1920 baseline.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2212.04474
Per communications by James Hansen, Makiko Sato and Reto Ruedy, dated 12 Jan 2023, the top 10 hottest years in the GISS analysis instrumental record include:
#01: 2020: +1.29 °C
#02: 2016: +1.28 °C
#03: 2019: +1.24 °C
#04: 2017: +1.19 °C
#05: 2015 & 2022: +1.16 °C
#07: 2021 & 2018: +1.12 °C
#09: 2014: +1.01 °C
#10: 2010: +0.99 °C
See Table 1 & Figure 2 at:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2023/Temperature2022.12January2023.pdf
MA Rodger: – “…but somehow the reason for these antics is beyond their comprehension.”
I have no doubt the elites know why.
Professor Julia Steinberger tweeted a thread on May 19, including (bold text my emphasis):
https://twitter.com/JKSteinberger/status/1659429919628165120
Thanks for your response.
Geoff Miell
“Because here is the thing. Every. Single. Journalist. who was there (and there were many, from major outlets all over Europe and the world) that I spoke to, said “my editor refuses to print any story critical of economic growth.”
I would say this is because the media are mostly owned by corporate leaning interests and certainly derive their income partly from advertisments, and businesses and advertisers have a vested interest in seeing economic growth continue. “He who pays the piper calls the tune.”
This is unfortuante because we do need a public debate about a zero growth economy. The high growth economy is obviously putting huge pressure on the environment that cannot be ignored.
That said I think its unlikely the majority of people would vote for a zero growth strategy. Our whole system is so dependent on growth including peoples jobs that it might be hard to get people to deliberately wind it down, despite the strain on the environment.
However a high growth economy is impossible forever on a finite planet (at least that sort of growth that is based on resource extraction). And rates of economic growth have been falling in developed countries since the 1970’s. Back then post war gdp growth hit about 6% per annum and has gradually tended down to 3% and seems to now be slipping under this, despite attempts to stimulate growth with low interest rates and quantitative easing.
It just looks like economic growth is naturally falling towards zero, driven by demographic changes, market saturation, and possibly the first signs of increasing mineral extraction costs. I dont think we will hit zero growth in the next couple of decades but after that I suspect it could happen. Or it will get close to zero.
We may find we are forced to adapt to a low growth or zero growth world sooner than we might think. Japan has lived with decades of low growth and survived and has a good quality of life. This gives some insight.
But we have the climate problem and the need for a new energy system that will tend to generate some economic growth short to mid term. So many complexities influencing the issue.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/02/10/can-we-have-prosperity-without-growth
There are many reasons why the wealthy accept the need for economic growth as an axiom. Certainly, a growing opportunity likely provides the best opportunities for them to become even more obscenely wealthy. Even for the billionaires for whom their wealth is just a way of keeping score, there’s a reluctance to admit that the party is over.
However, as long as the economy is growing, they can continue to pretend that–at least in principle–anyone can become wealthy. If growth ends, then inequality becomes cemented in place unless government intervenes–and they really hate that idea. In practice, even in a growing economy, the wealthy gobble up most of the added wealth unless government intervenes. In fact, the wealthy have become wealthier in every society and at every period in human history except those of severe upheaval–e.g. the middle of the 20th century, where a depression, the Second World War and a second industrial revolution combined with government policies to actually give the middle class a slightly bigger slice of the pie.
Societies in which the economy is not growing tend to become stratified unless they adopt policies to redistribute the ill gotten gains of the wealthy. (Remember: behind every great fortune is a great crime.)
Geoff Miell,
It is a valid question for all of us. How would you confirm an acceleration in the rate of AGW other than to wait and see?
There is signs of acceleration, in that a plot of, say, 5-year rolling averages of global temperature is sitting above the long-term average linear rate (say the 1975-2015 average rate, in GISTEMP that was +0.18ºC/dacade) and has been for some years. (in GISTEMP, since mid-2013). But it doesn’t take much to undermine such an analysis as being significant.
On the use of an El Niño-boosted 2024, to get “clearly above the yellow region” in Hansen’s Fig25 would require the full +1.5ºC for 2024 with a 1880-1920 anomaly base (= +1.23ºC with the usual 1951-80 anomaly base).
I think the question we should be asking is whether AGW is under control or not.
My own view of how to demonstrate that AGW is not under control is the carbon budget which is fast running out, even when massive negative net emissions are added to the equation.
Or alternatively, there is the rate of CO2 emissions. Thus the GCP put 2021’s CO2 emissions as 10.13Gt(C) FF + 1.08Gt(C) LUC = 11.21Gt(C) = 41.1Gt(CO2) with no reduction expected for 2022 and lkely none in 2023 as well. Yet under SSP1-1.9 we see annual CO2 emissions peaking at 39.7Gt(CO2) in 2020 then dropping at 1.7Gt(CO2)/yr to 2030. So 2023 should have seen us down at 35Gt(CO2)/yr.
A similar analysis could also be made comparing the SSPs with the annual increase in positive forcing due to increasing GHGs (thus the NOAA AGGI) which would also pick up on the increasing rise in CH4 & in N2O. If you seek acceleration, post-CFCs the AGGI is accelerating, so going in the wrong direction.
On the subject of Arctic/Antarctic SIE, I maintain graphs of the year-on-year JAXA record but with the annual cycle removed (fig 1 & fig 3a here.
nigelj: – “Our whole system is so dependent on growth including peoples jobs that it might be hard to get people to deliberately wind it down, despite the strain on the environment.”
I’d suggest if we/humanity don’t, then we/humanity likely won’t have a viable civilisation beyond this century. Continual growth leads to overshoot and collapse.
Published yesterday (May 31) at Climate Code Red was a piece by David Spratt headlined Why markets fail on fossil fuel pollution, heralding an era of climate disruption. It concluded with (bold text my emphasis):
http://www.climatecodered.org/2023/05/why-markets-fail-on-fossil-fuel.html
Ray Ladbury; – “Even for the billionaires for whom their wealth is just a way of keeping score, there’s a reluctance to admit that the party is over.”
I’d suggest money only has value while our civilisation prevails. Where there is no complex civilisation, relevant skills and available physical resources count.
MA Rodger: – “There is signs of acceleration, in that a plot of, say, 5-year rolling averages of global temperature is sitting above the long-term average linear rate (say the 1975-2015 average rate, in GISTEMP that was +0.18ºC/dacade) and has been for some years. (in GISTEMP, since mid-2013). But it doesn’t take much to undermine such an analysis as being significant.”
Paraphrasing: you agree there are signs of warming acceleration above the GISSTEMP +0.18 ºC/decade trend, but you don’t yet accept the Hansen et. al. estimates for at least +0.27 ºC/decade post-2010, unless you see “the full +1.5ºC for 2024 with a 1880-1920 anomaly base”. Would that be fair?
MA Rodger: – “My own view of how to demonstrate that AGW is not under control is the carbon budget which is fast running out, even when massive negative net emissions are added to the equation.”
Evidence/data I see indicates:
• There is NO CARBON BUDGET REMAINING for a safe climate for humanity.
• Overshooting the +1.5 °C warming threshold (relative to 1880-1920 baseline) is not safe.
• Decarbonisation is not enough.
• Reducing the level of atmospheric GHG concentrations by carbon drawdown is now vital.
• Unfortunately, it seems large-scale carbon drawdown technologies don’t yet exist.
What will it take to get AGW “under control”?
I think it can’t be resolved without large-scale disruption.
If we/humanity fail to act rapidly and effectively, then increasing disruptions/chaos ensue as the Earth System becomes increasingly incompatible for our current complex civilisation.
History shows governments can be willing to spend money/resources to do what is required. In the YouTube video titled Climate Emergency: Is 1.5º really safe?, from time interval 0:23:11, David Spratt presents a table of military spending for years 1939-44 (military outlays as % of national income):
Country _ _ 1939 _ _ 1940 _ _ 1941 _ _ 1942 _ _ 1943 _ _ 1944
USA: _ _ _ _ _ 1 _ _ _ _ 2 _ _ _ _ 11 _ _ _ _ 31 _ _ _ 42 _ _ _ 42
UK: _ _ _ _ _ 15 _ _ _ _44 _ _ _ _53 _ _ _ _52 _ _ _ 55 _ _ _ 53
Germany: _ _23 _ _ _ 40 _ _ _ _ 52 _ _ _ _64 _ _ _70 _ _ _ ??
Japan: _ _ _ _22 _ _ _ 22 _ _ _ _ 27 _ _ _ _33 _ _ _ 43 _ _ _ 76
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyLgCr3Drh4
Geoff Miell,
“Would that be fair?” you ask.
Hansen’s fig 25 shows the yellow region which is a 50% to 100% acceleration in warming post-2010 so the “at least” +0.27ºC/decade is presented by that fig 25. But the +1.5ºC for 2024 (which appears unlikely to me) represents just +0.27ºC/decade on 2016.
And whatever the eventual 2024 temperatures, I am not at all convinced of the wisdom of using the impact on 2024 temperatures of an El Niño of unknown strength as being an arbiter of where AGW is going for the next few decades. Indeed, the El Niño predictions have not-so-long-ago been showing a 10% chance of the El Niño not arriving at all this year. Whatever the outcome of 2024, this is the same old issue of using a short section of a wibbly-wobbly line inappropriately.
I would pick up on your comment that “it seems large-scale carbon drawdown technologies don’t yet exist.”
Obviously no large-scale process is in operation but there are the building blocks. CO2 is being drawn from the atmosphere at costs which are arguably affordable and not too energy sapping. And there are plenty of saline aquifers dotted around the world that seemingly could be used to store vast amounts of CO2. So a future operating large-scale process is not all fantasy. The question is perhaps whether that “Make it so, Number One!” moment will remain science fiction for longer than it should. Or perhaps ‘much longer than it should’ as it is already late. As is the FF phase-out.
Replying to
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/05/unforced-variations-may-2023/#comment-811835
Dear Piotr,
Many thanks for your comments. My hope that my posts attract an attention of moderators might have been indeed quite presumptuous, I admit. Therefore, I am really happy that you invest your effort and continue providing your feedback.
Let us look once again on the Earth energy budget according to the Trenberth diagram published on the website https://climateprotectionhardware.files.wordpress.com/2023/03/geb_2000-2020finish.png?w=1024 and shown in my orgpage https://orgpad.com/s/6jf-rtG8wUP
According to this scheme, the average upward longwave infrared radiation flow from the surface in the year 2020 was 400.2 W.m-2 and the latent heat flux 85.54 W.m-2. Whereas the infrared radiation flow increase since the year 2000 was, according to this source, about 2 W.m-2 (what seems to be in accordance with the trend of the increasing average surface temperature), it appears that the latent heat flow slightly decreased (0.9 W.m-2) what seems to be in disaccord with other sources reporting some increase in global annual precipitation during the last two decades.
I do not know how accurate the data is and whether the discrepancy may be real. There already was some discussion on this site
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/04/unforced-variations-apr-2023/#comment-810800
(13 Apr 2023 at 10:01 AM)
that focused especially on the interesting detail that, according to this diagram, about 75 % was a contribution from increased shortwave absorption and only 25 % from back radiation.
I asked a slightly different question:
Was it theoretically possible, by providing enough water for evaporation, that the infrared radiation flux from the surface remained constant, and the increasing power input was fully transformed in an increase in the latent heat flux?
For transforming 2 W.m-2 into latent heat flux, we should artificially create ca 25 mm increase to global annual mean precipitation, what corresponds ca 12750 km3 evaporated and condensed water.
Should the corresponding evaporation come from “mere” 10 million km2 land instead fo the entire Earth surface 510 million km2 (maybe current hot deserts would be preferable for this – see in more detail below), it would mean ca 1250 mm water column annual evaporation from this restricted, artificially “irrigated” area.
I am well aware of the engineering effort that would be required if we wished to transport about 13000 km3 sea water into current hot deserts, cool therewith solar panels producing the necessary electricity and return the remaining brine back into ocean (or create artificial terrestrial salt deposits therefrom). Nevertheless, I have a feeling that other projects that shall mitigate the “climate emergency”, like direct air capture of carbon dioxide (DAC), may be even more difficult and expensive.
I would like to just find out which climate change mitigation scenario may result in a more habitable Earth in the near future – whether following Carl Sagan’s proposal to cool the Earth by transformation of continents into dry hot deserts, or rather the above described “artificial evaporation management” scenario assuming that artificial evaporative land cooling (that migh perhaps cause a corresponding precipitation increase in present arid areas, due to the yet hypothetic “biotic pump” mechanism), might lead to Earth “greening” and create new habitable areas in present deserts.
Greetings
Tom
@ Tom,
we see plainly that the rate of surface evapotranspiration flux is matching pretty closely the atmospherical solar reflected – this is probably within the bounds of surface budget uncertainty.
Roughly speaking, about 80 Wm-2 surface latent flux is associated with 80 Wm-2 of reflected solar by the clouds. Is it a coincidence, do you think?
We also see over time, that the unnatural reduction of surface evaporative fraction corresponds pretty well with the reduction of atmospherical reflection.
You could say, a 1 Wm-2 reduction of surface evaporative flux is associated with a 1 Wm-2 reduction of cloud albedo.
In sum, the surface is “warmed” directly by 1 Wm-2 of reduced evaporative cooling PLUS the surface is warmed by 1 Wm-2 by reduced cloud albedo.
Under a global warming scenario unrelated to massive disruption of surface flux partitioning by humanity, by any means, the rate and fraction of surface evaporative flux really should be increasing.
The concept is discussed only by those ecologists and hydrologists who are somehow dismissed as allegedly unqualified to comment on climate science. The cooling influence of evapotranspiration is well known in classic boundary layer concepts and to naturalists more broadly. It is known even to cattle herders, shepherds, and even tenant cash croppers! Rural conservative folk more generally (deemed “bad people” in stereotype by US urban political commenters). It is perhaps even known somehow to the extirpated ecosystem engineers (“pests”) co-evolved such as the beaver..
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/6/3/034032
“We find that globally adding a uniform 1 W m − 2 source of latent heat flux along with a uniform 1 W m − 2 sink of sensible heat leads to a decrease in global mean surface air temperature of 0.54 ± 0.04 K.”
It is all really quite simple to understand conceptually without need for profound complexity and astrophysics.
By whatever means necessary, the 342 Wm-2 or so of the solar beam reaching into the depths of atmosphere including surface and cloud tops must be sent back out. Much of these dynamics are involving water, phase transformation, and atmospheric transport.
In the process, it is shifting the absorbed portion of the high energy, low entropy solar beam into low energy, high entropy longer waves. Kleidon describes it as few high energy photons absorbed and many low energy photons emitted. And so also a dynamic temperature of peak emission, certainly not limited to terrestrial temperature. A slight shift in emission temperature via water vapor.
It really is the radiation enthusiasts who should be most qualified to discuss the mechanisms of what is observed in nature. i.e. that the evaporative fraction is critical to regulating earth system climates. But somehow they wish only to discuss the subject within a very narrow scope. The problem definition is quite limited in their view caused by the UNFCC frameworks from which modern climate science has exploded. And so, a limited scope of system conceptual view has been unnaturally imposed from outside the scientific realm.
TY
JCM: The concept is discussed only by those ecologists and hydrologists who are somehow dismissed as allegedly unqualified to comment on climate science.
A plumber is bitter that his lifetime experience in plumbing is somehow dismissed as allegedly unqualifying him to comment on heart surgery techniques?
Tomáš Kalisz: “ Was it theoretically possible, by providing enough water for evaporation, that the infrared radiation flux from the surface remained constant, and the increasing power input was fully transformed in an increase in the latent heat flux?
“Theoretically” pigs could fly, provided you supply enough thrust, or in your case – find inexpensive source of freshwater large enough INCREASE annual evaporation by 1250 mm from 10 mln km2 , actually much more since before you could start precipitating it you would have to bring relative humidity above 100%.
But even then your pig would not take off – because of your stubborn refusal to acknowledge the facts, that – each time you evaporate water – you increase the water vapour concentration in atm and therefore its greenhouse warming effect, almost certainly LARGER than your latent heat – that’s why, at a least in the glacial /interglacial cycles, evaporation was involved in POSITIVE feedback with temperatures. Or in terms of your pig, your thrusters thrust backwards.
If somebody else planted in your head the idea that we don’t have to decarbonize economy because we could cancel global warming simply with an increase in evaporation – then they played a cruel, cruel, joke on you.
Or if you came up with it yourself, then if something looks too good to be true it usually is.
If you pulled a Homer Simpson and invented by accident onto an easy fix of AGW – then Russia and Saudi Arabia, whose economies, stability of the regimes, wealth of their oligarchs and international influence – all depend on their oil and gas exports – would pay your weight in gold.
But since they know that they are no such fixes, they pay their trolls to suggest that they might be, so we shouldn’t do anything until we explore these “other options”.
Replying to
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/05/unforced-variations-may-2023/comment-page-2/#comment-811905
Dear zebra,
Thank you for your reply. Even though you think it was not worth of your effort anymore, I think it helped to clarify the difference in our views. Please let me explain in more detail and correct me wherever I reproduced your view inaccurately:
Contrary to your opinion, I do not suggest “increasing water vapour”, if you understand water vapour concentration (absolute humidity) thereunder. It is because I assume, contrary to you, that increasing intensity of water evaporation from the surface may not necessarily increase water vapour concentration in the atmosphere. It is because that I oppositely assume that the evqaporated water may condense (and precipitate back on the Earth surface) at a commensurately increased rate, thus keeping the average humidity basically unchanged.
I think the difference is understandable if you still maintain the opinion that the latent heat released by vapour condensation just heats the air on another place and cannot “escape” as an infrared radiation into space. I assume that should this view be correct, it might be indeed so that, in average, the increased evaporation will NOT result in an increased condensation. In such case, the additional water vapour rather remains in the heated atmosphere and will further strengthen the absorption of the infrared radiation from the surface.
Nevertheless, I still have not understood WHY it MUST be so. I think that your reference (which in my understanding merely confirms that the rise in average absolute humidity is commensurate to the rise of average surface temperature) does not disprove my view that if we prevented the rise of the average surface temperature (irrespective of the method used therefor), there might be no rise in the average absolute humidity anymore.
Moreover, I still do not see a strong argument why the heat transported by water vapour condensation into upper layers of the atmosphere cannot “escape” in the space much easier than from the surface, thus enabling that (if the increased water evaporation will be intense enough to prevent a surface temperature increase) the additional water vapour may fully convert into a commensurately increased global precipitation.
Thus, if we succeeded to intensify the water cycle sufficiently, I can imagine that we could keep the average surface temperature constant even though the power input rises. And, should we perhaps be able to STOP the power input rise during a few coming decades, then I can imagine that the intensified water cycle could REVERSE the sign of EEI – in other words, we might be able to COOL the Earth this way.
These thoughts arose from the simple question whether or not the “2.0” solar panels designed for evaporative cooling and a massive use thereof may have a positive or a negative impact on regional and global climate. This is the starting point of my orgpage https://orgpad.com/s/6jf-rtG8wUP – have you already looked thereon?
You conclude that covering Sahara and other deserts with such 2.0 solar power plants will shift the climate towards further warming, because it will cause a massive increase of both regional as well as global absolute humidity, resulting in further intensification of the greenhouse effect. Am I right? If so, do you know a study that checked and confirmed this scenario using state-of-art computational tools?
Greetings
Tom
Tomas,
Please look up the terms “Argument From Ignorance” and “Argument From Incredulity”.
It is up to you to explain “why”, consistent with the laws of physics, the water vapor from your project will condense and fall as rain at some rate or “intensity” that is different from what is happening now.
And if you can’t do that in a short paragraph, without using equivocal language like “might”, that should tell you that you need to reconsider your speculations and perhaps review your basic education on the topic.
@ Tomas Kalisz
Your section 3 from below, “Thus if we succeeded…”
There are several physical model theories that can be applied.
It is obvious that under a thunderstorm and hailstorm and even a tropical hurricane, the situation on ground and at sea is dramatically cooled down as the “water cycle” also intensifies in a dramatic way with bitties of water and even hails over you. It is one of the fameous chilling and cooling effects of common water, and an obvious negative and stabilising feedback reaction to summer warmth.
But then the question comes: Does it then heat up more elsewhere? as we should also have the whole global budget of it.
Al in all, water vapour is a strongest greenhouse gas that follows and amplifies the effect of CO2. by a positive feedback. But then, when it has become warm enough and the air is moist enough, the opposite effect of water sets in, and cools down the situation again.
Thus common water as such seems to have rather a most important thermo- static effect for the earth.
It is further a very magnificant example of how le Chateliers principle works in a multi causal and multi- dimensional, presumably stable equilibrium.
And then people have been discussing disc0ntinuities, unlinear effects, and possible catastrophic tipping points also in that naturally amplitude-stabilized, swinging weather- situation.
Snow and even snowstormjs is a typical negative and warming freedback reaction to winter frost and chill that else would have been much worse..
Geoff Miell
Yes I acknowledge its possible that current CO2 concentrations and warming levels could get us to 1 metre sea level rise by the end of this century. However just eye balling the 100 year sea level rise trend below and extrapolating to the end of this century it looks more like 500mm to me:
https://skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise.htm
The recent 5mm / year tend is also a rather short period and so we might be jumping to conclusions about it being the new norm.
To get to 1000 mm this century looks like it will require higher CO2 concentrations and thus a bit more warming, so an “acceleration of the acceleration”. If we continue emissions largely unabated the IPCC predict 1 – 2 metres this century. Please note that their 2 metres assumes a physical destabilisation of the Antarctic ice sheets along the lines Hansen mentions.
Hansen is just calculating it could be 5 metres by the end of this century, from my recollection. I do wonder about the realism of that. Meltwater pulse A after the last ice age is associated with 5 metre rise in sea level and destabilisation of ice sheets but there was much more ice back then to melt / fall apart and different conditions generally.
IMO sea level rise in the order of 500mm per century looks like something we could adapt to although at considerable cost. I used to design infrastructure so Im just thinking about it and what it does to low lying areas. Settlements could move inland in a reasonably orderly way. 1000mm would be borderline in terms of reasonably cost effective adaptation.
Sea level rise above one metre per century looks like a huge problem. I don.t see how we can easily adapt anything over one metre. The costs would be horrendous. Buildings would have to be simply abandoned well before their use by date. Drainage systems and roads would simply fail to work, with no easy fix. Just my opinion of course based on my experience.
I agree rising temperatures are the bigger problem incoming decades. This puts lives at risk by exacerbating heat waves. But sea level rise is a close second – because of the huge costs of adaptation, and this means its harder to fund healthcare, again putting lives at risk.
Geoff Miell ( up the page), yes if economic growth doesn’t stop it will have severe environmental consequences, so ideally we should persuade people it needs to stop. Or at least slow right down.
However as I said this is a huge challenge, because our whole system including jobs is dependent on economic growth. So its its not clear HOW we would persuade people economic growth should stop, as it would put their immediate financial security at risk. People are addicted to consumption, it is a means of demonstrating status, and human brains are also psychologically hardwired to respond best to immediate severe problems rather than slow, longer term or future environmental threats:
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5530483#:~:text=Humans%20Wired%20to%20Respond%20to%20Short%2DTerm%20Problems%20Harvard%20psychology,distant%20dangers%2C%20like%20global%20warming.
And as I said previously, we might not even need a plan to stop economic growth. Economic growth in developed countries has been slowing down for decades and it will likely stop of its own accord. It looks like there may be nothing we can do to stop economic growth ending. The de-growth advocates cant see this right under their noses!
And if people vote for good environmental legislation, this will help make economic growth stop even sooner as a side effect, by constraining industry. Its probably smarter politically and psychologically to promote good strong environmental legislation, recycling, and good personal environmental behaviour, than anti growth policies as such such as using monetary policy. The end result would hopefully still be economic growth stopping.
Replying to Ray Ladbury,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/05/unforced-variations-may-2023/comment-page-2/#comment-811924
and further referring to myself,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/05/unforced-variations-may-2023/comment-page-2/#comment-811919
and JCM
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/05/unforced-variations-may-2023/comment-page-2/#comment-811922
Dear Ray,
Many thanks for your amendment.
You are certainly aware that your explanation may be of a crucial importance not only for me, but likely also for other participants in Real Climate forum who so far have not heard a plausible reasoning why the water evaporation from the Earth surface and the subsequent vapour condensation in Earth troposphere should merely transport heat from one place to another and have no influence on the global energy budget and on the Earth energy imbalance.
You assert that the opinion of my discussion opponent zebra (that the Earth troposphere behave as a “closed room”) is correct, because the escape of the heat therefrom is, equally as the escape of the heat from the Earth surface, fully controlled by the greenhouse effect of the upper atmosphere layers beneath the troposphere.
Unfortunately, I am afraid that I have not a capacity to do the recommended “math” myself. It would be great if you could do this favour for me and persuade me by mathematical arguments, as I still have some doubts that your assertion is indeed correct.
I will try to present some grounds for these doubts:
1) When I, as a boy, read a book Vesmír (Universe) written by a Czech astronomer Jiří Grygar some 45 years ago, I was quite impressed by the information that a telescope installed in an airplane allows infrared astronomical observations because at its usual flying altitude about 10 km, about 99 % water vapour is below it.
This information, however, seems to be in contradiction to your assertion which sounds rather that the „atmospheric window“ (according to Trenberth’s diagrams, about 5 % of the longwave infrared radiation passes from the Earth surface directly to the Universe) is, actually, completely „closed“ (in sense of 0 % infrared transparency of the atmosphere) even at the top of the troposphere in altitudes about 80 000 feet.
2) I assume that if you were correct and the entire troposhere was completely opaque for infrared radiation as you assume, the troposphere must have been much warmer than it actually is. In such case, I would have expected an average tropopause temperature that would have been actually higher than the present average temperature of the Earth surface.
Should your draft be too complex to be presented herein, please feel free to use the link https://orgpad.com/s/6jf-rtG8wUP and insert the evidence for your assertion in my public orgpage wherein I strive to keep an overview about various threads of this discussion.
Thank you in advance and best regards
Tom